Elon Musk taking the helm of Twitter clearly shows the huge impact CEOs can have on their organizations. Here's a sample of AOM scholars revealing the many different ways organizations can benefit or suffer from their CEOs:
CEOs who are perceived as conscientious are considered less risky and more able to translate risk into returns for shareholders, while CEOs seen as neurotic or extraverted are considered more risky and less able to translate risk into returns.
Successful transitions are due, in large part, to the leadership style of the incumbent CEO. While some CEOs set the stage for smooth hand-offs, others “hang on by their fingernails and sabotage prospective successors,” an AOM scholar says.
For CEOs dealing with crises, having empathy is a Goldilocks situation. Too much or too little empathy can cause problems, but just the right amount can get organizations back on track. (Related video.)
While studies have shown that employees going through divorce is linked to decreased productivity and increased absenteeism, AOM scholars explain how the consequences of divorce can be even worse at the top. (Related video.)
Until recently, researchers credited two factors with shaping organizational culture: “functionality perspective,” or how groups contend with shared experiences; and “leader-trait perspective,” or how a leader’s personality impacts group dynamics. AOM scholars reveal a third factor that influences organizational culture: a leader’s past cultural experience. (Related video.)
A CEO does not get a good night’s sleep. The cranky CEO is a jerk to his employees the next day. The employees disengage from their work and do not perform as well. The company pays the price. (Related video.)
Many researchers have studied how executives’ political ideologies can affect firm outcomes. The vast majority of that research has been conducted in the United States, where people often describe their political ideologies on a spectrum from liberal to conservative. But AOM scholars analyzed executives in Iran, “a political context that sharply deviates from the exclusively studied U.S. context.”