Year 2018, Volume 5, Issue 3, Pages 583 - 596 2018-12-27

ŞİRKET İÇİNDEN VE DIŞINDAN ATANAN GENEL MÜDÜRLERİN FİRMA PERFORMANSINA ETKİLERİ: TÜRKİYE'DE GENEL MÜDÜR DEĞİŞİMLERİ İLE İLGİLİ BULGULAR
IMPLICATIONS OF INSIDER AND OUTSIDER CEOs ON FIRM PERFORMANCE: EVIDENCE FROM CEO SUCCESSIONS FROM TURKEY

Aylin Ataay [1]

57 209

Genel müdür değişimleri alanında bugüne kadar yapılmış araştırmalar genel müdür haleflerinin şirket içinden veya dışından seçilmesinin firma performansı üzerinde farklı et-kilere neden olmasını gelişen ekonomiler tarafından sunu-lan farklı bağlamlarla da ilişkili olabileceğini öne sürmek-tedir. Bu kapsamda, çalışmamızda gelişen bir ekonomi olan Türkiye’de genel müdür değişimlerinin firma performansı üzerindeki etkilerinin incelenmesi hedeflenmektedir. Bu amaçla, 2010 ve 2011 yılları arasında atanan yeni genel mü-dürlerin firma karlılığı üzerindeki etkisi araştırılmıştır. So-nuçlar, Türkiye'de borsada işlem gören şirketlerde şirket dışından atanan halefler ile değişim sonrası firma karlılıkları arasında olumlu bir ilişki olduğunu göstermiştir. Ayrıca, şir-ket dışından atanan bağlantılı veya bağlantısız haleflerin fir-ma performansına etkilerinin farklı olduğu bulunmuştur. Şirket dışından atanan fakat bağlantılı yöneticiler firma per-formansını olumsuz yönde etkilerken, bağlantısız şirket dışı genel müdürlerin şirket kârlılığına (aktif karlılığı) olumlu katkıda bulunduğu saptanmıştır. Bu bulgular, şirket dışın-dan transfer edilen genel müdürlerin yeni bakış açıları, yeni ve çeşitli becerileri ve değişim yönelimliliklerinin önemini bir kere daha vurgulayarak mevcut Genel Müdür değişimi yazınına katkıda bulunmaktadır.

This study investigates the performance consequences of Chief Executive Officer (CEO) succession in an emerging market as prior research suggests that the differences in the performance implications of CEO successor’s origin may be related to the distinctive contexts offered by these economies. Hence, we investigated the impact of a new CEO origin on firm profitability in Turkey for the years 2010 and 2011. The results showed that there is a positive association between outsider successors and post-succession profitability in listed companies in Turkey. Further, the effects of unrelated and related outside succession on post-succession firm performance differ. While the related outsiders affect negatively the firm performance, unrelated outsiders contribute positively to the post-succession profitability (ROA). These findings thus contribute to the existing CEO succession literature by emphasizing the value of outsider CEOs’ fresh perspectives, new and diverse skills and initiative for change. 

  • ARARAT, M., BLACK, B.S., & YURTOĞLU, B.B. (2017), The Effect Of Corporate Governance On Firm Value And Profitability: Time-Series Evidence From Turkey, Emerging Market Review, 30, 113-1332.
  • ATAAY, A. (2016), Genel Müdür Değişimleri: Ne Sıklıkta Değişiyorlar Ve Halefleri Kimlerdir?- CEO Turnover: How Often They Are Changing And Who Are Their Successors?, Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 12(1-2), 7-38.
  • BALLINGER, G.A., & MARCEL, J.J. (2010), The Use Of An Interim CEO During Succession Episodes And Firm Performance, Strategic Management Journal, 31, 262-283. BENNEDSEN, M., NIELSEN, K.M., PÉREZ-GONZÁLES, F. & WOLFENSON, D. (2007), Inside The Family Firm: The Role Of Families In Succession Decisions And Performance, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(2), 647-691.
  • BERNS, K.V.D. & KLARNER, P. (2017), A Review Of The CEO Succession Literature And A Future Research Program, Academy of Management Perspective, 31(2), 83-108.
  • BUĞRA, A. (1994), State And Business In Modern Turkey: A Comparative Study, Albany NY: State University of New York Press.
  • CAO, Q., MARUPING, L.M. & TAKEUCHI, R. (2006), Disentangling The Effects Of CEO Turnover And Succession On Organizational Capabilities: A Social Network Perspective, Organization Science, 17, 563-576.
  • CANNELLA, Jr. A.A. & LUBATKIN, M. (1993), Succession As A Socio-Political Process: Internal Impediments To Outsider Selection, Academy of Management Journal, 36(4), 763-793.
  • CARNEY, M. (2005), Corporate Governance And Competitive Advantage In Family Controlled Firms, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(3), 249-265. CHEN, G. (2015), Initial compensation of CEOs in turnaround situation, Strategic Management Journal, 36, 1895-1917.
  • CHRISMAN, J. J., CHUA, J.H. & ZAHRA, S.A. (2003), Creating Wealth In Family Firms Through Managing Resources: Comments And Extensions, Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 27(4), 359–366.
  • CHUNG, C.N. & LUO, X. (2013), Leadership Succession And Firm Performance In An Emerging Economy: Successor Origin, Relational Embeddedness And Legitimacy, Strategic Management Journal, 34(4), 338-357.
  • CLAESSENS, S. & DJANKOV, S. (1999), Enterprise Performance And Management Turnover In The Czech Republic, European Economic Review, 43(4), 1115–1124.
  • COLPAN, A. M. (2010), Business Groups in Turkey, Asli M. Colpan, Takashi Hikino and James R. Lincoln In, Oxford Handbook of Business Groups, (pp. 486-525), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • CONNELLY, B.L., KETCHEN, D.J., GANGLOFF, K.A., & SHOOK, C.L. (2016), Investor Perceptions Of CEO Successor Selection In The Wake Of Integrity And Competence Failures: A Policy Capturing Study, Strategic Management Journal, 37, 2135-2151.
  • DACIN, M.T., VENTRESCA, M.J. & BEAL, B.D. (1999), The Embeddedness Of Organizations: Dialogue And Directions, Journal of Management, 25(3), 317-356.
  • DATTA, D.K. & RAJAGOPALAN, N. (1998), Industry Structure And CEO Characteristics: An Empirical Study Of Succession Events, Strategic Management Journal, 19, 833–852.
  • DEMİRAĞ, İ. & SERTER, M. (2003), Ownership Patterns And Control In Turkish Listed Companies, Corporate Governance, 11(1), 40-51.
  • DEMİRAĞ, M., TATOĞLU, E., & GLAISTER, K.W. (2009), Equity-Based Entry Modes Of Emerging Country Multinationals: Lessons From Turkey, Journal of World Business, 44(4), 445-462.
  • DIMAGGIO, P., & POWELL, W.W. (1983), The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism And Collective Rationality In Organizational Fields, American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160.
  • DOĞAN, M. & AĞCA, V. (2013), The Effects Of CEO Turnover On Firm Performance In High-Tech Vs. Low-Tech Firms: Evidence From Turkey, International Conference on Economic and Social Studies, Sarajevo, 10-11 May 2013.
  • DURUKAN, B., ÖZKAN, S. & DALKILIÇ, F. (2012), CEO Turnover And Corporate Performance Relationship In Pre- And Post- IFRS Period: Evidence From Turkey, Journal of Business Economics and Management, 13(2), 421-442.
  • FINKELSTEIN, S. & D’AVENI, R. A. (1994), CEO Duality As A Double-Edged Sword: How Boards Of Directors Balance Entrenchment Avoidance And Unity Of Command, Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1079-108.
  • FINKELSTEIN, S., HAMBRICK, D.C. & CANNELLA, Jr., A.A. 2009. Strategic Leadership: Theory And Research On Executives, Top Management Teams, And Boards, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  • FINKELSTEIN, S. & HAMBRICK, D.C. (1996), Strategic Leadership: Top Executives And Their Effects On Organizations, St Paul, MN: West Publishing Company.
  • FRIEDMAN, S.D. & OLK, P. (1995), Four Ways To Choose A CEO: Crown Heir, Horse Race, Coup d'Etat, And Comprehensive Search, Human Resources Management, 34, 141-164.
  • GIAMBATISTA, R.C., ROWE, W.G. & RIAZ, S. (2005), Nothing Succeeds Like Succession: A Critical Review Of Leader Succession Literature Since 1994, The Leadership Quarterly, 16(6), 963-991.
  • GÖKŞEN, N.S. & ÜSDİKEN, B. (2001), Uniformity And Diversity In Turkish Business Groups: Effects Of Scale And Time Of Founding, British Journal of Management, 12(4), 325-349.
  • GUILLEN, M.F. (2000), Business Groups In Emerging Economies: A Resource-Based View, Academy of Management Journal, 43(3), 362-380.
  • GUTHRIE, J. & DATTA, D. (1997), Contextual Influence On Executive Selection: Firm Characteristics And CEO Experience, Journal of Management Studies, 34, 537-560.
  • HABBERSHON, T.G., WILLIAMS, M. & MACMILLAN, I.C. (2003), A Unified Systems Perspective Of Family Firm Performance, Journal of Business Venturing, 18(4), 451-466.
  • HAMBRICK, D.C. (2007), Upper Echelons Theory: An Update, Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 334-343.
  • HAMBRICK, D.C. & MASON, P.A. (1984), Upper Echelons: The Organization As A Reflection Of Its Top Managers, Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193-260.
  • HAMBRICK, D.C., FINKELSTEIN, S. & MOONEY, A. (2005), Executive Job Demands: New Insights For Explaining Strategic Decisions And Leader Behavior, Academy of Management Review, 30, 472-491.
  • HANNAN, M.T., & FREEMAN, J. (1977), The Population Ecology Of Organizations, American Journal of Sociology, 82(5), 929-964.
  • HARRIS, D. & HELFAT, C. (1997), Specificity Of CEO Human Capital And Compensation, Strategic Management Journal, 18(11), 895-920.
  • HAVEMAN, H.A., RUSSO, M.V., & MEYER, A.D. (2001), Organizational Environments In Flux: The Impact Of Regulatory Punctuations On Organizational Domains, CEO Succession, And Performance, Organization Science, 12, 253-273.
  • HENDERSON, A.D., MILLER, D. & HAMBRICK, D.C. (2006), How Quickly Do Ceos Become Obsolete? Industry Dynamism, CEO Tenure, And Company Performance, Strategic Management Journal, 27, 447-460.
  • HUGHES, P., MELLAHI, K., & GUERMAT, C. (2010), Short-Term Versus Long-Term Impact Of Managers: Evidence From The Football Industry, British Journal of Management, 21(2), 571–589.
  • HUTZSCHENREUTER, T., KLEINDIENST, I. & GREGER, C. (2012), How New Leaders Affect Strategic Change Following A Succession Event: A Critical Review Of The Literature, The Leadership Quarterly, 23(5), 729-755.
  • KARAEVLİ, A. (2007), Performance Consequences Of New CEO “Outsiderness”: Moderating Effects Of Pre- And Post-Succession Contexts, Strategic Management Journal, 28(4), 681-706.
  • KARAEVLİ, A., & ZAJAC, E.J. (2013), When Do Outsider CEOs Generate Strategic Change? The Enabling Role Of Corporate Stability, Journal of Management Studies, 50(7), 1267- 1294.
  • KATO, T., & LONG, C. (2006), Executive Turnover And Firm Performance In China, The American Economic Review, 96(2), 363-367.
  • KESNER, I. F. & SEBORA, T.C. (1994), Executive Succession: Past, Present And Future, Journal of Management, 20(2), 327-372.
  • KHANNA, T. & PALEPU, K. (2000), The Future Of Business Groups In Emerging Markets: Long-Run Evidence From Chile, Academy of Management Journal, 43(3), 268-285.
  • KHANNA, T. & YAFEH Y. (2007), Business Groups In Emerging Markets: Paragons Or Parasites?, Journal of Economic Literature, 45(2), 331-372.
  • KULA, V. (2005), The Impact Of The Roles, Structure And Process Of Boards On Firm Performance: Evidence From Turkey, Corporate Governance: An International Review, 13(2), 265-276.
  • LAUTERBACH, B., VU, J. & WEISBERG, J. (1999), Internal Vs. External Successions And Their Effect On Firm Performance, Human Relations, 52(12), 1485-1504.
  • MINICHILLI, A., NORDQVIST, M., CORBETTA, G. & AMORE, M. D. (2014), CEO Succession Mechanisms, Organizational Context, And Performance: A Socio-Emotional Wealth Perspective On Family-Controlled Firms, Journal of Management Studies, 51, 1153-1179.
  • OCASIO, W. (1999), Institutionalized Action And Corporate Governance: The Reliance On Rules Of CEO Succession, Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 384-416.
  • PENG, M.W., BUCK, T. & FILATOTCHEV, I. (2003), Do Outside Directors And New Managers Help Improve Firm Performance? An Exploratory Study In Russian Privatization, Journal of World Business, 38(4), 348-360.
  • QUIGLEY, T.J., CROSSLAND, C., & CAMPBELL, R.J. (2017), Shareholder Perceptions Of The Changing Impact Of Ceos: Market Reactions To Unexpected CEO Deaths, 1950–2009, Strategic Management Journal, 38, 939-949.
  • QUIGLEY T.J. & HAMBRICK D.C. (2015), Has The “CEO Effect” Increased In Recent Decades? A New Explanation For The Great Rise In America’s Attention To Corporate Leaders, Strategic Management Journal, 36, 821–830.
  • SCHEPKER, D.J., KIM, Y., PATEL, P.C., THATCHER, S.M.B. & CAMPION, M.C. (2017), CEO Succession, Strategic Change And Post-Succession Performance: A Meta-Analysis, The Leadership Quarterly, 28(6), 701-720.
  • SHEN W. & CANNELLA Jr., A.A. (2002), Revisiting The Performance Consequences Of CEO Succession: The Impacts Of Successor Type, Post-Succession Senior Executive Turnover, And Departing CEO Tenure, Academy of Management Journal, 45(4), 717-733.
  • SHEN W. & CANNELLA JR., A.A. (2003), Will Succession Planning Increase Shareholder Wealth? Evidence From Investor Reactions To Relay CEO Successions, Strategic Management Journal, 24, 191–198.
  • TATOĞLU, E., & GLAISTER, K.W. (2000), Strategic Motives And Partner Selection Criteria In International Joint Ventures In Turkey: Perspectives Of Western Firms And Turkish Firms, Journal of Global Marketing, 13(3), 53-92.
  • THORNTON, P.H. & OCASIO, W. (1999), Institutional Logics, Greenwood, Royston, Oliver, Christine, Suddaby, Roy and Anderson, Kerstin S. In, The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism, NY: Sage Publications Inc.
  • TIAN, J., HALEBLIAN, J., & RAJAGOPALAN, N. (2011), The Effects Of Board Human And Social Capital On Investor Reactions To New CEO Selection, Strategic Management Journal, 32, 731-747.
  • TUSHMAN, M.L. & ROSENKOPF, L. (1996), Executive Succession, Strategic Reorientation And Performance Growth: A Longitudinal Study In The U.S. Cement Industry, Management Science, 42, 939-953.
  • UĞUR, M. & ARARAT, M. (2006), Does Macroeconomic Performance Affect Corporate Governance? Evidence From Turkey, Corporate Governance: An International Review, 14, 325-348.
  • YAMAK, S. & ÜSDİKEN, B. (2006), Economic Liberalization And The Antecedents Of Top Management Teams: Evidence From Turkish ‘Big’ Business, British Journal of Management, 17(3), 177-195.
  • YILDIRIM-ÖKTEM Ö., & ÜSDİKEN B., (2010), Contingencies Versus External Pressure: Professionalization In Boards Of Firms Affiliated To Family Business Groups In Late-Industrializing Countries, British Journal of Management, 21, 115-130.
  • YURTOĞLU, B. (2003), Corporate Governance And Implications For Minority Shareholders In Turkey, Corporate Ownership and Control, 1(1), 72-86.
  • ZAJAC, E. J. (1990), CEO Selection, Succession, Compensation And Firm Performance: A Theoretical Integration And Empirical Analysis, Strategic Management Journal, 11(3), 313-330.
  • VIRANY, B., TUSHMAN, M. L. & ROMANELLI, E. (1992), Executive Succession And Organization Outcomes In Turbulent Environments: An Organization Learning Approach, Organization Science, 3, 72-91.
  • ZHANG Y. & RAJAGOPALAN, N. (2010), Once An Outsider, Always An Outsider? CEO Origin, Strategic Change, And Firm Performance, Strategic Management Journal, 31(3), 334-346.
  • ZHANG, Y. & RAJAGOPALAN, N. (2003), Explaining New CEO Origin: Firm Versus Industry Antecedents, Academy of Management Journal, 46(3), 327-338.
  • ZHANG, Y. & RAJAGOPALAN, N. (2004), When The Known Devil Is Better Than An Unknown God: An Empirical Study Of The Antecedents And Consequences Of Relay CEO Successions, Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), 483-500.
Primary Language en
Subjects Management
Journal Section Research Articles
Authors

Orcid: orcid.org/0000-0001-5150-1946
Author: Aylin Ataay (Primary Author)
Institution: GALATASARAY ÜNİVERSİTESİ
Country: Turkey


APA Ataay, A . (2018). IMPLICATIONS OF INSIDER AND OUTSIDER CEOs ON FIRM PERFORMANCE: EVIDENCE FROM CEO SUCCESSIONS FROM TURKEY. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 5 (3), 583-596. DOI: 10.30798/makuiibf.417482