Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T14:09:08.050Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Can CEOs’ Facial Attractiveness Influence Philanthropic Behavior? Evidence from India

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 December 2020

Arpita Agnihotri  and
Saurabh Bhattacharya
Arpita Agnihotri*
Affiliation:
Penn State Harrisburg, USA
Saurabh Bhattacharya
Affiliation:
Newcastle University, UK
*
Corresponding author: Arpita Agnihotri ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study extends the extant literature on corporate philanthropy by exploring the indirect effect of physical attractiveness of CEOs on corporate philanthropy under conditional effects of family ownership and control. Recent empirical studies in psychology suggest that egalitarian values are negatively related to physical attractiveness. Based on these findings, we propose that physically attractive CEOs invest less in corporate philanthropic activities than less attractive peers as they have lower egalitarian values. Leveraging upper echelons and stewardship theory, we further consider the moderating impact of family ownership and control on the indirect relationship between the physical attractiveness of a CEO and philanthropy mediated through egalitarianism.

摘要

摘要

本研究探讨首席执行官的身体吸引力在家庭所有制和控制的条件下对于公司慈善行为的间接效应，从而拓展公司慈善事业的文献。近期心理学的实证研究表明平等的价值观与身体吸引力呈负相关。基于这些发现，我们提出具有外表吸引力的首席执行官比不太具有吸引力的首席执行官更少地投入公司慈善事业活动，因为他们具有更低的平等价值观。运用高阶理论和管家理论，我们进一步考虑家庭所有制和控制对于首席执行官的外表吸引力通过平等价值观影响慈善行为所产生的调节效应。

Аннотация

АННОТАЦИЯ

Данное исследование вносит свой вклад в существующую литературу по корпоративной благотворительности и изучает косвенное влияние физической привлекательности руководителей на корпоративную благотворительность в условиях семейной собственности и контроля. Недавние эмпирические исследования в психологии показывают, что ценности равноправия отрицательно связаны с физической привлекательностью. На основании этих выводов, мы предполагаем, что физически привлекательные генеральные директора вкладывают меньше усилий в корпоративную благотворительную деятельность, чем их менее привлекательные коллеги, поскольку для них менее важны ценности равноправия. Используя теорию управления высшего звена, мы далее рассматриваем регулирующее влияние семейной собственности и контроля на косвенную зависимость между физической привлекательностью генерального директора и благотворительностью, которая опосредована равноправием.

Resumen

RESUMEN

Este estudio extiende la literatura existente sobre filantropía corporativa al explorar el efecto indirecto del atractivo físico de los directores ejecutivos (CEOs por sus iniciales en inglés) en la filantropía corporativa bajo los efectos condicionales de la propiedad y el control de la familia. Estudios empíricos recientes en psicología sugieren que los valores igualitarios están relacionados negativamente con el atractivo físico. Basándonos en estos hallazgos, proponemos que los directores ejecutivos físicamente atractivos inviertan menos en actividades filantrópicas corporativas que los pares menos atractivos, ya que tienen valores igualitarios más bajos. Aprovechando la teoría de los escalones superiores y la teoría del servidor, consideramos además el impacto moderador de la propiedad y el control de la familia en la relación indirecta entre el atractivo físico de un director ejecutivo y la filantropía mediada a través del igualitarismo.

Keywords

corporate philanthropyegalitarian valuefamily controlfamily ownershipphysical attractiveness企业慈善事业平等价值观家庭控制家庭所有制外表吸引力корпоративная благотворительностьценности равноправиясемейный контрольсемейная собственностьфизическая привлекательностьfilantropía corporativavalor igualitariocontrol familiarpropiedad familiaratractivo físico
Type
Article
Information
Management and Organization Review , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , February 2021 , pp. 112 - 142
Copyright
Copyright © 2020 The International Association for Chinese Management Research

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

ACCEPTED BY Deputy Editor Sai Yayavaram

References

REFERENCES

Adams, M., Hoejmose, S., & Kastrinaki, Z. 2017. Corporate philanthropy and risk management: An investigation of reinsurance and charitable giving in insurance firms. Business Ethics Quarterly, 27(1): 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, R. C., & Reeb, D. M. 2003. Founding-family ownership and firm performance: Evidence from the S&P 500. Journal of Finance, 58(3): 1301–1328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arneson, R. 2002. Egalitarianism. In Zalta, N. (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. [Cited 17 January 2019]. Available from URL: https://seop.illc.uva.nl/entries/egalitarianism/Google Scholar
Arrègle, J. L., Hitt, M. A., Sirmon, D. G., & Very, P. 2007. The development of organizational social capital: Attributes of family firms. Journal of Management Studies, 44(1): 73–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ballew, C. C., & Todorov, A. 2007. Predicting political elections from rapid and unreflective face judgments. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(46): 17948–17953.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Banducci, S. A., Karp, J. A., Thrasher, M., & Rallings, C. 2008. Ballot photographs as cues in low-information elections. Political Psychology, 29(6): 903–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berrone, P., Cruz, C., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. 2012. Socioemotional wealth in family firms: Theoretical dimensions, assessment approaches, and agenda for future research. Family Business Review, 25(3): 258–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bobo, L. 1991. Social responsibility, individualism, and redistributive policies. Sociological Forum, 6(1): 71–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breeze, B. 2009. Natural philanthropists: Findings of the family business philanthropy and social responsibility inquiry. Institute for Family Business (UK). [Cited 17 January 2019]. Available from URL: https://kar.kent.ac.uk/37241/Google Scholar
Brickley, J. A., Smith, C. W. Jr., & Zimmerman, J. L. 1997. Management fads and organizational architecture. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 10(2): 24–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchholtz, A. K., Amason, A. C., & Rutherford, M. A. 1999. Beyond resources: The mediating effect of top management discretion and values on corporate philanthropy. Business & Society, 38(2): 167–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buckley, P. J., & Tian, X. 2017. Transnationality and financial performance in the era of the global factory. Management International Review, 57(4): 501–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Business Today. 2019. Income inequality gets worse; India's top 1% bag 73% of the country's wealth, says Oxfam. [Cited 5 February 2019]. Available from URL: https://www.businesstoday.in/current/economy-politics/oxfam-india-wealth-report-income-inequality-richests-poor/story/268541.htmlGoogle Scholar
Campopiano, G., De Massis, A., & Chirico, F. 2014. Firm philanthropy in small-and medium-sized family firms: The effects of family involvement in ownership and management. Family Business Review, 27(3): 244–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, X., Cheng, Q., & Dai, Z. 2013. Family ownership and CEO turnovers. Contemporary Accounting Research, 30(3): 1166–1190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chin, M. K., Hambrick, D. C., & Treviño, L. K. 2013. Political ideologies of CEOs: The influence of executives’ values on corporate social responsibility. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(2): 197–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chin, M. K., & Semadeni, M. 2017. CEO political ideologies and pay egalitarianism within top management teams. Strategic Management Journal, 38(8): 1608–1625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choi, J., & Wang, H. 2007. The promise of a managerial values approach to corporate philanthropy. Journal of Business Ethics, 75(4): 345–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunningham, M. R. 1986. Measuring the physical in physical attractiveness: Quasi-experiments on the sociobiology of female facial beauty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(5): 925–935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunningham, M. R., Barbee, A. P., & Pike, C. L. 1990. What do women want? Facialmetric assessment of multiple motives in the perception of male facial physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(1): 61–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cunningham, M. R., Roberts, A. R., Barbee, A. P., Druen, P. B., & Wu, C. H. 1995. ‘Their ideas of beauty are, on the whole, the same as ours’: Consistency and variability in the cross-cultural perception of female physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(2): 261–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, J. H., Allen, M. R., & Hayes, H. D. 2010. Is blood thicker than water? A study of stewardship perceptions in family business. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(6): 1093–1116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, J. H., Schoorman, F. D., & Donaldson, L. 1997. Toward a stewardship theory of management. Academy of Management Review, 22(1): 20–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Cremer, D., & Van Lange, P. A. 2001. Why prosocials exhibit greater cooperation than proselfs: The roles of social responsibility and reciprocity. European Journal of Personality, 15(S1): S5–S18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dennis, B. S., Buchholtz, A. K., & Butts, M. M. 2009. The nature of giving: A theory of planned behavior examination of corporate philanthropy. Business & Society, 48(3): 360–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donaldson, L., & Davis, J. H. 1991. Stewardship theory or agency theory: CEO governance and shareholder returns. Australian Journal of Management, 16(1): 49–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Du, X. 2017. Religious belief, corporate philanthropy, and political involvement of entrepreneurs in Chinese family firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 142(2): 385–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duarte, J., Siegel, S., & Young, L. 2012. Trust and credit: The role of appearance in peer-to-peer lending. The Review of Financial Studies, 25(8): 2455–2484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dyer, W. G., & Whetten, D. A. 2006. Family firms and social responsibility: Preliminary evidence from the S&P 500. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(6): 785–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eagly, A. H., Ashmore, R. D., Makhijani, M. G., & Longo, L. C. 1991. What is beautiful is good, but…: A meta-analytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype. Psychological Bulletin, 110(1): 109–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feingold, A. 1992. Good-looking people are not what we think. Psychological Bulletin, 111(2): 304–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, S., & Steenbergen, M. R. 2001. The humanitarian foundation of public support for social welfare. American Journal of Political Science: 658–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feliu, N., & Botero, I. C. 2016. Philanthropy in family enterprises: A review of literature. Family Business Review, 29(1): 121–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Financial Express. 2018. Centre issues notice to 300 firms not complying with CSR norm. [Cited 17 January 2019]. Available from URL: https://www.financialexpress.com/economy/centre-issues-notice-to-300-firms-not-complying-with-csr-norm/1375014/Google Scholar
Fox, M. A., & Hamilton, R. T. 1994. Ownership and diversification: Agency theory or stewardship theory. Journal of Management Studies, 31(1): 69–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gautier, A., & Pache, A. C. 2015. Research on corporate philanthropy: A review and assessment. Journal of Business Ethics, 126(3): 343–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geniole, S. N., Molnar, D. S., Carré, J. M., & McCormick, C. M. 2014b. The facial width-to-height ratio shares stronger links with judgments of aggression than with judgments of trustworthiness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40(4): 1526–1541Google Scholar
Goetz, S. M., Shattuck, K. S., Miller, R. M., Campbell, J. A., Lozoya, E., Weisfeld, G. E., & Carré, J. M. 2013. Social status moderates the relationship between facial structure and aggression. Psychological Science, 24(11): 2329–2334.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gomez-Mejia, L. R., Cruz, C., Berrone, P., & De Castro, J. 2011. The bind that ties: Socioemotional wealth preservation in family firms. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1): 653–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, J. R., Harvey, C. R., & Puri, M. 2016. A corporate beauty contest. Management Science, 63(9): 3044–3056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grammer, K., Fink, B., Møller, A. P., & Thornhill, R. 2003. Darwinian aesthetics: Sexual selection and the biology of beauty. Biological Reviews, 78(3): 385–407.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grammer, K., & Thornhill, R. 1994. Human (Homo sapiens) facial attractiveness and sexual selection: The role of symmetry and averageness. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 108(3): 233–242.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gupta, A., Briscoe, F., & Hambrick, D. C. 2018. Evenhandedness in resource allocation: Its relationship with CEO ideology, organizational discretion, and firm performance. Academy of Management Journal, 61(5): 1848–1868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habbershon, T. G. & Williams, M. L. 1999. A resource-based framework for assessing the strategic advantages of family firms. Family Business Review, 12(1): 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hahn, T., Winter, N. R., Anderl, C., Notebaert, K., Wuttke, A. M., Clément, C. C., & Windmann, S. 2017. Facial width-to-height ratio differs by social rank across organizations, countries, and value systems. PloS One, 12(11): e0187957.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haidt, J., & Keltner, D. 2004. Appreciation of beauty and excellence [awe, wonder, elevation]. In Peterson, C. & Seligman, M. E. P. (Eds.), Character strengths and virtues: 537–551. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Halford, J. T., & Hsu, S. H. 2014. Beauty is wealth: CEO appearance and shareholder value. SSRN. Available at SSRN: 2357756 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2357756.Google Scholar
Hambrick, D. C. 2007. Upper echelons theory: An update. Academy of Management Review, 32(2): 334–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. 1984. Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2): 193–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamermesh, D. S., & Biddle, J. E. 1994. Beauty and the labor market. American Economic Review, 84: 1174–1194.Google Scholar
Haselhuhn, M. P., Wong, E. M., Ormiston, M. E., Inesi, M. E., & Galinsky, A. D. 2014. Negotiating face-to-face: Men's facial structure predicts negotiation performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(5): 835–845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, A. F. 2018. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Publications.Google Scholar
Hemingway, C. A., & Maclagan, P. W. 2004. Managers’ personal values as drivers of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 50(1): 33–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henssen, B., Voordeckers, W., Lambrechts, F., & Koiranen, M. 2014. The CEO autonomy–stewardship behavior relationship in family firms: The mediating role of psychological ownership. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 5(3): 312–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heyden, M. L., Reimer, M., & Van Doorn, S. 2017. Innovating beyond the horizon: CEO career horizon, top management composition, and R&D intensity. Human Resource Management, 56(2): 205–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoegele, D., Schmidt, S. L., & Torgler, B. 2016. The importance of key celebrity characteristics for customer segmentation by age and gender: Does beauty matter in professional football?. Review of Managerial Science, 10(3): 601–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holtzman, N. S., Augustine, A. A., & Senne, A. L. 2011. Are pro-social or socially aversive people more physically symmetrical? Symmetry in relation to over 200 personality variables. Journal of Research in Personality, 45(6): 687–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooton, C. 2014. Are you attractive? Anaface website claims to be able to determine whether you're beautiful. Independent. [Cited 14 September 2019]. Available from URL: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/weird-news/are-you-attractive-anaface-website-claims-to-be-able-to-determine-whether-youre-beautiful-9316556.htmlGoogle Scholar
Huang, S. K. 2013. The impact of CEO characteristics on corporate sustainable development. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 20(4): 234–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jamali, D., & Karam, C. 2018. Corporate social responsibility in developing countries as an emerging field of study. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20(1): 32–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jia, Y., Lent, L. V., & Zeng, Y. 2014. Masculinity, testosterone, and financial misreporting. Journal of Accounting Research, 52(5): 1195–1246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kellermanns, F. W., & Eddleston, K. A. 2007. A family perspective on when conflict benefits family firm performance. Journal of Business Research, 60(10): 1048–1057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. 2000. Is group affiliation profitable in emerging markets? An analysis of diversified Indian business groups. The Journal of Finance, 55(2): 867–891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, A., & Leigh, A. 2009. Beautiful politicians. Kyklos: International Review for Social Sciences, 62(4): 579–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knowledge@Wharton. 2011. How India's new philanthropists are working to bring about systemic change. [Cited 12 January 2019]. Available at URL: http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/how-indias-new-philanthropists-are-working-to-bring-about-systemic-change/Google Scholar
Laguir, I., Laguir, L., & Elbaz, J. 2016. Are family small-and medium-sized enterprises more socially responsible than nonfamily small-and medium-sized enterprises? Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 23(6): 386–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamb, N. H., & Butler, F. C. 2018. The influence of family firms and institutional owners on corporate social responsibility performance. Business & Society, 57(7): 1374–1406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamin, A. 2013. Business groups as information resource: An investigation of business group affiliation in the Indian software services industry. Academy of Management Journal, 56(5): 1487–1509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langlois, J. H., Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, A. J., Larson, A., Hallam, M., & Smoot, M. (2000). Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 126(3): 390–423.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
La Porta, R., & Lopez-de-Silanes, F. 1999. The benefits of privatization: Evidence from Mexico. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(4): 1193–1242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Breton–Miller, I., & Miller, D. 2006. Why do some family businesses out–compete? governance, long–term orientations, and sustainable capability. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(6): 731–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lev, B., Petrovits, C., & Radhakrishnan, S. 2010. Is doing good good for you? How corporate charitable contributions enhance revenue growth. Strategic Management Journal, 31(2): 182–200.Google Scholar
Li, W., Au, K. Y. F., He, A., & Song, L. 2015. Why do family-controlled firms donate to charity? The role of intrafamily succession intention, social status, and religiosity. Management and Organization Review, 11(4): 621–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S., Song, X., & Wu, H. 2015. Political connection, ownership structure, and corporate philanthropy in China: A strategic-political perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 129(2): 399–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ling, L., Luo, D., & She, G. 2016. Judging a book by its cover: Beauty effects in Chinese communist party's internal labor market. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2016(1): 12803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manku, M. 2015. India least giving among South Asian nations. Live Mint. [Cited 12 January 2019]. Available from URL: https://www.livemint.com/Politics/LQKIUgqJrvPHC3mcBSqgMO/India-least-giving-among-South-Asian-n,ations.htmlGoogle Scholar
Manner, M. H. 2010. The impact of CEO characteristics on corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 93(1): 53–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, D., & Le Breton-Miller, I. 2005. Managing for the long run: Lessons in competitive advantage from great family businesses. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
Miller, D., Le Breton-Miller, I., & Scholnick, B. 2008. Stewardship vs. stagnation: An empirical comparison of small family and non-family businesses. Journal of Management Studies, 45(1): 51–78.Google Scholar
Morck, R., & Yeung, B. 2004. Family control and the rent-seeking society. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(4): 391– 409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrow, P. C. 1990. Physical attractiveness and selection decision making. Journal of Management, 16(1): 45–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nathan, N. M. L. 1983. Egalitarianism. Mind: A Quarterly Review of Philosophy, 92(367): 413–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nedelec, J. L., & Beaver, K. M. 2014. Physical attractiveness as a phenotypic marker of health: An assessment using a nationally representative sample of American adults. Evolution and Human Behavior, 35(6): 456–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Panwar, R., Paul, K., Nybakk, E., Hansen, E., & Thompson, D. 2014. The legitimacy of CSR actions of publicly traded companies versus family-owned companies. Journal of Business Ethics, 125(3): 481–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pareek, A., & Zuckerman, R. 2014. Trust and investment management: The effects of manager trustworthiness on hedge fund investments. SSRN. [Cited 21 October 2017]. Available from URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1659189Google Scholar
Peng, M. W., & Jiang, Y. 2010. Institutions behind family ownership and control in large firms. Journal of Management Studies, 47(2): 253–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersen, M. B., Sznycer, D., Sell, A., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. 2013. The ancestral logic of politics: Upper-body strength regulates men's assertion of self-interest over economic redistribution. Psychological Science, 24(7): 1098–1103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Petrenko, O. V., Aime, F., Ridge, J., & Hill, A. (2016). Corporate social responsibility or CEO narcissism? CSR motivations and organizational performance. Strategic Management Journal, 37(2): 262–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pillemer, J., Graham, E. R., & Burke, D. M. 2014. The face says it all: CEOs, gender, and predicting corporate performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(5): 855–864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Praxmarer, S., & Rossiter, J. R. 2009. How does the presenter's physical attractiveness persuade? A test of alternative explanations. Proceedings of the Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference (pp. 1–7). Melbourne, Australia: Australian & New Zealand Marketing Academy.Google Scholar
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. 2007. Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(1): 185–227.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Price, M. E., Brown, S., Dukes, A., & Kang, J. 2015. Bodily attractiveness and egalitarianism are negatively related in males. Evolutionary Psychology, 13(1): 140–166.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Price, M. E., Kang, J., Dunn, J., & Hopkins, S. 2011. Muscularity and attractiveness as predictors of human egalitarianism. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(5): 636–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, M. E., Sheehy-Skeffington, J., Sidnaius, J., & Pound, N. 2017. Is sociopolitical egalitarianism related to bodily and facial formidability in men? Evolution and Human Behavior, 38(5): 626–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Priem, R. L., Lyon, D. W., & Dess, G. G. 1999. Inherent limitations of demographic proxies in top management team heterogeneity research. Journal of Management, 25(6): 935–953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raub, S. 2017. When employees walk the company talk: The importance of employee involvement in corporate philanthropy. Human Resource Management, 56(5): 837–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ravina, E. 2012. Love & loans: The effect of beauty and personal characteristics in credit markets. SSRN. [Cited 16 September 2017] Available from URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1107307Google Scholar
Rule, N. O., & Tskhay, K. O. 2014. The influence of economic context on the relationship between chief executive officer facial appearance and company profits. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(5): 846–854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanchez-Pages, S., & Turiegano, E. 2010. Testosterone, facial symmetry and cooperation in the prisoners’ dilemma. Physiology & Behavior, 99(3): 355–361.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmid, K., Marx, D., & Samal, A. 2008. Computation of a face attractiveness index based on neoclassical canons, symmetry, and golden ratios. Pattern Recognition, 41(8): 2710–2717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shen, W., & Cannella, A. A. Jr. 2002. Power dynamics within top management and their impacts on CEO dismissal followed by inside succession. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6): 1195–1206.Google Scholar
Shieh, G. 2010. On the misconception of multicollinearity in detection of moderating effects: Multicollinearity is not always detrimental. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 45(3): 483–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shinada, M., & Yamagishi, T. 2014. Physical attractiveness and cooperation in a prisoner's dilemma game. Evolution and Human Behavior, 35(6): 451–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegel, P. A., & Hambrick, D. C. 2005. Pay disparities within top management groups: Evidence of harmful effects on performance of high-technology firms. Organization Science, 16(3): 259–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soleimanof, S., Rutherford, M. W., & Webb, J. W. 2018. The intersection of family firms and institutional contexts: A review and agenda for future research. Family Business Review, 31(1): 32–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takahashi, C., Yamagishi, T., Tanida, S., Kiyonari, T., & Kanazawa, S. 2006. Attractiveness and cooperation in social exchange. Evolutionary Psychology, 4(1): 315–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, D. W., Panwar, R., & Hansen, E. N. 2010. Examining social responsibility orientation gaps between society and industry executives. Management Decision, 48(1): 156–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trichas, S., Schyns, B., Lord, R., & Hall, R. (2017). “Facing” leaders: Facial expression and leadership perception. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(2): 317–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsujimura, H., & Banissy, M. J. 2013. Human face structure correlates with professional baseball performance: Insights from professional Japanese baseball players. Biology Letters, 9(3): 1–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vallejo, M. C. 2009. Analytical model of leadership in family firms under transformational theoretical approach: An exploratory study. Family Business Review, 22(2): 136–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wasserman, N. 2006. Stewards, agents, and the founder discount: Executive compensation in new ventures. Academy of Management Journal, 49(5): 960–976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welker, K. M., Goetz, S. M., & Carré, J. M. 2015. Perceived and experimentally manipulated status moderates the relationship between facial structure and risk-taking. Evolution and Human Behavior, 36(6): 423–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westhead, P., & Howorth, C. 2006. Ownership and management issues associated with family firm performance and company objectives. Family Business Review, 19(4): 301–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaatari, D., & Trivers, R. 2007. Fluctuating asymmetry and behavior in the ultimatum game in Jamaica. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28(4): 223–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhao, K., Ferguson, E., & Smillie, L. D. 2016. Prosocial personality traits differentially predict egalitarianism, generosity, and reciprocity in economic games. Frontiers in Psychology, 7: 1137.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed