Show simple item record

dc.creatorKrause, Ryan
dc.creatorBakker, Rene M.
dc.creatorKnoben, Joris
dc.date.accessioned2022-12-07T16:35:53Z
dc.date.available2022-12-07T16:35:53Z
dc.date.issued2022
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2022.102218
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.tcu.edu/handle/116099117/56564
dc.description.abstractWe study the dynamics of a major design choice in the governance of ventures: whether to distribute power at the top of the venture between a separate CEO and board chair. We propose that ventures are more likely to combine (separate) their CEO and chair positions when operational performance is poor (strong), demonstrating behavior in line with the threat rigidity thesis. Paradoxically, however, ventures would most benefit from a separate CEO and board chair when operational performance is poor. Empirical analysis of data from the Australian mining industry offers general support for our theory, with some interesting nuances. We discuss the implications of our findings for emerging conversations in the literatures on venture boards, boards of directors, and entrepreneurship.
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherElsevier BV
dc.sourceLong Range Planning
dc.subjectCorporate governance
dc.subjectSAFER
dc.subjectBusiness
dc.subjectEntrepreneurship
dc.subjectNew Ventures
dc.subjectIndustrial organization
dc.subjectVenture capital
dc.subjectRigidity (electromagnetism)
dc.subjectMarketing
dc.titleTwo heads are safer than one: Changes in CEO duality and venture failure
dc.typeArticle
dc.rights.licenseCC BY 4.0
local.collegeNeeley School of Business
local.departmentManagement and Leadership
local.personsKrause (MANA)


Files in this item

Thumbnail
This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record