Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 430

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

CEO Narcissism, Audience Engagement, and Organizational Adoption of Technological Discontinuities

Open access
Gerstner, Wolf-Christian, König, Andreas, Enders, Albrecht, Hambrick, Donald C.·2013·Administrative Science Quarterly

Abstract

We examine the responses of major pharmaceutical firms to the advent of biotechnology over the period 1980 to 2008 to explain why established firms vary in their adoption of technological discontinuities. Combining insights from upper echelons theory, personality theory, and research on organizational responses to new technologies, we posit that narcissistic chief executive officers (CEOs) of established firms will be relatively aggressive in their adoption of technological discontinuities. We propose, however, that the effect of a CEO’s narcissism on organizational outcomes will be moderated by audience engagement—the degree to which observers view a phenomenon as noteworthy and provocative—which varies over time. When audience engagement is high, narcissistic CEOs will anticipate widespread admiration for their bold actions and thus will invest especially aggressively in a discontinuous technology. Drawing from work on managerial cognition, we further hypothesize that CEOs’ narcissism will influence their top managers’ attention to a discontinuous technology, an association that will also be moderated by audience engagement. Finally, we suggest that managerial attention to the discontinuous technology will subsequently be reflected in company investments in the new technological domain. Results provide considerable support for our hypotheses and highlight the role of narcissism in the context of radical organizational change, the influence of audience engagement on executive behavior, and the effect of executive personality on managerial attention.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0001839213488773

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 18 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Gerstner, W.-C., König, A., Enders, A., & Hambrick, D. C.
Venue
Administrative Science Quarterly
Published
2013-04-30
Volume
58
Issue
2
Pages
257-291
ISSN
  • 0001-8392 (ISSN-L)
  • 1930-3815
OpenAlex
W2102750422
Cited by
430
References
18
FWCI
42.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.