Does top management team (TMT) regulatory focus impact firm environmental misconduct (FEM)? If so, how and when? Integrating upper echelons theory with regulatory focus theory, we examine how regulatory focus, as one of the most direct and important psychological characteristics of TMT, impacts FEM. Additionally, we explore how this relationship is moderated by external and internal environmental dynamism from the perspective of regulatory fit. Based on a sample of Chinese listed firms from 2011 to 2017, we conduct computer-aided content analysis to quantify TMT regulatory focus. Results show that TMTs high in promotion focus are more likely to engage in FEM, whereas TMTs high in prevention focus are less likely to misconduct. Moreover, external environmental dynamism strengthens (weakens) the positive (negative) relationship between promotion (prevention) focus and FEM. Internal environmental dynamism strengthens the positive relationship between TMT promotion focus and FEM. By examining this motivation-based psychological characteristic of TMT, the findings suggest the need to consider TMT regulatory focus when analyzing the antecedents of FEM.
AdamsRBAlmeidaHFerreiraD (2005) Powerful CEOs and their impact on corporate performance. The Review of Financial Studies18(4): 1403–1432.
2.
AhmadiSKhanaghaSBerchicciL, et al. (2017) Are managers motivated to explore in the face of a new technological change? The role of regulatory focus, fit, and complexity of decision-making. Journal of Management Studies54(2): 209–237.
3.
AudiRLoughranTMcDonaldB (2016) Trust, but verify: MD&A language and the role of trust in corporate culture. Journal of Business Ethics139(3): 551–561.
4.
BaronRATangJTangZ, et al. (2018) Bribes as entrepreneurial actions: Why underdog entrepreneurs feel compelled to use them. Journal of Business Venturing33(6): 679–690.
5.
BerronePFosfuriAGelabertL, et al. (2013) Necessity as the mother of ‘green’ inventions: Institutional pressures and environmental innovations. Strategic Management Journal34(8): 891–909.
6.
BlankespoorEHendricksBEMillerGS (2017) Perceptions and price: Evidence from CEO presentations at IPO roadshows. Journal of Accounting Research55(2): 275–327.
7.
BoydBKHaynesKTZonaF (2011) Dimensions of CEO–board relations. Journal of Management Studies48(8): 1892–1923.
8.
ChenSBuMWuS, et al. (2015) How does TMT attention to innovation of Chinese firms influence firm innovation activities? A study on the moderating role of corporate governance. Journal of Business Research68(5): 1127–1135.
9.
CookAGlassC (2018) Women on corporate boards: Do they advance corporate social responsibility?Human Relations71(7): 897–924.
DailyCSchwenkC (1996) Chief executive officers, top management teams and boards of directors: Congruent or countervailing forces?Journal of Management22(2): 185–202.
12.
DimotakisNDavisonRBHollenbeckJR (2012) Team structure and regulatory focus: The impact of regulatory fit on team dynamic. Journal of Applied Psychology97(2): 421–434.
13.
DuXJianWZengQ, et al. (2014) Corporate environmental responsibility in polluting industries: Does religion matter?Journal of Business Ethics124(3): 485–507.
14.
EngelenANeumannCSchwensC (2015) ‘Of course I can’: The effect of CEO overconfidence on entrepreneurially oriented firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice39(5): 1137–1160.
15.
FaddegonKScheepersDEllemersN (2008) If we have the will, there will be a way: Regulatory focus as a group identity. European Journal of Social Psychology38(5): 880–895.
16.
FeldmanRGovindarajSLivnatJ, et al. (2010) Management’s tone change, post earnings announcement drift and accruals. Review of Accounting Studies15(4): 915–953.
17.
FlammerC (2013) Corporate social responsibility and shareholder reaction: The environmental awareness of investors. Academy of Management Journal56(3): 758–781.
18.
FuRGaoFKimYH, et al. (2017) Performance volatility, information availability, and disclosure reforms. Journal of Banking & Finance75: 35–52.
19.
GamacheDLMcNamaraGMannorMJ, et al. (2015) Motivated to acquire? The impact of CEO regulatory focus on firm acquisitions. Academy of Management Journal58(4): 1261–1282.
20.
GinoFMargolisJD (2011) Bringing ethics into focus: How regulatory focus and risk C preferences influence (un) ethical behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes115(2): 145–156
21.
GondJPMoserC (2019) The reconciliation of fraternal twins: Integrating the psychological and sociological approaches to ‘micro’ corporate social responsibility. Human Relations. Epub ahead of print 21 October 2019. DOI: 10.1177/0018726719864407.
22.
GreveHRPalmerDPoznerJ (2010) Organizations gone wild: The causes, processes, and consequences of organizational misconduct. Academy of Management Annals4(1): 53–107.
23.
GuoWYuTGimenoJ (2017) Language and competition: Communication vagueness, interpretation difficulties, and market entry. Academy of Management Journal60(6): 2073–2098.
24.
HambrickDC (2007) Upper echelons theory: An update. Academy of Management Review32(2): 334–343.
25.
HayesAFMatthesJ (2009) Computational procedures for probing interactions in OLS and logistic regression: SPSS and SAS implementations. Behavior Research Methods41(3): 924–936.
26.
HmieleskiKMBaronRA (2008) Regulatory focus and new venture performance: A study of entrepreneurial opportunity exploitation under conditions of risk versus uncertainty. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal2(4): 285–299.
27.
HigginsET (1997) Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist52(12): 1280–1300.
28.
HigginsET (1998) Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology30(2): 1–46.
29.
HigginsET (2000) Making a good decision: Value from fit. American Psychologist55(11): 1217–1230.
30.
HigginsETPinelliF (2020) Regulatory focus and fit effects in organizations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior7(1): 25–48.
31.
HopeOKWangJ (2018) Management deception, big-bath accounting, and information asymmetry: Evidence from linguistic analysis. Accounting, Organizations and Society70: 33–51.
32.
JiaMTongLViswanathPV, et al. (2016) Word power: The impact of negative media coverage on disciplining corporate pollution. Journal of Business Ethics138(3): 437–458.
33.
JiaMXiangYZhangZ (2019) Corporate philanthropic giving and indirect reciprocity: How visiting officials influence investment in privately owned Chinese firms. Journal of Management Studies56(2): 372–407.
34.
JiangFKimKAMaY, et al. (2019) Corporate culture and investment–cash flow sensitivity. Journal of Business Ethics154(2): 425–439.
35.
JohnsonPDSmithMBWallaceJC, et al. (2015) A review of multilevel regulatory focus in organizations. Journal of Management41(5): 1501–1529.
36.
KarkRVan DijkD (2019) Keep your head in the clouds and your feet on the ground: A multi-focal review of leadership–followership self-regulatory focus. Academy of Management Annals 13(2): 509–546.
37.
KhannaVKimEHLuY (2015) CEO connectedness and corporate fraud. Journal of Finance70(3): 1203–1252.
38.
LanajKChangCHJohnsonRE (2012) Regulatory focus and work-related outcomes: A review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin138(5): 998–1034.
39.
LeeGXiaoX (2020) Voluntary engagement in environmental projects: Evidence from environmental violators. Journal of Business Ethics 164(2): 325–348.
40.
LiGHeQShaoS, et al. (2018) Environmental non-governmental organizations and urban environmental governance: Evidence from China. Journal of Environmental Management206: 1296–1307.
41.
LianHHuaiMFarhJ-L, et al. (2020) Leader unethical pro-organizational behavior and employee unethical conduct: Social learning of moral disengagement as a behavioral principle. Journal of Management. Epub ahead of print 30 September 2020. DOI: 10.1177/0149206320959699.
42.
LiaoLLuoLTangQ (2015) Gender diversity, board independence, environmental committee and greenhouse gas disclosure. The British Accounting Review47(4): 409–424.
43.
MalhotraSReusTHZhuP, et al. (2018) The acquisitive nature of extraverted CEOs. Administrative Science Quarterly63(2): 370–408.
44.
MarquisCBirdY (2018) The paradox of responsive authoritarianism: How civic activism spurs environmental penalties in China. Organization Science29(5): 948–968.
45.
MillerKDChenWR (2004) Variable organizational risk preferences: Tests of the March-Shapira model. Academy of Management Journal47(1): 105–115.
46.
NadkarniSChenTChenJ (2016) The clock is ticking! Executive temporal depth, industry velocity, and competitive aggressiveness. Strategic Management Journal37(6): 1132–1153.
47.
OuAYWaldmanDAPetersonSJ (2018) Do humble CEOs matter? An examination of CEO humility and firm outcomes. Journal of Management44(3): 1147–1173.
48.
OwensBPHekmanDR (2016) How does leader humility influence team performance? Exploring the mechanisms of contagion and collective promotion focus. Academy of Management Journal59(3): 1088–1111.
49.
PearceJAIIPatelPC (2018) Board of director efficacy and firm performance variability. Long Range Planning51(6): 911–926.
50.
PetersenMA (2009) Estimating standard errors in finance panel data sets: Comparing approaches. The Review of Financial Studies22(1): 435–480.
51.
ReimerMVan DoornSHeydenML (2018) Unpacking functional experience complementarities in senior leaders’ influences on CSR strategy: A CEO–top management team approach. Journal of Business Ethics151(4): 977–995.
52.
RidgeJWIngramA (2017) Modesty in the top management team: Investor reaction and performance implications. Journal of Management43(4): 1283–1306.
53.
RyanTP (1997) Modern Regression Methods. New York: Wiley.
54.
SalaizAChiuSCWallsJL (2020) Sustainability agency at the top of the organization: Microfoundations research on corporate sustainability. In: TeerikangasSOnkilaTKoistinineK, et al. (eds) Edgar Elgar Research Handbook of Sustainability Agency. London: Edward Elgar Publishing.
55.
ScholerAAHigginsET (2008) Distinguishing levels of approach and avoidance: An analysis using regulatory focus theory. In: ElliotAF (ed.) Handbook of Approach and Avoidance Motivation. New York: Psychology Press, 489–503.
56.
SheaCTHawnOV (2019) Microfoundations of corporate social responsibility and irresponsibility. Academy of Management Journal62(5): 1609–1642.
57.
ShinYKimMChoiJN, et al. (2014) Does team culture matter? Roles of team culture and collective regulatory focus in team task and creative performance. Group & Organization Management41(2): 232–265.
58.
ShortJCMcKennyAFReidSW (2018) More than words? Computer-aided text analysis in organizational behavior and psychology research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior5(1): 415–435.
59.
SpanjolJTamLQuallsWJ, et al. (2011) New product team decision making: Regulatory focus effects on number, type, and timing decisions. Journal of Product Innovation Management28(5): 623–640.
60.
TangYQianCChenG, et al. (2015) How CEO hubris affects corporate social (ir)responsibility. Strategic Management Journal36(9): 1338–1357.
61.
TangZTangJ (2016) Can the media discipline Chinese firms’ pollution behaviors? The mediating effects of the public and government. Journal of Management42(6): 1700–1722.
62.
TumasjanABraunR (2012) In the eye of the beholder: How regulatory focus and self-efficacy interact in influencing opportunity recognition. Journal of Business Venturing27(6): 622–636.
63.
TuncdoganABoonAMomT, et al. (2017) Management teams’ regulatory foci and organizational units’ exploratory innovation: The mediating role of coordination mechanisms. Long Range Planning50(5): 621–635.
64.
WallaceJCLittleLMHillAD, et al. (2010) CEO regulatory foci, environmental dynamism, and small firm performance. Journal of Small Business Management48(4): 580–604.
65.
WangHTongLTakeuchiR, et al. (2016) Corporate social responsibility: An overview and new research directions. Academy of Management Journal59(2): 1–11.
66.
WangRWijenFHeugensPP (2018) Government’s green grip: Multifaceted state influence on corporate environmental actions in China. Strategic Management Journal39(2): 403–428.
67.
XuDZhouKZDuF (2019) Deviant versus aspirational risk taking: The effects of performance feedback on bribery expenditure and R&D intensity. Academy of Management Journal62(4): 1226–1251.
68.
ZengQZhouBZhangC, et al. (2018) Management’s tone and inside trade. Management World34(9): 149–166. (In Chinese)
69.
ZhangZJiaM (2013) How can companies decrease the disruptive effects of stretch goals? The moderating role of interpersonal- and informational-justice climates. Human Relations66(7): 993–1020.
70.
ZhangLRenSChenX, et al. (2020a) CEO Hubris and firm pollution: State and market contingencies in a transitional economy. Journal of Business Ethics161(2): 459–478.
71.
ZhangZWangXJiaM (2020b) Echoes of CEO entrepreneurial orientation: How and when CEO entrepreneurial orientation influences dual CSR activities. Journal of Business Ethics 169: 609–629.
72.
ZornMLShropshireCMartinJA, et al. (2017) Home alone: The effects of lone-insider boards on CEO pay, financial misconduct, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal38(13): 2623–2646.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
