This paper explores the extent to which CEO ideological divergence influences firm lobbying strategy. Because a CEO’s political ideological disposition is shown to affect firm outcomes, we theorize there are nonmarket strategic implications when the governing party is divergent or convergent from their ideology. Accordingly, we integrate insights from organizational fit literature regarding value congruence and strategic complementarity in order to examine whether CEO political ideological divergence affects lobbying investment and changes the balance between internal and external lobbying activities. Further, we theorize that these outcomes are less pronounced for firms that are highly regulated. Our results support our theorizing, therefore, by identifying how CEO ideology interacts with the opposing political ideology. We unpack the ways in which CEO political ideology influences firm political behavior, thus extending research on CEO political ideology and lobbying.
BarberB.DiestreL.2019. Pushing for speed or scope? Pharmaceutical lobbying and food and drug administration drug review. Strategic Management Journal, 40: 1194-1218.
2.
BarnettM. L.2007. Stakeholder influence capacity and the variability of financial returns to corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32: 794-816.
3.
BaysingerB. D.1984. Domain maintenance as an objective of business political activity: An expanded typology. Academy of Management Review, 9: 248-258.
4.
BebchukL. A.JacksonR. J.2010. Corporate political speech: Who decides?Harvard Law Review, 124: 83-117.
5.
BermissY. S.McDonaldR.2018. Ideological misfit? Political affiliation and employee departure in the private-equity industry. Academy of Management Journal, 61: 2182-2209.
6.
BertrandM.BombardiniM.TrebbiF.2014. Is it whom you know or what you know? An empirical assessment of the lobbying process. American Economic Review, 104: 3885-3920.
7.
BirnbaumJ.2015. The lobbyists: How influence peddlers work their way in Washington. New York: Crown.
8.
BonardiJ. P.KeimG. D.2005. Corporate political strategies for widely salient issues. Academy of Management Review, 30: 555-576.
9.
BonardiJ. P.HillmanA. J.KeimG. D.2005. The attractiveness of political markets: Implications for firm strategy. Academy of Management Review, 30: 397-413.
10.
BonardiJ. P.HolburnG. L.Vanden BerghR. G.2006. Nonmarket strategy performance: Evidence from US electric utilities. Academy of Management Journal, 49(6): 1209-1228.
11.
BonicaA.2013. Ideology and interests in the political marketplace. American Journal of Political Science, 57: 294–311.
12.
BonicaA.2016. Avenues of influence: On the political expenditures of corporations and their directors and executives. Business and Politics, 18: 367-394.
13.
BonicaA.2019. Are donation-based measures of ideology valid predictors of individual-level policy preferences?The Journal of Politics, 81: 327-333.
14.
BriscoeF.ChinM. K.HambrickD. C.2014. CEO ideology as an element of the corporate opportunity structure for social activists. Academy of Management Journal, 57: 1786-1809.
15.
BriscoeF.JoshiA.2017. Bringing the boss’s politics in: Supervisor political ideology and the gender gap in earnings. Academy of Management Journal, 60: 1415-1441.
16.
BundyJ.ShropshireC.BuchholtzA. K.2013. Strategic cognition and issue salience: Toward an explanation of firm responsiveness to stakeholder concerns. Academy of Management Review, 38: 352-376.
17.
BundyJ.VogelR. M.ZacharyM. A.2018. Organization–stakeholder fit: A dynamic theory of cooperation, compromise, and conflict between an organization and its stakeholders. Strategic Management Journal, 39: 476-501.
18.
BurrisV.2001. Small business, status politics, and the social base of new christian right activism. Critical Sociology, 27: 29-55.
19.
BurrisV.2005. Interlocking directorates and political cohesion among corporate elites. American Journal of Sociology, 111: 249-283.
20.
ByrneD. E.1971. The Attraction Paradigm. New York: Academic Press.
21.
CarnahanS.GreenwoodB. N.2018. Managers’ political beliefs and gender inequality among subordinates: Does his ideology matter more than hers?Administrative Science Quarterly, 63: 287-322.
22.
ChinM. K.HambrickD. C.TreviñoL. K.2013. Political ideologies of CEOs: The influence of executives’ values on corporate social responsibility. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58: 197-232.
23.
ChinM. K.SemadeniM.2017. CEO political ideologies and pay egalitarianism within top management teams. Strategic Management Journal, 38: 1608-1625.
24.
ChristensenD. M.DhaliwalD. S.BoivieS.GraffinS. D.2015. Top management conservatism and corporate risk strategies: Evidence from managers’ personal political orientation and corporate tax avoidance. Strategic Management Journal, 36: 1938.
25.
ConnellyB. L.CrookT. R.CombsJ. G.Ketchen JrD. J.AguinisH.2015. Competence- and integrity-based trust in interorganizational relationships: Which matters more?Journal of Management, 44: 919-945.
26.
CrosslandC.HambrickD. C.2011. Differences in managerial discretion across countries: How nation-level institutions affect the degree to which CEOs matter. Strategic Management Journal, 32: 797-819.
27.
DahmM.PorteiroN.2008. Informational lobbying under the shadow of political pressure. Social Choice and Welfare, 30: 531-559.
28.
De FigueiredoJ. M.KimJ. J.2004. When do firms hire lobbyists? The organization of lobbying at the federal communications commission. Industry of Corporate Change, 13: 883-900.
29.
EdwardsJ. R.1994. The study of divergence in organizational behavior research: Critique and proposed alternative. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58: 51-100.
30.
EdwardsJ. R.2001. Ten difference score myths. Organizational Research Methods, 4: 265-287.
31.
EdwardsJ. R.CableD. M.2009. The value of value congruence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 654-677.
32.
EdwardsJ. R.ParryM. E.1993. On the use of polynomial regression equations as an alternative to difference scores in organizational research. Academy of Management Journal, 36: 1577-1613.
33.
EspinosaM.2016. How firms decide whether to use in-house or external lobbyists. LSE Business Review. Retrieved from https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2016/12/08/how-firms-decide-whether-to-use-in-house-or-external-lobbyists/.
34.
EvansD.1988. Oil PACs and aggressive contribution strategies. Journal of Politics, 50: 1047-1056.
35.
FrankK. A.2000. Impact of a confounding variable on a regression coefficient. Sociological Methods & Research, 29: 147-194.
36.
GamboaS.2021, March 1. National Latino groups condemn Goya Foods CEO for calling Trump the “actual president.” NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/national-latino-groups-condemn-goya-foods-ceo-calling-trump-actual-n1259209.
37.
GrahamJ.HaidtJ.NosekB. A.2009. Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96: 1029-1046.
38.
GreeneW. H.2008. The econometric approach to efficiency analysis. In FriedH. O.Knox LovellC. A.SchmidtS. S. (Eds.) The measurement of productive efficiency and productivity growth: 92-250. New York: Oxford University Press.
GrollT.EllisC. J.2017. Repeated lobbying by commercial lobbyists and special interests. Economic Inquiry, 55: 1868-1897.
41.
GuptaA.BriscoeF.HambrickD.2017. Red, blue, and purple firms: Organizational political ideology and corporate social responsibility. Strategic Management Journal, 38: 1018-1040.
42.
HadaniM.SchulerD. A.2013. In search of El dorado: The elusive financial returns on corporate political investments. Strategic Management Journal, 34: 165-181.
43.
HallR. L.DeardorffA. V.2006. Lobbying as legislative subsidy. American Political Science Review, 100: 69-84.
44.
HambrickD. C.MasonP. A.1984. Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9: 193-206.
45.
HarrisonJ. S.WicksA. C.2013. Stakeholder theory, value, and firm performance. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23: 97-124.
46.
HerschP. L.McDougallG. S.2000. Determinants of automobile PAC contributions to house incumbents: Own versus rival effects. Public Choice, 104: 329-343.
47.
HillmanA. J.HittM. A.1999. Corporate political strategy formulation: A model of approach, participation, and strategy decisions. Academy of Management Review, 24: 825-842.
48.
HillmanA. J.2005. Politicians on the board of directors: Do connections affect the bottom line?Journal of Management, 31: 464-481.
49.
HillmanA. J.KeimG. D.SchulerD.2004. Corporate political activity: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 30: 837-857.
50.
HillmanA. J.ZardkoohiA.BiermanL.1999. Corporate political strategies and firm performance: Indications of firm-specific benefits from personal service in the US government. Strategic Management Journal, 20: 67-81.
51.
HubbardT. D.ChristensenD. M.GraffinS. D.2017. Higher highs and lower lows: The role of corporate social responsibility in CEO dismissal. Strategic Management Journal, 38: 2255-2265.
52.
IyengarS.WestwoodS. J.2015. Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59: 690-707.
53.
JacksonD. J.EngelS. T.2003. Friends don’t let friends vote for free trade: The dynamics of the labor PAC punishment strategy over PNTR. Political Research Quarterly, 56: 441-448.
54.
JiaN.2018. The “make and/or buy” decisions of corporate political lobbying: Integrating the economic efficiency and legitimacy perspectives. Academy of Management Review, 43: 307-326.
55.
JohnsonP. E.1996. Corporate political offices in a rent-seeking society. Public Choice, 88: 309-331.
56.
JosefyM.KubanS.IrelandR. D.HittM. A.2015. All things great and small: Organizational size, boundaries of the firm, and a changing environment. Academy of Management Annals, 9: 715-802.
57.
JostJ. T.FedericoC. M.NapierJ. L.2009. Political ideology: Its structure, functions, and elective affinities. Annual Review of Psychology, 60: 307-337.
58.
JostJ. T.NosekB. A.GoslingS. D.2008. Ideology: Its resurgence in social, personality, and political psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3: 126-136.
59.
KaiserR. G.2010. So damn much money: The triumph of lobbying and the corrosion of american government. New York: Vintage.
60.
KennedyP.2008. A guide to econometrics (6th ed). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
61.
KerrW. R.LincolnW. F.MishraP.2014. The dynamics of firm lobbying. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 6: 343-379.
62.
KimJ. H.2019. Is your playing field unleveled? US defense contracts and foreign firm lobbying. Strategic Management Journal, 40: 1911-1937.
63.
LenwayS. A.RehbeinK.1991. Leaders, followers, and free riders: An empirical test of variation in corporate political involvement. Academy of Management Journal, 34: 893-905.
64.
LesterR. H.HillmanA.ZardkoohiA.CannellaA. A.2008. Former government officials as outside directors: The role of human and social capital. Academy of Management Journal, 51: 999-1013.
65.
LockeE. A.1976. The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In DunnetteM. D. (Ed.) Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology: 1297-1343. Chicago: Rand McNally.
66.
LuxS.CrookT. R.WoehrD. J.2011. Mixing business with politics: A meta-analysis of the antecedents and outcomes of corporate political activity. Journal of Management, 37: 223-247.
67.
MasonL.WronskiJ.2018. One tribe to bind them all: How our social group attachments strengthen partisanship. Political Psychology, 39: 257-277.
68.
MclaughlinP.SherouseO.2016. The Mclaughlin-Sherouse list: The 10 most-regulated industries of 2014. https://www.mercatus.org/publications/regulation/mclaughlin-sherouse-list-10-most-regulated-industries-2014.
69.
MeznarM.NighD.1995. Buffer or bridge? Environmental and organizational determinants of public affairs activities in American firms. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 975-996.
70.
MilyoJ.PrimoD.GrosecloseT.2000. Corporate PAC campaign contributions in perspective. Business and Politics, 2: 75-88.
71.
MorganG. S.MullenE.SkitkaL. J.2010. When values and attributions collide: Liberals’ and conservatives’ values motivate attributions for alleged misdeeds. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36: 1241-1254.
72.
NalickM.KubanS.HillA. D.RidgeJ. W.2020. Too hot to handle and too valuable to drop: An expanded conceptualization of firms’ reactions to exchange partner misconduct. Academy of Management Journal, 63: 1976-2003.
73.
NorthD. C.1990. Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. New York: Cambridge University Press.
74.
NownesA. J.2006. Total lobbying: What lobbyists want (and how they try to get It). New York: Cambridge University Press.
75.
Pew Research CenterOctober 2017a. The partisan divide on political values grows even wider. https://www.people-press.org/2017/10/05/the-partisan-divide-on-political-values-grows-even-wider/.
76.
Pew Research CenterSeptember 2017b. Partisans differ widely in views of police officers, college professors. https://www.people-press.org/2017/09/13/partisans-differ-widely-in-views-of-police-officers-college-professors/.
77.
RidgeJ. W.HillA.IngramA.2018. The signaling role of politician stock ownership: Effects on lobbying intensity. Journal of Management, 44: 2116-2141.
78.
RidgeJ. W.IngramA.HillA. D.2017. Beyond lobbying expenditures: How lobbying breadth and political connectedness affect firm outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 60: 1138-1163.
79.
RingP. S.Van de VenA. H.1994. Developmental processes of cooperative interorganizational relationships. Academy of Management Review, 19: 90-118.
80.
RothP. L.ThatcherJ. B.BobkoP.MatthewsK. D.EllingsonJ. E.GoldbergC. B.2020. Political affiliation and employment screening decisions: The role of similarity and identification processes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105: 472-486.
81.
RudyB. C.JohnsonA. F.2019. The chief political officer: CEO characteristics and firm investment in corporate political activity. Business and Society, 58: 612-643.
82.
SchulerD. A.RehbeinK.CramerR. D.2002. Pursuing strategic advantage through political means: A multivariate approach. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 659-672.
83.
SchulerD. A.RehbeinK.1997. The filtering role of the firm in corporate political involvement. Business & Society, 36: 116-139.
84.
SemadeniM.ChinM. K.KrauseR.In press. Pumping the brakes: Examining the impact of CEO political ideology divergence on firm responses. Academy of Management Journal. doi:10.5465/amj.2019.1131
85.
ShafferB.QuasneyT. J.GrimmC. M.2000. Firm level performance implications of nonmarket actions. Business & Society, 39: 126-143.
86.
ShanockL. R.BaranB. E.GentryW. A.PattisonS. C.HeggestadE. D.2010. Polynomial regression with response surface analysis: A powerful approach for examining moderation and overcoming limitations of difference scores. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25: 543-554.
87.
SkitkaL. J.BaumanC. W.SargisE. G.2005. Moral conviction: Another contributor to attitude strength or something more?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88: 895-917.
88.
SkitkaL. J.TetlockP. E.1993. Providing public assistance: Cognitive and motivational processes underlying liberal and conservative policy preferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65: 1205-1223.
89.
StokerL.JenningsM. K.1995. Life-cycle transitions and political participation: The case of marriage. American Political Science Review, 89: 421-433.
90.
TantaloC.PriemR. L.2016. Value creation through stakeholder synergy. Strategic Management Journal, 37: 314-329.
91.
TripathiM.2000. PAC contributions and defense contracting. Business and Politics, 2: 53-73.
92.
USASpending.Gov.Retrieved from https://www.usaspending.gov#.
93.
UnsalO.HassanM. K.ZirekD.2017. Corporate lobbying and labor relations: Evidence from employee-level litigations. Journal of Corporate Finance, 46: 411-441.
94.
WalkerE. T.ReaC. M.2014. The political mobilization of firms and industries. Annual Review of Sociology, 40: 281-304.
95.
WernerT.2015. Gaining access by doing good: The effect of sociopolitical reputation on firm participation in public policy making. Management Science, 61: 1989-2011.
96.
WhittakerJ.WhiteheadC.SomersM.2005. The neglog transformation and quantile regression for the analysis of a large credit scoring database. Journal of Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics), 54: 863-878.
97.
WilmsY.2019. Do investors take into account CEO political ideology? Evidence from the Trump election. Doctoral Dissertation. Tilburg University. SNR: 1258597.
98.
ZardkoohiA.1985. On the political participation of the firm in the electoral process. Southern Economic Journal, 51: 804-817.
