Powerful CEOs and their impact on corporate performance

We argue in this paper that executives can only impact firm outcomes if they have influence over crucial decisions. Based on this idea we develop and test a hypothesis about how CEOs’ power to influence decisions will affect firm performance: since managers’ opinions may differ, firms whose CEOs have more decision-making power should experience more variability in firm performance. Thus performance depends on the interaction between executive characteristics and organizational variables. By focusing on this interaction we are able to use firm-level characteristics to test predictions that are related to unobservable managerial characteristics. Using such firmlevel characteristics of the Executive Office we develop a proxy for the CEO’s power to influence decisions and provide evidence consistent with our hypothesis. Firm performance (measured by Tobin’s Q, stock returns and ROA) is significantly more variable for firms with greater values of our proxy for CEO influence power. The results are robust across various tests designed to detect differences in variability.

The art of being together: a social constructionist perspective on dialogic methods in the organizational context

The purpose of this project is to understand, under a social constructionist approach, what are the meanings that external facilitators and organizational members (sponsors) working with dialogic methods place on themselves and their work. Dialogic methods, with the objective of engaging groups in flows of conversations to envisage and co-create their own future, are growing fast within organizations as a means to achieve collective change. Sharing constructionist ideas about the possibility of multiple realities and language as constitutive of such realities, dialogue has turned into a promising way for transformation, especially in a macro context of constant change and increasing complexity, where traditional structures, relationships and forms of work are questioned. Research on the topic has mostly focused on specific methods or applications, with few attempts to study it in a broader sense. Also, despite the fact that dialogic methods work on the assumption that realities are socially constructed, few studies approach the topic from a social constructionist perspective, as a research methodology per se. Thus, while most existing research aims at explaining whether or how particular methods meet particular results, my intention is to explore the meanings sustaining these new forms of organizational practice. Data was collected through semi-structured interviews with 25 people working with dialogic methods: 11 facilitators and 14 sponsors, from 8 different organizations in Brazil. Firstly, the research findings indicate several contextual elements that seem to sustain the choices for dialogic methods. Within this context, there does not seem to be a clear or specific demand for dialogic methods, but a set of different motivations, objectives and focuses, bringing about several contrasts in the way participants name, describe and explain their experiences with such methods, including tensions on power relations, knowledge creation, identity and communication. Secondly, some central ideas or images were identified within such contrasts, pointing at both directions: dialogic methods as opportunities for the creation of new organizational realities (with images of a ‘door’ or a ‘flow’, for instance, which suggest that dialogic methods may open up the access to other perspectives and the creation of new realities); and dialogic methods as new instrumental mechanisms that seem to reproduce the traditional and non-dialogical forms of work and relationship. The individualistic tradition and its tendency for rational schematism - pointed out by social constructionist scholars as strong traditions in our Western Culture - could be observed in some participants’ accounts with the image of dialogic methods as a ‘gym’, for instance, in which dialogical – and idealized –‘abilities’ could be taught and trained, turning dialogue into a tool, rather than a means for transformation. As a conclusion, I discuss what the implications of such taken-for-granted assumptions may be, and offer some insights into dialogue (and dialogic methods) as ‘the art of being together’.