International corporate diversification and performance: Does firm self-selection matter?

2008 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-85 ◽  
Author(s):  
Protiti Dastidar
Keyword(s):  
Corporate Diversification ◽  
Self Selection ◽  
And Performance

When does corporate diversification matter to productivity and performance? Evidence from East Asia

2003 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 365-392 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stijn Claessens ◽  
Simeon Djankov ◽  
Joseph P.H Fan ◽  
Larry H.P Lang
Keyword(s):  
East Asia ◽  
Corporate Diversification ◽  
And Performance

Geographic and Industrial Corporate Diversification: The Level and Structure of Executive Compensation

2002 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Augustine Duru ◽  
David M. Reeb
Keyword(s):  
Executive Compensation ◽  
Ceo Compensation ◽  
Performance Criteria ◽  
Corporate Diversification ◽  
Geographic Diversification ◽  
Compensation Contracts ◽  
Industrial Diversification ◽  
Diversification Strategies ◽  
Ceo Pay ◽  
And Performance

We explore the relation between corporate diversification and CEO compensation. We document that geographic diversification provides a compensation premium, while industrial diversification is associated with lower levels of CEO pay. We also examine the effect of corporate diversification on the structure and performance criteria of CEO compensation contracts. We find that both diversification strategies are associated with a greater use of incentive-based compensation and with a greater reliance on market-based, rather than accounting-based measures of firm performance. Finally, we address the question of whether shareholders reward CEOs for corporate diversification. We document that while value-enhancing geographic diversification is rewarded, non-value-enhancing industrial diversification is penalized.

Self-Selection of Peers and Performance

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lukas Kiessling ◽  
Jonas Radbruch ◽  
Sebastian Schaube
Keyword(s):  
Standard Deviation ◽  
Field Experiment ◽  
Peer Effects ◽  
Individual Performance ◽  
Random Assignment ◽  
Self Selection ◽  
Multiple Characteristics ◽  
Framed Field Experiment ◽  
And Performance ◽  
Selection Of

This paper studies how the presence of peers and different peer assignment rules—self-selection versus random assignment—affect individual performance. Using a framed field experiment, we find that the presence of a randomly assigned peer improves performance by 28% of a standard deviation (SD), whereas self-selecting peers induces an additional 15%–18% SD improvement in performance. Our results document peer effects in multiple characteristics and show that self-selection changes these characteristics. However, a decomposition reveals that variations in the peer composition contribute only little to the performance differences across peer assignment rules. Rather, we find that self-selection has a direct effect on performance. This paper was accepted by Yan Chen, decision analysis.

Corporate Diversification, TMT Experience, and Performance

2010 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-56 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deeksha A. Singh ◽  
Ajai S. Gaur ◽  
Florian P. Schmid
Keyword(s):  
Corporate Diversification ◽  
And Performance
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document