Does CEO Duality affect the Firm Performance? Evidence from Sri Lanka
Abstract
This article examines the impact of CEO duality on firm performance of listed non financial firms in Sri Lanka. This study uses the ROA as proxy measure for form performance. This study employs a cross sectional ordinary least square analysis of 128 firms listed in Colombo Stock Exchange (CSE) for the financial year ending 2013. The results show that CEO duality is significantly negatively associated with ROA. In the case of control variables, board size and leverage are significantly negatively associated with ROA on the other hand firm size is significantly positively linked with ROA. This paper contributes to the existing literature on corporate governance and firm performance by introducing a framework in identifying and analyzing variables that affect the relationship between CEO duality and firm performance.
Keywords: Corporate governance, CEO duality, firm performance, ROA
References
Coles JW, McWilliams VB, Sen N (2001) An examination of the relationship of governance mechanism to performance, Journal of Management, 27:23-50.
Haniffa RM, Cooke TE (2005) The impact of culture and governance on corporate social reporting, Journal of Accounting and Public policy, 24:391-430.
Jensen MC (1993) The modern industrial revolution, exit and the failure of internal control systems, The Journal of Finance, 48(3):831-880.
Belkhir M (2004) Board structure, Ownership structure, Firm performance: evidence from Banking, Applied Financial Economics, 19(19):1581-1593.
Yermack D (1996) High market valuation of companies with a small board of directors, Journal of Financial Economics, 40:185-211.
Finkelstein S, D’Aveni RA (1994) CEO duality as a double-edged sword: How board of directors balance entrenchment avoidance and unity of command, Academy of Management Journal, 37(5):1079-1108.
Fosberg RH, Nelson MR (1999) Leadership structure and firm performance, International Review of Financial Analysis, 8(1):83-96.
Keil GC, Nicholson GJ (2003) Board composition and corporate performance: How the Australian expereience informs contrasting theories of corporate governance, Corporate governance, 11(3):189-205.
Fooladi M (2012) Board characteristics and firm performance, Journal of Modern Accounting and Auditing, 8(5):688-694.
Fama EF, Jensen MC (1983) Separation of ownership and control, Journal of Law and Economics, 26:301-325.
Dehaene A, De Vuyst V, Ooghe H (2001) Corporate performance and board structure in Belgian companies, Long Range Planning, 34(3):383-398.
Brickley JA, Coles JL, Jarrell G (1997) Leadership structure: Separating the CEO and chairman of the board, Journal of Corporate Finance, 3(3):189-220.
Bhagat S, Bolton B (2008) Corporate governance and firm performance, Journal of Corporate Finance, 14(3):257-273.
Daily C, Dalton D (1992) The relationship between governance structure and corporate performance in entrepreneurial firms, Journal of Business Venturing, 7(5):375-406.
Zubaidah ZA, Nurmala MK, Kamaruzaman, J (2009) Board structure and corporate performance in Malaysia, International Journal of Economics and Finance, 1(1):150-164.
Lipton M, Lorsch JW (1992) A modest proposal for improved corporate governance, Business Lawyer, 48(1):59-77.
