Prior research finds that firms hire directors for their acquisition experience, regardless of acquisition quality (whether their prior acquisitions earned positive or negative announcement returns). Using several short- and long-run measures, we examine the effects of directors’ acquisition experience on the acquisition performance of firms hiring them. We find that board acquisition experience is positively related to subsequent acquisition performance, demonstrating that firms appropriately value experience. Beyond experience itself, however, the quality of directors’ prior acquisitions is also important. Our results suggest that firms may be better served to select directors based upon both past acquisition experience and acquisition performance.

The monitoring effectiveness of outside directors is curtailed by information asymmetry between boards and management. Connections between outside directors and executives who do not serve on the board (internal ties) may help overcome this challenge by facilitating information sharing between the connected parties. Internal ties can also empower connected executives to withstand pressure from CEOs to take actions that might endanger their reputation in the long term. Alternatively, internal ties may entrench executives by insulating connected executives from adverse outcomes. Consistent with the former, we find that earnings restatements, class-action litigations, and real earnings management decrease when directors are connected with executives responsible for these areas. Connected boards also make better decisions related to CEO turnover, CEO succession and acquisitions. Overall, our results show that internal ties are associated with improved internal governance, thereby suggesting that boards may benefit from forging stronger relationships with non-director executives.

We investigate an increasingly prevalent CEO succession strategy: recruiting CEOs from the board of directors (director–CEOs). Director–CEOs might be hired in a planned succession because they combine outsiders’ new perspectives with insiders’ firm-specific knowledge. Alternatively, directors may be recruited when the board is unprepared for a leadership change. We find that unplanned successions, in which director–CEOs are appointed as a “quick-fix” solution, result in a negative market reaction, deterioration in performance, and ill-fitting candidates with shorter tenures. Conversely, firms recruiting director–CEOs in planned successions perform similarly to other firms. We find no evidence that poor firm quality drives these results.

We examine employee responses to CEO activism, the increasingly common practice of CEOs taking public stances on socio-political issues. CEO activism may bolster employees' identification with their organizations and strengthen shared beliefs among employees. Alternatively, CEO activism may alienate employees if CEO stances contrast with employees' ideologies. We find that employee satisfaction is higher when CEOs engage in activism that is aligned with employees’ ideologies. Furthermore, firms with CEO activism experience a net inflow of productive, ideologically-aligned inventors, which contributes to increased firm-level innovation. The improvements in employee satisfaction and innovation constitute an important channel that connects aligned CEO activism to increased firm value.

Using rich plant-level data, we analyze the relative performance of firms with inside and outside CEOs. We show that firms with outside CEOs achieve greater productivity improvements compared to firms with inside CEOs. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the relation is stronger in well-performing, rather than poorly performing, firms. Although part of the productivity growth differential comes from divesting low-performing, peripheral, low-tech, and unionized plants, most productivity improvements arise from streamlining continuing plants. Here, productivity is increased by consolidating products, changing the composition of investments toward newer capital, shifting to more capital-intensive production, adopting structured management practices, and improving labor productivity.

Busy directors have been widely criticized as being ineffective. However, we hypothesize that busy directors offer advantages for many firms. While busy directors may be less effective monitors, their experience and contacts arguably make them excellent advisors. Among IPO firms, which have minimal experience with public markets and likely rely heavily on their directors for advising, we find busy boards to be common and to contribute positively to firm value. Moreover, these positive effects of busy boards extend to all but the most established firms. Benefits are lowest among Forbes 500 firms, which likely require more monitoring than advising.

This paper examines the effects of bond liquidity on firms’ investments. We postulate that bond liquidity increases firms’ investment opportunities by reducing the cost of capital and improving access to financing. Using the variation in liquidity generated by several – both positive and negative – exogenous shocks, we find that firms respond to positive (negative) shocks by expanding (contracting) capital expenditures and acquisition activity. Further, by enhancing access to funding, bond liquidity facilitates acquisition financing and reduces the likelihood of investment delays. We also find a positive impact of bond liquidity on market valuations and profitability, suggesting that these investments are value-increasing.