We examine whether management faultlines (i.e., dissimilar groupings among executives) are related to management forecast processes and outcomes. Management faultlines are formed based on the simultaneous alignment of senior executives' demographic characteristics (e.g., an MBA background, elite school education, gender, board experience, age, or tenure). We argue that management faultlines impede information sharing, create conflicts, and divert managerial attention away from common‐goal tasks. We hypothesize and find that management faultlines are associated with lower management forecast quality. Furthermore, the faultline effect is more pronounced when forecasting difficulty is high. In contrast, the faultline effect is mitigated when a firm nurtures a supportive and diverse workplace. In addition, we find that management forecast propensity and frequency are negatively associated with management faultlines. Overall, our findings suggest that management faultlines compromise management forecast processes and outcomes. In particular, since faultlines can arise as a company diversifies, boards should be aware of these unintended consequences and how they can be mitigated.

Prior studies of classification shifting in the income statement conclude that managers misclassify core expenses as special items to inflate reported core earnings (McVay 2006; Fan, Barua, Cready, and Thomas 2010). These studies do not distinguish between the core expense components—cost of goods sold ( COGS ) and selling, general, and administrative expenses ( SGA ). This study models COGS and SGA separately, and investigates managers’ misclassification of COGS versus SGA to meet different profitability benchmarks. We find that COGS (but not SGA ) misclassification is associated with just beating the benchmark of gross margin four quarters earlier. In comparison, both COGS and SGA misclassification are associated with just beating the benchmarks of zero core earnings, prior‐year core earnings, and analyst earnings forecasts in the fourth fiscal quarter. We also investigate real activities management ( RAM ) of COGS and SGA to meet benchmarks, and find that managers engage in RAM of COGS to achieve the gross margin benchmark, but not core earnings benchmarks. We demonstrate that unexpected SGA contains a significant misclassification effect distinct from RAM , suggesting that future RAM research should consider controlling for expense misclassification. Overall, our study extends prior literature on both classification shifting and RAM .

Vertical pay dispersion is the difference in pay across different hierarchical levels within an organization (Milkovich and Newman ). While vertical pay dispersion may be useful in attracting, retaining, and motivating highly skilled employees (Lazear and Rosen ; Lazear ; Prendergast ), our study investigates a potential disadvantage; specifically, the negative impact of perceived unfairness of vertical pay dispersion on employees' budgeting decisions. We predict and find that high vertical pay dispersion motivates subordinates to misreport costs to a greater extent than low vertical pay dispersion. Furthermore, we predict and find that superiors, on average, exercise more lenient cost controls when vertical pay dispersion is high rather than low. Supplemental analysis indicates superiors are more lenient on average because of their aversion to inequity caused by vertical pay dispersion. Our results suggest that high vertical pay dispersion can compromise the overall corporate budgeting environment, where higher levels of misreporting by subordinates goes unchecked by superiors.

We examine the effect of stakeholder orientation on firms' cost management as proxied by selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) cost stickiness. Using a sample of 19,783 firm‐years, we find that customer and employee orientation are associated with greater SG&A cost stickiness. Furthermore, the effect of customer orientation on SG&A cost stickiness is more prominent in firms where SG&A costs create high future value, growth firms, and firms with strong corporate governance. In contrast, the effect of employee orientation on SG&A cost stickiness is stronger in firms where SG&A costs create low future value, mature firms, and firms with weak corporate governance. Overall, the association between customer orientation and SG&A cost stickiness is consistent with efficiency considerations (i.e., adjustment costs). In contrast, the association between employee orientation and SG&A cost stickiness is consistent with agency motives such as empire building or “a preference for a quiet life.” In sum, we provide evidence that corporate orientation toward different stakeholders can have different efficiency implications in the context of SG&A resource adjustments and cost management.

In this study, we examine the joint effect of vertical pay dispersion and peer observability on subordinates' misreporting choices. We adopt a participative budgeting setting in which two subordinates report to one superior, and we manipulate vertical pay dispersion (low/high) and peer observability (absent/present). Subordinates have private information about actual project costs and can over‐report project costs to the superior without detection and thus create budgetary slack. When a peer's reporting choices are observable, we predict and find that peer reporting choices have an asymmetric influence on the focal subordinates' reporting choices, and this asymmetric influence depends on the level of vertical pay dispersion. Specifically, we find that when vertical pay dispersion is low, subordinates who observe peer reports containing low slack misreport less , whereas observing peer reports that contain high slack has no significant effect. However, when vertical pay dispersion is high , subordinates who observe peer reports containing high slack misreport more , whereas observing peer reports that contain low slack has no significant effect. Driven by these asymmetric effects, subordinates misreport less in the presence of peer observability than in its absence when vertical pay dispersion is low and misreport more in the presence of peer observability than in its absence when vertical pay dispersion is high. Overall, our findings suggest that when a firm has a more egalitarian pay structure (i.e., low vertical pay dispersion), an open information policy is conducive to a more honest reporting environment, whereas under a more hierarchical pay structure (i.e., high vertical pay dispersion), open information policies can compromise the honesty of subordinates' reports.