A meta-analytic study on the relation between CEO international experience and firm performance

(1)

A meta-analytic study on the relation

between CEO international experience and

firm performance

Name: Jelle van den IJssel Student Number: S3760650 Word Count: 12,901

Date: January 15th₂₀₂₁

Master Thesis International Business & Management University of Groningen

(2)

List of tables

Table 1. Meta-analytic findings……….………14

Table 2. Overview of variables and moderators………...31-32 Table 3. Results bivariate meta-analysis………34

Table 4. Results moderator year of data collection………37

Table 5. Results moderator region……….38

Table 6. Results moderator firm size……….39

Table 7. Results moderator CEO tenure………41

(4)

List of Figures

(5)

List of abbreviations

CEO Chief Executive Officer CI Confidence Interval

ELT Experiential Learning Theory IE International Experience RBV Resource-Based View ROA Return on Assets ROI Return on Investment

SME Small and medium-sized enterprises SML Small, medium, and large enterprises S&P 500 Standard & Poor’s 500 index

(6)

Abstract

Demand for business leaders with international experience is ever-increasing in the current corporate landscape. This demand originates from the notion that CEO international experience has been found to influence firm performance positively. Several studies that examined this linkage have already been performed for various regions, industries, and firm sizes. However, these studies found varying results regarding the relation between CEO international experience and firm performance, although most studies did see positive results. What is still lacking in this field of research, however, is a study that investigates how the various international experience dimensions relate to firm performance and how particular (contextual) moderators impact the linkage between CEO international experience and firm performance. This study will address this gap in current literature by combining the resource-based view, the upper-echelons theory, and the experiential learning theory with a meta-analysis on the various international experience facets and by examining potential moderators. The meta-analysis includes data from 22,991 firms embedded in the data of 44 independent studies. By performing a meta-analysis, more robust findings are brought to the current body of knowledge. Therefore, this study adds to the existing body of knowledge by providing an aggregated overview of data embedded in existing research to offer more precise effect size estimates and a more detailed and comprehensive understanding regarding the linkage between CEO international experience and firm performance.

(7)

1. Introduction

The effect that the international experience of a Chief Executive Officer (CEO) has on firm performance has drawn numerous international business academics' attention over the past years. Several research articles have been devoted to examining this relationship. One of the most cited papers in this field of international business research is the paper by Daily et al. in which the authors found that "firms with CEOs joining a company with the international experience enjoyed firm performance advantages concerning all three performance measures (ROA, ROI, and market-to-book ratio)” (Daily, Certo, & Dalton, 2000, p. 520).

As the number of workers that take on global assignments increases throughout the decades; however, an important question arises: how did the relationship between CEO international experience and firm performance develop throughout the years? A recent study by

PricewaterhouseCoopers predicts that the number of assignees of an international assignment will increase by 50% over the next decade, as presented in figure one (PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2010). Some of these assignees will grow to become the CEO of a firm, raising the question to which extent the international experience of a CEO will continue to impact firm performance.

Figure 1: Mobile population in large organizations as adopted from PricewaterhouseCoopers

(2010)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Average number of assignees

(8)

A similar trend is found under Chinese students; in 2007, 144,500 students were sent overseas, whereas this number has increased significantly to 413,900 in 2013 (Duan, Hou, & Rees, 2020). This development implies that future CEOs not only encounter international experiences during their career but that these experiences are also often gained at a younger age, prior to starting their careers. Rickley (2019) also observed that executives in the current business field

increasingly possess significant international experiences. This occurrence again illustrates that international experience is becoming more common as opposed to the beginning of the century, making that the competitive advantage gained from human capital in firms from CEOs with international experience could have changed throughout the years.

Previous research has called for several future research directions in this field. For example, Le and Kroll (2017) called for future research on the contextual factors that influence the

relationship between CEO international experience and firm performance. These contextual factors include firm size, region, and various timeframes (Le & Kroll, 2017). This study aims to respond to this call for additional research by combining studies performed in multiple time frames and by performing a moderator analysis on several other moderating variables, which are introduced in section 2.2.2. Furthermore, Magnusson and Boggs (2006) state that differences occur in CEO international experience throughout the various regions around the globe.

Specifically, they state, "In Europe, for example, we expect that international experience is more common among all top-level executives, which may, from a resource-based perspective, reduce both its value to each individual CEO candidate as well as the firm value of having an

(9)

(Backman, 2014, p. 557). Notably, Backman (2014) states that locational attributes influence the human capital within a firm, especially in service-firms that are knowledge-intensive, which in turn influences firm-level outcomes. This finding warrants future research into the moderating effect of the country that a study is performed in on the relationship between CEO international experience and firm performance.

Drawing on the Resource-Based View (RBV), it can be argued that the competitive advantage of having a CEO with international experience has decreased throughout the years. The RBV is used to understand how internal resources can help a firm gain and maintain a competitive advantage (Barney, 1991). An internal resource should be valuable, rare, imperfectly imitable, and sustainable to provide a competitive advantage (Barney, 1991). When the number of CEOs with international experience has increased throughout the years, the rarity, value, and

(10)

The Upper Echelons Theory (UET) is further used in this research. This theory states that organizational outcomes are partially predicted by managerial background characteristics of the top-level management team (Hambrick, 2007). UET thus indicates that firm-level outcomes are (somewhat) determined by individual-level factors. The UET is widely used in studies on the topic of CEO international experience and its relation with firm performance (Le & Kroll, 2017; Hsu, Chen, & Cheng, 2013). An example of this is the paper by Le and Kroll (2017), where it is argued international experience aids in developing skills, distinctive worldviews, global

networks, and the ability to process complex and dynamic information. These developments influence organizational outcomes as the managerial background characteristics are changed as a result of the international experience.

The experiential learning theory (ELT) further relates to the topic of interest. The ELT is widely used in management learning research (Kolb & Kolb, 2011). The theory provides a dynamic view built on a learning cycle (presented in figure 3 in chapter 2.2.1 of this paper) in which learning is a result of interactions between an individual and the environment (Kolb & Kolb, 2011). Or, in simple terms, “constructing knowledge and meaning from real-life experience” (Yardley, Teunissen, & Dornan, 2012, p. 161). This particularly fits the relationship between CEO international experience and firm performance as CEO international experience is based on the development (learning) of skills based on the environment the individual has found

him/herself in.

(11)

strategic management research has often used the ELT's underpinnings to understand the underlying reasons for differences concerning the performance of corporations (Yu, Chen, & Nguyen, 2014).

While several individual studies on the aforementioned topic have already been executed, the inconsistent findings regarding the linkage between CEO international experience and firm performance make this topic suited for a meta-analysis. By performing a meta-analysis, this research can bring broad empirical evidence with more robust findings to the current body of knowledge (Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2011). A meta-analysis has further been found to generate more convincing and valuable results than a single study (Deshpandé & Farley, 1998). This study aims to expand the knowledge in this field by consolidating the

knowledge embedded in prior research and by testing various potential moderators. Making that this research can have several theoretical and practical and implications for the international business field.

First, it could allow us to understand the extent to which a CEO's international experience influences firm performance and which moderators impact this linkage. In the current corporate landscape where business activities are increasingly globalized, it is essential to identify to which extent having a CEO with international experience on board of a firm impacts firm performance. Furthermore, it is necessary to determine how (contextual) variables impact this linkage as demand for business leaders with international experience is ever-increasing in the present day (Jones, 2019).

(12)

based on the RBV, the theoretical notion that the international experience of a CEO should be valuable, rare, and inimitable to provide (long-term) value to the firm could have changed throughout the years. From previous research, it has become clear that the number of employees and scholars with international experience has increased over time. However, what remains unknown is how this trend has impacted the linkage between CEO international experience and firm performance. However, it is focal to identify the importance of this resource for firms to comprehend whether or not this resource is still able to provide (long-term) value to the corporation.

Moreover, from the UET, it has been identified that organizational outcomes are partially predicted by the background characteristics of the top-level management team (Hambrick & Mason, 1984). However, what is still lacking strong empirical evidence is to which extent these characteristics impact firm performance, especially in the field of the linkage between CEO international experience and firm performance in which prior findings have differed from study to study. Therefore, it is essential to find more broad empirical evidence regarding the

aforementioned linkage to advance and confirm theory in this field. Lastly, the ELT has stated that the best way to learn is by having real-life experiences (Kolb & Kolb, 2011). However, a gap in the current body of research is which elements of the international experience of a CEO or a combination thereof impact firm performance the most. These elements must be identified so that corporations can allocate their resources most efficiently and effectively.

(13)

2. Theoretical Background

2.1 Literature review

The relationship between CEO international experience and firm performance is intensively studied in the field of international business. The findings of these studies, however, have not always been consistent. The various present studies find varying effect sizes and significance levels. Making that this research topic is suitable for a meta-analysis to provide an aggregated overview of the multiple findings and calculate the average effect sizes (Rosenthal & DiMatteo, 2001).

Furthermore, the meta-analytical technique used in this research enables several moderators to be examined regarding the linkage between CEO international experience and firm performance (Rosenthal & DiMatteo, 2001). By performing various moderator analyses, the previous requests for future research by authors of existing literature can be responded to. For example, a

moderator analysis could be performed on the location of the various studies to examine the effect across the globe (Magnusson & Boggs, 2006). Another example could be to conduct a moderator analysis regarding the timeframes of the various studies to assess the development of the linkage between CEO international experience and firm performance over time (Le & Kroll, 2017).

(14)

capital in question was not readily available in labor markets (Crook, Todd, Combs, Woehr, & Ketchen Jr, 2011).

Table 1: Meta-analytic findings

Similarly, Kirca et al. (2012) found a positive effect between specific CEO characteristics such as the international experience of a CEO and the multinationality of a firm. International experience embedded in human and relational capital was found to most significantly impact

Author(s) K N Main study purpose Findings

Schepker, Kim, Patel, Thatcher & Campion (2017) 159 55,718

To investigate the relationship between CEO succession and firm-level outcomes

CEO succession negatively influences firm performance in the short-term; no significant direct effect was found for long-term performance

Crook, Todd, Combs & Woehr (2011)

257 47,958

To investigate the relationship between investments in human capital and firm-level outcomes

Human capital relates strongly to performance; this is especially the case when the human capital in question is not readily tradable in labor markets Kirca, Hult, Deligonul, Perryy & Cavusgil (2012) 305 96,754

To identify the drivers of firm multinationality

(Strong) support is found regarding the positive effect of the characteristics of executives on firm multinationality. International experience embedded in human and relational capital is the most significant firm-level factor that influences firm multinationality

Wang, Holmes, Oh & Zhu (2016)

175 174,392

To identify the roles that CEOs play in firm performance through the UET perspective

(15)

firm multinationality (Kirca, Hult, Deligonul, Perryy, & Cavusgil, 2012). This indicates the importance of international experience for firm-level outcomes. Lastly, Wang et al. (2016) previously found further evidence of CEO characteristics' positive influence on firm-level outcomes through strategic actions (Wang, Holmes, Oh, & Zhu, 2016). In summary, prior meta-analyses on similar topics appear to have found consensus regarding the positive role CEO characteristics could have on firm-level outcomes but also leave room for further development of knowledge in this field.

The most common construct of CEO international experience encountered in international business research consists of three distinct elements 1. the length of time of the international experience (“IE length”) 2. the number of countries in which the international experience has been gained and (“IE breadth” or “IE countries” as adopted in this research) 3. the cultural distance encountered in the international experience (“IE depth” or “IE distance” as adopted in this research) (Le & Kroll, 2017). Furthermore, several studies include a dummy variable (has the individual had international education or work experience yes or no) for international experience in their research to determine if and to which extent CEO international experience influences firm performance (McGuire & Wang, 2017). Other studies, such as the paper by Daily, Certo, and Dalton (2000), use a composite construct of CEO international experience in which they include several elements into one measure. The composite measure in their research consists of the number of international assignments and total years in such assignments, for example (Daily, Certo, & Dalton, 2000).

(16)

contrast, other studies used other aspects of firm performance, such as corporate social strategy, measured through the KLD index, which is a socially responsible investing (SRI) index (Peng, 2017). Commonly used financial performance indicators are 1. a firms’ return on assets (ROA) (Hsu, Chen, & Cheng, 2013) or, 2. a firms’ return on investment (ROI) (Slater & Dixon-Fowler, 2008).

Various other studies encountered during the literature research showed that some previous literature presented individual correlations between specific measures, such as CEO international experience and ROA (Carpenter, Sanders, & Gregersen, 2001). Whereas other studies created a composite variable of firm performance, such as the paper by Seo and Lee (2017), in which they included several financial indicators to calculate export performance in one financial measure.

The objective measures of firm performance result in the fact that the various studies included in the research can be compared with one another (Al-Matari, Al-Swidi, & Hanim, 2014). Prior research has further found that subjective firm performance measures are often closely related to objective measures (Singh, Darwish, & Potočnik, 2016). Subjective performance measures are also found to have the ability to be successfully employed in assessing firm performance (Singh, Darwish, & Potočnik, 2016). As a result, studies with objective firm performance measures can also be used for comparative purposes in this research's meta-analysis sample. Various

moderators have been deployed in testing the relationship between CEO international experience and firm performance. Commonly used moderators include firm size, industry, and study

(17)

2.2 Development of hypotheses

The upcoming section provides a theoretical basis from which the hypotheses are developed. A visual representation of the hypotheses and the variables are depicted in the conceptual model found in figure two below. The theories used as a foundation of this paper, the resource-based view of the firm, the upper-echelons theory, and the experiential learning theory, are presented first. After that, the literature on the relationship between CEO international experience and firm performance is discussed. Following the theoretical basis regarding the linkage between CEO international experience and firm performance, the hypotheses are developed in section 2.2.1. Following this section, the potential moderating variables are introduced in section 2.2.2, from which additional hypotheses are derived. In the last section of this chapter, 2.2.3, the

methodological moderator is considered.

Figure 2: The conceptual model

Firm Performance IE Length IE Countries IE Distance Composite IE Overall IE Dummy IE

Year of data collection

Multiculturality region

Firm size

(18)

2.2.1 The theoretical underpinnings of the linkage between CEO international experience and firm performance

The first theory that has previously been used in investigating the linkage between CEO international experience and firm performance is the RBV. The RBV states that an internal resource should be valuable, inimitable, and scarce to provide a competitive advantage to the firm (Barney, 1991). The fact that international assignment experience is becoming more common and that dispersion of this international experience is not equal throughout the globe could imply that an underlying determinant in these two factors, location and time of data collection, influences the relationship between CEO international experience and firm performance. In determining under which conditions a resource could provide a sustained competitive advantage, previous research has stated that "valuable resources must be in short supply and semi-permanently tied to the firm in order to deliver lasting above-average

performance" (Crook, Todd, Combs, Woehr, & Ketchen Jr, 2011, p. 444). If this is not the case, competition would be in a position just to purchase the same resources or ones to function in a similar way and thus discredit any competitive advantage a firm might have (Peteraf, 1993).

Several research articles stipulate why human capital might not be a significant indicator of firm performance through the lens of the RBV (Crook, Todd, Combs, Woehr, & Ketchen Jr, 2011). These reasons come down to one primary dilemma, human capital that is not firm-specific but still valuable for a firm (e.g., industry experience) puts the individual possessing the knowledge in a position to offer his/her services to the highest bidder. This phenomenon can continue up to the point where this employee's costs equal the benefits a firm could retrieve from the individual (Coff, 1997). Hence, due to the strategic factor market and the appropriability condition

(19)

the benefits it could bring to the firm (Coff, 1997, 1999). These theoretical concepts might provide an explanation as to why findings on this topic have varied in the past.

The UET also has a significant role in the literature on the relationship between CEO

international experience and firm performance. This theory states that organizational outcomes are partially predicted by managerial background characteristics of the top-level management team (Hambrick, 2007). Previous research further found that drawing on the UET, “international experience can be instrumental in managers developing a knowledge base and mind-set that allows them to be more confident and effective in foreign environments.” (Yeoh, 2014, p. 82). Thus, enhancing the (international) performance of a firm (Yeoh, 2014). Additionally,

international assignment experience also influences managerial risk perception (Yeoh, 2014). Moreover, international assignment experience gives a CEO greater confidence in their ability to correctly estimate risks and returns, enhancing financial and non-financial performance (Yeoh, 2014).

Wang et al. (2016) further stated that the prior career experience of a CEO shapes their strategic choices. Based on the preceding career experiences, CEOs bring specific orientations and perspectives to their role in the firm. According to the UET, "these prior career experiences affect CEOs' strategic choices by shaping the information they seek and notice, how they

(20)

said that “CEO characteristics manifest in firm strategic actions and, in this way, future firm performance” (Wang, Holmes, Oh, & Zhu, 2016, p. 775).

The UET is further built on the premises of bounded rationality, which, in essence, refers to human limitations in using, accessing, and processing information (Hambrick, 2007; Holmes Jr, Bromily, Devers, Holcomb, & McGuire, 2011). Based on the bounded rationality premises, the limitations of this concept influence the field of vision, perception, and CEOs' interpretation (Wang, Holmes, Oh, & Zhu, 2016). The cognitive biases and personality traits of a CEO that could (partly) be shaped through international experience hence could give an individual-specific interpretation of the strategic situations a firm faces and thus shape their strategic choices (Wang, Holmes, Oh, & Zhu, 2016).

(21)

Figure 3: Experiential learning cycle (Kolb & Kolb, 2011, p. 44)

A CEO’s international assignment experience is further held to provide them with a global management skill due to encounters with different languages, value systems, and institutional environments (Ricks, Toyne, & Martinez, 1990). These skills allow for “new ways of learning and responding to stimuli because of socio-cultural differences” (Ricks, Toyne, & Martinez, 1990, p. 220). Moreover, international experience has led to enhanced global networks of CEOs (Edstrom & Galbraith, 1997). Combined, the improved learning capabilities and global networks have proven to be a valuable asset to firms’ operations (Carpenter, Sanders, & Gregersen, 2001). The enhanced global network resulting from the international assignment experience has also proven to contribute to inter-and intrafirm trust. It has been linked to firm performance through the RBV (Barney, 1992).

(22)

financial performance, measured through ROA in their paper. The sample of this paper consists of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in Taiwan (Hsu, Chen, & Cheng, 2013). Thus, an example of the differences between these studies is the location, firm size, and time of the study. Moreover, significance levels and magnitudes of the effects differ (Hsu, Chen, & Cheng, 2013; Carpenter, Sanders, & Gregersen, 2001). These differences warrant further research into the underlying determinants of the linkage between CEO international experience and firm performance as well as potential moderators.

As found in recent research of the consulting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers, the number of international assignments that large firms issue to their employees continues to increase, which means that the number of CEOs with international assignment experience is also likely to increase in the years to come (PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2010). Furthermore, it is worth noting that previous studies have flagged the differences in the number of CEOs with international experience between the various regions in the world (Carpenter, Sanders, & Gregersen, 2001). Carpenter et al. (2001) state that “on one level, for instance, international assignment experience may be more common among European or Asian CEOs and therefore less rare from a resource- and capabilities-based perspective” (Carpenter, Sanders, & Gregersen, 2001, p. 508). Based on these theoretical underpinnings, the following hypotheses are drafted:

Hypothesis 1: “The international experience of a CEO has a positive effect on firm

performance.”

Hypothesis 2: “A multifaceted measure for international experience has a larger influence on

(23)

2.2.2 Contextual moderators

Former research has also indicated the importance of testing various contextual moderators on the relationship between CEO international experience and firm performance. A total of four contextual moderators were used to formulate hypotheses, namely, the year of data collection, region, firm size, and CEO tenure.

This study can assess potential differences in the hypothesized effect throughout the years by including the year of data collection as a moderating variable. The comparison of various time series in the hypothesized relationship was previously called for by Le and Kroll (2017) in the existing literature. Recent studies such as the report presented by PricewaterhouseCoopers (2010) and Duan et al. (2020) indicate that the number of employees or students with

international experience has grown in the last years, meaning that the effect of CEO international experience on firm-level outcomes could have decreased throughout the years from an RBV perspective. This is because the resource is becoming decreasingly rare and difficult to possess. Additionally, one could argue that corporations are increasingly able to benefit from prior international experiences attributable to the globalization of the past decade, meaning that therefore, the CEO might play a less critical role in achieving enhanced firm performance in the current business landscape (Kirca, Hult, Deligonul, Perryy, & Cavusgil, 2012). As a result, the following hypothesis was formulated:

Hypothesis 3: “The effect of CEO international experience on firm performance has decreased

throughout the years.”

The variable region was added as a moderator to establish if regional differences can be

(24)

It is expected that in regions where international experience needs to be utilized more often, for example, in Europe where the business environment is more multicultural, the effect of CEO international experience on firm performance is more substantial (Schworm, et al., 2017). Hamori and Koyuncu (2011) further add to this by suggesting that “culture shocks” are

experienced more often in regions where the countries are smaller (i.e., in Europe as opposed to North-America, for example). The international experience could provide a (partial) solution to overcoming these culture shocks, which in turn could positively impact firm-level outcomes (Hamori & Koyuncu, 2011). Hence:

Hypothesis 4: “The multiculturality of the business environment positively moderates the effect of CEO international experience on firm performance.”

Firm size was added as a third moderating variable. By including this variable, this study can

identify differences in the composition of the samples (i.e., SMEs, large firms or small- and medium-sized enterprises as well as large firms) of the studies used for the meta-analysis. Garcia-Morales et al. (2007) found that the influence of CEOs in SMEs is more significant compared to large firms. Hsu et al. (2013) alternatively state that large corporations have more human capital available to compensate for potential shortcomings of the CEO skill set.

(25)

Hypothesis 5: “Firm size negatively moderates the relationship between CEO international

experience and firm performance.”

Lastly, CEO tenure was added as a moderating variable. CEO tenure within the firm has been found to both positively and negatively influence firm-level outcomes in previous research. The mean value of this variable is taken from the studies included in the meta-analysis to assess its effect on the relation between CEO international experience and firm performance. CEO tenure has been found to affect the linkage between CEO international experience and firm performance in various ways in prior studies. Simsek (2007) found that CEO tenure influences company performance through the top management team (TMT) of a firm. As a CEO’s tenure increases, so does the risk-taking appetite of the CEO, which could have a negative influence on firm performance (Simsek, 2007).

(26)

Hypothesis 6a: “CEO tenure positively moderates the relationship between CEO international

Hypothesis 6b: “CEO tenure negatively moderates the relationship between CEO international

2.2.3 Methodological moderators

A methodological moderator is also included in the meta-analysis, namely, the industry in which the included studies' sample data was retrieved from. The industry variable was included to test the generalizability of the findings of the meta-analysis. For instance, previous research has found that the importance of CEO characteristics does not differ much across various industries (Rajagopalan & Deepak, 1996). Because a meta-analysis includes several studies for which the data can be compared, this prior finding can be examined further. An exploratory research question was formulated for this moderator, namely:

(27)

3. Methodology

This research uses meta-analytic techniques, which are useful in compiling data from previous studies into a single study to assess the investigated topic's effect throughout the various research (Rosenthal & DiMatteo, 2001). The meta-analytical technique is a quantitative research design. The meta-analysis is useful in aggregating results of multiple previous studies where results have, in some cases, been found to be varying (i.e., varying effect sizes and significance levels) (Rosenthal & DiMatteo, 2001). Moreover, meta-analysis can identify moderator variables that can aid in the explanation of the differences between the various studies (Rosenthal & DiMatteo, 2001). Meta-analysis further allows for a calculation of the average effect size across multiple studies (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004).

3.1 Literature search

The literature review process aimed to find the highest possible number of studies to be included in the meta-analysis. The process was divided into several sections, namely, collection, selection, sample determination, and analysis.

(28)

cannot be included in the sample as it would not allow for a direct comparison between the studies, which is not in line with the chosen research method. Furthermore, the various studies used in the research will have to have different samples to avoid overrepresentation of a particular sample. An overrepresented sample would make the results of the analysis less credible and accurate. Lastly, the study has to present measures for the various contextual moderators that are indicated in section two of this research to be able to perform a moderator analysis on these factors.

At the time of writing, a Google Scholar search with the search string “CEO international experience” and “firm performance” yields about 188 results. These results range from 1995 up to and including 2020. According to Field (2003), meta-analysis cannot be conducted with fewer than 20 studies; more than that is seen as sufficient. Therefore, prior to any other selection criteria but the search string, the topic of interest for this research has an adequate number of studies to conduct a meta-analysis.

(29)

Upon completion of the collection phase, 44 independent samples were identified to be relevant for a meta-analysis on the topic of interest with an overall sample size of 22,991 firms. This is sufficient to conduct a meta-analysis (Cheung, Ho, Lim, & Mak, 2012). The minimum sample size is 74, while the maximum sample size is 5,500, the average sample size is 522 firms. The year in which the studies selected for the meta-analysis were published ranged from 1995 to 2020. Please note that the year of the data collection of these studies is not always equal to the year a study was published. A large share of the studies was published between 2015-2020, signaling the increase in interest in the relation between CEO international experience and its effect on firm performance in recent years.

In terms of the geographical distribution of the papers included in the sample, various global regions were represented though not equally distributed. The majority of the studies were conducted in Asia (18), North America (14), and Europe (8). The remaining regions or a combination of various regions were less represented, namely, North America & Europe (2), Africa (1), and finally, a global sample (1). Moreover, from an industry point of view, the majority of the studies contained a sample of mixed industries (26). The remaining study samples contained manufacturing (12) and service firms (6). Lastly, the majority of the studies included in the meta-analysis had a sample consisting of large enterprises (28). The remaining studies had a sample composed of small and medium-sized enterprises (7) and samples

(30)

3.2 Coding

The coding process was initiated by creating a coding sheet that aggregated all relevant

information from the selected studies in the collection phase. For each of the studies, several of the effect sizes and sample sizes were collected in addition to various other elements that will be discussed hereafter. The studies that were included in the sample expressed both the international experience of a CEO as well as firm performance in various ways.

The international experience of a CEO was coded as the length, distance, or countries of the international experience or a combination thereof. Furthermore, coding measures were made for dummy international experience variables (international experience/education yes or no) and composite international experience measures that included several international experience elements into one measure. A wide range of firm performance measures was also encountered in the coding process. The various measures encountered included objective measures such as financial measures (e.g., the ROA) as well as subjective measures such as a Likert scale measurement on several elements such as the satisfaction of business goals and objectives (Musteen, Francis, & Datta, 2010). The objective, accounting-based measures for firm performance are best aligned with the UET (Wang, Holmes, Oh, & Zhu, 2016).

(31)

as moderators were included in the study to assess their effect on the relationship between CEO international experience and firm performance: the year of data collection of the study, firm size, industry, CEO tenure, and country of the study. The country of the study was further subdivided into the various global regions. For the categorization of firm size, the recommendation of the European Commission was adopted in which firms with more than 250 employees are

considered large (European Commission, 2020). Corporations with a staff headcount between 50-250 are considered small and medium-sized enterprises (European Commission, 2020).

3.3 Overview of meta-analyses

For clarity purposes, an overview of all the variables included in the meta-analysis as well as a common definition or explanation of the respective variables is provided in table two found below.

Table 2: Overview of variables and moderators

Variables Explanation

Firm performance

Measured as an objective (e.g., financial indicators such as the ROA) (Hsu, Chen & Cheng, 2013) or subjective measure (e.g., a Likert scale on a manager his view on firm performance indicators) (Musteen, Francis & Datta, 2010)

International

experience International work or education experience of a CEO

International

experience length The length of time of the international experience (Le & Kroll, 2017)

International experience countries

The number of different countries a CEO has gained international experience from (Le & Kroll, 2017)

International experience distance

The cultural distance between home and host country the international experience was gained from (Le & Kroll, 2017)

Composite international experience

A multifaceted measure of CEO international experience that includes several elements such as the number of international assignments and total years in such assignments (Daily, Certo & Dalton, 2000) Dummy

international experience

Categorical variable on whether or not a CEO has studied/worked abroad (Sun, Peng & Tan, 2017)

(32)

Moderators

Year of data

collection Whether the data of a paper was collected prior to or after 2009

Region _{Indicates from which region the data of a study was collected}

Firm size Whether the sample of a study consisted of SMEs, large or small,

medium and large firms

CEO tenure _{Whether the CEO tenure was below or above seven years}

Industry Whether the firms in the sample of the paper were active in service,

manufacturing, or mixed industries

3.4 Analytic techniques

Several previous meta-analyses on similar human capital topics were consulted for the analytical techniques implemented in this research. Similar to what other meta-analyses on human capital studies found, the studies included in the meta-analyses of this narrative almost all lacked a reliability coefficient such as the Cronbach’s Alpha, making that the coefficients could not be corrected for measurement error. However, based on the consensus that similar research seems to have agreed upon, this was not seen as a unique limitation to this research (e.g., Wang, Holmes, Oh & Zhu, 2016; Crook, Todd, Combs, Woehr, & Ketchen, 2011).

A 95% confidence interval (CI) was adopted in this study. The regression coefficient can be deemed statistically significant when it does not include a zero (this information is presented and discussed in the results section) (Ellis, 2010). The sampling error is indicated as having the most considerable impact on study findings (Crook, Todd, Combs, Woehr, & Ketchen Jr, 2011). The sampling error was corrected for by weighing the sample sizes of the included studies against the mean effect size stated in the respective research. Ellis (2006) recommended this as the

probability for more precise results is higher for studies with larger sample sizes. The Q-score and the I2 value were calculated, and both were reported and discussed in the results section to

(33)

4. Results

The following section describes the results of the bivariate meta-analysis and further provides insight into the moderator analysis results. The results are graphically presented in table three through eight. Please note that studies that included several singular IE measures (e.g., IE length and IE countries as separate measures) were included in the meta-analysis more than once to assess the individual effect of the various IE measures. Hence, the number of studies and the number of individual firms included in these studies is slightly inflated in tables three through eight below. The “actual” number of studies used for the meta-analysis is 44, whereas the number of firms included in these studies is 22,991.

4.1 Results of the bivariate meta-analysis

The results of the bivariate meta-analysis can be found in table three, presented below. The hypotheses that are tested in this section are: hypothesis 1, “the international experience of a CEO has a positive effect on firm performance.” and hypothesis 2, “a multifaceted measure for international experience has a larger influence on firm performance as opposed to singular international experience measures.” The table indicates the correlation coefficients of the various international experience measures and firm performance.

(34)

and dummy IE (p= 0.05 CI= 0.01/0.08) are found to have a positive and significant regression coefficient but to a lesser extent compared to the composite IE measure.

Table 3: Results bivariate meta-analysis

The correlation coefficients for IE length, overall IE, and dummy IE are nearly identical.

Remarkably, the correlation coefficient for the composite IE measure is nearly double that of the aforementioned IE measures. This phenomenon is supported by the ELT, in which holistic experience measures are found to impact firm-level outcomes more significantly. Furthermore, it is worth noting that the higher regression coefficient of the composite IE measure is not a result of an outlier. The correlation coefficient of the insignificant measures is among the least strong correlations in the results.

The total sample size (“N”) in each of the IE groups is dispersed somewhat unequally but is in line with the number of studies (“K”) in each of the groups. Due to the low sample sizes in some of the IE measure groups, it is not possible to look more deeply at the moderators in section 4.2. Hence, only the overall IE measure was used in the moderator analysis section.

Based on the findings presented in table three, hypothesis one can be confirmed as the overall IE regression coefficient is positive and significant, meaning that the IE of a CEO does have a significant positive influence on firm performance. This finding is in line with most existing

(35)

research on this particular topic. Hypothesis two can also be confirmed based on the results presented in table three; the multifaceted measurement construct, composite IE, shows stronger correlations as opposed to singular IE measures. The regression coefficient of the composite IE measure is positive and significant at 95%. This finding is in line with the prediction of the paper by Kolb & Kolb (2011).

The results were further tested for publication bias; this form of bias occurs when the literature that appears in research is systematically unrepresentative of the population of completed studies (Rothstein, Sutton, & Borenstein, 2005). Publication bias could cause the readers and reviewers of a specific research to draw the wrong conclusion about the cumulative research knowledge in that particular Field (Rothstein, Sutton, & Borenstein, 2005). No publication bias was present in this research, as indicated by the #TF column of table 2. If the #TF column had indicated

anything else but zero, publication bias would be present (Rothstein, Sutton, & Borenstein, 2005). Table three further shows measures for the level of heterogeneity in the results, as seen in the column of the Q statistic and the I2. The Q statistic allows for the assessment of the

significance of the differences between two or more matched samples on a dichotomous outcome (Salkind, 2010).

The Q statistic is high for overall IE, IE length, and dummy IE, indicating heterogeneity in the sample. The high Q value for the overall IE measure exceeds the threshold of 75, meaning that potential moderators should be looked for. Moreover, the I2 value, which describes the

(36)

statistics and the I2 value show that potential moderators should be looked for, which will be done in the subsequent section.

4.2 Results of moderator analysis

A moderator analysis was performed to answer the hypothesis presented in section 2.2.2 and to follow up on the heterogeneity results found in the previous section. A total of five moderators are tested in this section as derived from the conceptual model and hypotheses. The moderators are presented in the following order; year of data collection, region, firm size, CEO tenure, and industry. All moderator analyses are based on the overall measure of IE due to the limitations of the meta-analysis sample discussed in section 4.1.

(37)

Table 4: Results moderator year of data collection

Based on the results presented in table four, no support is found for hypothesis three. The regression coefficient did not change for the studies throughout the years, meaning that the importance of CEO IE did not become more or less critical for firm-level outcomes. Moreover, the results of the moderator analysis are found to be insignificant. Hence, this finding cannot provide clarity regarding the call for future research by Le and Kroll in which they call for an assessment of the effect in various time series (Le & Kroll, 2017).

Moderator analysis overall IE and region. Table five shows the results of the moderator analysis between overall IE and the region of data collection. The hypothesis related to this moderator analysis, hypothesis 4, states that “the multiculturality of the business environment positively moderates the effect of CEO international experience on firm performance”. The average effect size is found to be most significant in Europe (r= 0.13), followed by Asia (r= 0.07) and North-America (r= 0.07). Remarkably, the effect size in a combined sample of multiple regions showed a negative correlation coefficient (r= -0.02). For an African sample (r= 0.02), only one study was available in each category, making that the effect size is potentially inaccurate as the data for this moderator group was only attributed to one dataset.

(38)

Table 5: Results moderator region

The majority of the studies included in the meta-analysis had an Asian (k= 18) or a North-American sample (k= 16). Europe is also quite well represented (k= 9). In terms of total sample size in each of the moderator groups, Asia (N= 8,817), multi-regional (N= 9,583), and North-America are relatively well-represented (N= 6,183). Both Europe (N= 1,708) and especially Africa (N= 227) were less well-represented in terms of total sample sizes.

A possible explanation for the larger average effect size in Europe could be the smaller nations compared to North-America, for example, meaning that “culture shocks” are experienced more often for which IE could provide a (partial) solution (Hamori & Koyuncu, 2011). Moreover, in line with the findings of Schworm et al. (2017), the effect of CEO IE on firm performance does, in fact, appear to be stronger in a region in which the IE is utilized more frequently. A further explanation of the higher regression coefficient in Europe could be because of the fact that one study with a composite IE measure was included in this moderator group, which, one average,

has shown to have a larger average effect size on firm performance as opposed to other IE measures. Further results of the moderator analysis indicate that the difference in the average correlation for all the relations is significant (Qbetween= 26.32 Pbetween= 0.000).

(39)

Findings presented in table five indicate support for hypothesis four as the effect of CEO IE is found to be more substantial and significant in a more multicultural context (i.e., Europe) as opposed to less multicultural regions such as North-America. Findings for the multi-regional and Africa region cannot be used as evidence for the hypothesis due to the low number of

observations in these regions.

Moderator analysis overall IE and firm size. The results of the moderator analysis between overall IE and firm size are presented in table six below. The hypothesis that was drafted for this moderator, hypothesis 5, states that “firm size negatively moderates the relationship between CEO international experience and firm performance”. The majority of the samples were retrieved from large firms (k= 31), followed by small, medium, and large firms (SML) (k= 11) and small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) (k= 7). The average effect size was found to be largest for SML (r= 0.13) and SME firm sizes (r= 0.13). Average effect sizes were significantly smaller for large firms (r= 0.04).

Table 6: Results moderator firm size

The total sample sizes across the various moderator groups are quite unevenly distributed. The largest total sample size is found for large firms (N= 17,983), followed by small- and medium-sized as well as large firms (SML) (N= 7,480) and finally SMEs (N= 1,055). However, the total sample sizes are in line with the number of studies included in each moderator group.

(40)

A possible explanation for this phenomenon could be that CEOs are found to have a more considerable influence on firm-level outcomes in SMEs (Garcia-Morales, Llorens-Montes, & Verdu-Jover, 2007), which means that their prior experiences have a larger potential effect on firm-level outcomes such as firm performance (Garcia-Morales, Llorens-Montes, & Verdu-Jover, 2007). A possible further explanation for the larger average effect size for SME and SML samples could be that both these moderator groups included a study with a composite IE measure which has been found to, on average, have a larger effect on firm performance compared to other IE measures as stated in section 4.1. Further results show that the differences in the average correlation for all the relations are significant (Qbetween= 9.46 Pbetween= 0.009).

In summary, support is found for hypothesis five in this moderator analysis. The larger the firms the sample of the study was retrieved from, the less intense the effect of CEO IE on firm

performance became, which could be due to the more considerable influence of CEOs in SMEs as found by Garcia-Morales et al. (2007). Hsu et al. (2013) provide an alternative explanation for this finding by stating that larger firms have more human capital available to compensate for the possible shortcomings of a CEO.

(41)

research. Hence, the total number of studies included in this moderator analysis (k= 26) is lower compared to other moderator analyses in this section. The number of studies in each moderator group was quite similar (KCEO tenure <7 yrs= 11, KCEO tenure >7 yrs= 15). The total sample size in either moderator group was also quite similar. The total sample size for CEO tenure <7 years was N=5670, whereas the total sample size for studies with a mean CEO tenure of >7 years was N=4569.

Table 7: Results moderator CEO tenure

Notably, the average effect size of studies with a higher mean CEO tenure was higher (r= 0.14) as opposed to studies with a lower average CEO tenure mean (r= 0.03). This finding, however, is in line with results of prior studies in which it was found that CEOs with a longer tenure a further found to have more outstanding expertise, task knowledge, and legitimacy, which in turn has a positive influence on firm-level outcomes (Kirca, Hult, Deligonul, Perryy, & Cavusgil, 2012). Subsequently, the variation between these moderator groups could also be attributed to the fact that the subgroup with a CEO tenure of more than seven years included a study with a composite IE measure. On the contrary, the subgroup with a CEO tenure did not include such a composite IE measure. The composite IE measure has shown to have a larger average effect size on firm performance as opposed to other IE measures. Moreover, additional results show that the

(42)

difference in the average correlation for all the relations is significant (Qbetween= 7.18 Pbetween= 0.007).

Conclusively, support for hypothesis 6a is found in this moderator analysis as CEOs with a longer tenure positively influence the effect of CEO IE on firm performance. In contrast, and as a result of the finding mentioned earlier, no support is found for hypothesis 6b. These combined findings could provide clarity to prior conflicting findings regarding CEO tenure and firm-level outcomes.

Moderator analysis overall IE and industry. The results of the last moderator analysis between overall IE and industry are presented in table eight below. The exploratory research question that was drafted for this moderator is as follows: “does the industry context affect the linkage

between CEO international experience and firm performance?”. The dispersion between the various moderator subgroups is quite uneven. The mixed industries sample is best represented (k= 29), followed by samples in manufacturing industries (k= 12) and service industries (k= 8), which have a somewhat similar number of studies in subgroups. A similar pattern is found in the total sample sizes in each of the moderator groups. Mixed industries represent the most extensive total sample size (N= 18,206), followed by service firms (N= 5,326), and manufacturing firms (N= 2,986).

Table 8: Results moderator industry

(43)

(44)

5. Discussion

The meta-analytical technique adopted in this research made that prior and sometimes conflicting results of previous studies could be combined into one analysis providing more convincing results as opposed to single studies (Deshpandé & Farley, 1998). Earlier research found varying effect sizes of the influence of CEO IE and its effect on firm performance. This study aimed to compile these prior results to answer the central research question, “To what extent does the international experience of a Chief Executive Officer influence firm performance? And which contextual variables moderate this relationship?”.

As stated in the research question, the meta-analytical method in this research also allowed several moderators to be tested, which do come with several practical and theoretical

implications. So do the results derived from the bivariate meta-analysis. Both will be discussed in subsequent sections of this chapter. Although previous meta-analyses were already conducted on similar topics before this research, this study aims to build on these prior studies with a more focused study purpose that investigates the relationship between the IE of a CEO and firm performance.

The findings discussed in this section are based on meta-analytic data of 44 studies that included data of 22,991 firms. This data was collected in five different regions across the globe.

(45)

5.1 Theoretical implications

In addition to aggregating prior results on the effect of CEO IE on firm performance on which basis this research provided further evidence of the positive linkage between these two elements fortifying the reasoning of the RBV, the UET, and the ELT, this research expounds further theoretical implications. The theoretical implications are fourfold.

First, this study found that not all IE measures used in prior research have a similar influence on firm performance. The bivariate meta-analysis results of section 4.1 indicate that differences do exist amongst the various IE measures. For instance, a dummy measure of IE showed a less significant linkage with firm performance than an IE measure for the length of the CEO's IE. Despite these findings, however, the low number of studies for some of the IE measures mean that this study could perform no further analysis on these differences. On the contrary, it does signal the importance of deconstructing an overall IE measure into several (composite) elements to more precisely measure the multitude of IE experience facets and its subsequent effect on firm performance.

(46)

hypothesized effect across all regions. However, this limitation does open up avenues for future research in which the hypothesized effect is compared across all global regions.

Moreover, various theoretical implications stem from further moderator analyses performed in section 4.2 as a third theoretical implication. First of all, no differences were found in the results of the studies throughout the years, nor were the results of that particular moderator analysis significant. Hence, no resolution has been found for the call by Le and Kroll (2017) as the results from studies before or after 2009 did not indicate any differences. This further implies that although the number of professionals who have gained IE throughout their career or education has accumulated over the last decades, this resource's value to firms did not decrease

accordingly, which is in contrary to the expectation based on the RBV. Furthermore, the strategic factor and appropriability condition as posed by Coff (1997,1999) was found to not apply to the linkage between CEO IE and firm performance as the overall effect was found to be positive. This finding implies that the costs of having a CEO with IE onboard do not outweigh the benefits in terms of firm-level outcomes.

(47)

decreases the dependence on the unique skillset of the CEO. Hsu et al. (2013) share this line of argumentation as they also state that in larger firms, it is more likely that other employees can compensate for the CEO’s deficiencies.

Likewise, significant differences were found in studies where the sample had a mean CEO tenure of less or more than seven years. A more positive linkage between CEO IE and firm performance was found for studies with a sample that had a mean CEO tenure of more than seven years. The regression coefficient between these two moderator groups differed quite significantly. This finding sheds new light on prior conflicting results of the influence of CEO tenure on firm-level outcomes. Previous research indicated both a positive and a negative impact of CEO tenure (Henderson, Miller, & Hambrick, 2006; Kirca, Hult, Deligonul, Perryy, & Cavusgil, 2012). This meta-analysis only found support for a positive influence of a longer CEO tenure on firm-level outcomes.

For example, Henderson et al. (2006) found contradictory influences of CEO tenure on firm-level performance across various industries in which the impact was negative in dynamic sectors and where the influence was positive in stable industries. Kirca et al. (2012), however, only found positive effects of CEO tenure on firm-level performance. Concisely, this study offers an amassed overview of studies that included a measure of CEO tenure and its moderating effect on firm performance, making that more convincing findings are added to the current body of

conflicting knowledge on this topic.

Additionally, a methodological moderator was included in this research to identify the

(48)

moderator analysis were found to be insignificant and could thus not be interpreted or used for generalizability purposes and could provide no answer to the exploratory research question. Hence, no differences or similarities across industries were identified. This limitation could, however, provide opportunities for future research.

Lastly, as a fourth theoretical implication, several connotations are derived from this research for the introduced theories. First of all, for the RBV, this research confirms that human resources can be regarded as a unique resource that could provide a competitive advantage to a firm from which enhanced firm performance results. Furthermore, this research has found that the enlarged pool of individuals that possess some form of IE has not decreased the value of this resource accordingly. Secondly, from the UET, we can confirm that the managerial characteristics of the TMT, and more specifically, the CEO, do, in fact, impact firm-level outcomes. This research further confirms that characteristics such as prior career experiences do significantly impact firm performance, meaning that the premises of the UET are further fortified. Finally, the reasoning of the ELT is strengthened by this research by finding that multifaceted IE measures impact firm performance more significantly than singular IE measures, which means that the experiential learning cycle, as introduced by Kolb and Kolb (2011), is found to also apply to the IE a CEO undergoes.

5.2 Practical implications

In addition to the theoretical implications discussed in the previous section, this research also brings about several important practical implications. Many organizations seek IE in the

(49)

of staff and, more specifically, CEOs bring about advances in firm performance. Besides, it is essential for businesses to comprehend which facets or combinations thereof have the most significant impact on firm performance to allocate their resources most efficiently and effectively.

To begin with, this research confirmed that IE embedded in human capital, specifically in CEOs, positively influences firm performance. For that reason, corporations can expect that investments in the development of IE or the acquisition of CEOs with IE do pay off. Consequently, the results of this research indicate that the strategic factor and appropriability condition of Coff (1997, 1999) do not apply to the linkage between CEO IE and firm performance. Subsequently, this further illustrates the benefits of having a CEO with IE onboard outweigh the costs of such an asset.

To which extent IE contributes to firm performance, however, does depend on the type of IE and several contextual factors. Foremost, this research has found that singular IE activities, such as the number of countries a CEO has been sent to, do not positively influence CEO IE as much as composite activities do. An example of composite IE activity is not only to identify the number of countries an individual has been to but also to look at the time an individual has spent in those nations. To sum up, the findings of this paper suggest that multiple IE factors combined should be looked at or invested in, in order to achieve an optimal impact of this resource on firm performance.

(50)

particular moderator analysis were found to be insignificant, preliminary findings suggest that having CEOs with IE onboard is still relevant to invest in or seek in order to benefit from improved firm performance. This finding is supported by the ever-increasing demand for

business leaders with IE in the current corporate landscape (Jones, 2019). Besides, the results of this meta-analysis suggest that the IE of a CEO is more vital in regions where business

operations are more international due to smaller nation-states as found in Europe, for example. Due to smaller nation-states, corporations seek international business opportunities more often, meaning that IE becomes vital for successful business outcomes.

For this reason, it is significant for companies that are mainly active in regions with smaller nations that importance is placed on having a CEO with IE at the helm. The importance of IE is less in areas such as North-America, where internal markets often already provide sufficient business opportunities meaning that resource allocation of firms mainly active in these regions could possibly better be devoted to other (human capital) resources that have a more significant impact on firm performance. This finding does come with a side note that not all regions were (sufficiently) represented in this meta-analysis, meaning that further research should be conducted on this topic.

(51)

on CEO tenure specified the importance of having CEOs on the team that have a longer tenure within the firm. The overall linkage between CEO IE and firm performance is found to be more vital for CEOs with a longer tenure. Signaling the importance of investments in employee retention in order to secure the most significant possible influence on firm performance.

To put it briefly, the IE of a CEO is confirmed to provide value to a firm. All forms of IE do contribute towards firm performance, indicating the importance of onboarding a CEO with IE or developing the IE of a CEO. Lastly, (CEO) IE within a firm could preclude management bias, which could lead to optimism and overconfidence in foreign market entry (Mascarenhas & Day, 2005). Subsequently, this could lead to failure in entering foreign markets. Enhanced

globalization of the past era does make that corporations can simply not afford to miss out on critical expansion opportunities or failure due to multicultural insensitivity, which has its consequences for overall firm performance. Conclusively, the importance of CEO IE is noticeably present in the current and former business landscape.

5.3 Limitations and future research directions

(52)

limitation provides the opportunity for future research to delve more deeply into the various components of the IE of a CEO and how these individually impact firm performance.

A second limitation of this research also results from the studies included in the meta-analysis. Some regions that were part of the sample of the studies included in the meta-analysis were well-represented in this research, such as Asia, Europe, and North-America. In contrast, other regions, such as Africa, were underrepresented. Leading to the limitation that no definitive statements could be made regarding the hypothesized effect and how this differs across the various regions of the world. As a result, however, this limitation does open up opportunities for future research. Future studies can examine the linkage between CEO IE and firm performance in regions that are (not yet) sufficiently represented in current literature. These regions are Africa, Australia, and South America. Future studies could further enhance the focus of their research to specific sub-regions to further provide more accurate theoretical and managerial implications.

(53)

benefit from results that are presented separately for the various categories of firms included in the study or even more specific samples in general.

The fourth and last limitation of this research relates to the often-generalized measures of firm performance included in the studies of the meta-analysis. Only very few studies include information about the influence of IE on specific firm performance measures such as financial measures (e.g., the ROA) or operational firm measures (e.g., marketing and R&D capabilities). As a result, it becomes more challenging for firms to infer in which situations the IE of a CEO is best used. Conclusively, future research and readers thereof could potentially benefit from separated firm performance measures to better infer applicability for the desired company performance aspect.

5.4 Conclusion

Conclusively, this research has sought to provide an answer to the central research question, “To what extent does the international experience of a Chief Executive Officer influence firm

performance? And which contextual variables moderate this relationship?”. Key findings include that the value of the IE of a CEO is demonstrated when it comes to firm performance. Besides, this study found differences in the various aspects of IE and how these subsequently influence firm performance. Moreover, the moderating effect of the region of a study, the firm size, and CEO tenure on the linkage between CEO IE and firm performance were confirmed.

(54)

abroad is further considered because this research found that a multidimensional IE measure has a stronger influence on firm performance as opposed to only emphasizing one aspect. Future research has the opportunity to investigate this finding more deeply. A final noteworthy practical implication is that the linkage between CEO IE and firm performance differs throughout the various regions of the world. Hence, stimulating the development or acquisition of a CEO with IE might be less vital for firm performance in regions such as North-America as opposed to Europe, where the influence has been found to be more substantial.

A meta-analytic study on the relation between CEO international experience and firm performance