Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Does the CMO’s personality matter for web traffic? Evidence from technology-based new ventures

  • Original Empirical Research
  • Published:
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study investigates whether the personalities of Chief Marketing Officers (CMOs) of technology-based new ventures affect how the increasing maturity of new ventures translates into web traffic. Drawing on upper echelon theory and the interactionist theory of job performance, we explain how certain personality traits from the five-factor model are relevant to the job demands a CMO faces in technology-based new ventures. We build a multi-source dataset on 627 new ventures and use a novel approach to measuring personality that is based on computer text analysis—specifically, the LIWC application—which we apply to the CMOs’ Twitter accounts. Our findings indicate that a CMO’s extraversion positively moderates the relationship between a new venture’s maturity and web traffic, while a CMO’s conscientiousness is a negative moderator of this relationship. These results have useful theoretical and practical implications for the role of the CMO and for marketing new ventures in general.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In line with the extant CMO research (e.g., Nath and Mahajan 2008), the term CMO refers to the top marketing executive in a TMT, regardless of the actual title.

  2. This notion suggests that a personality dimension can also cover traits that are not relevant to the specific situation of new ventures that we investigate but might cause a detrimental response for other outcomes. This concept is rooted in the trait activation concept from Tett and Burnett (2003), which is part of interactionist model from Judge and Zapata (2015) that we employ. The trait activation concept argues that personality traits are expressed as responses to cues, such that, if a situation does not “wake up” a specific trait by means of cues, it is not relevant to the situation. Since we embed the CMO’s personality in the situation of new ventures whose maturity is increasing, we seek traits in the context of this specific situation and discuss (in the section on future research) scenarios in which a personality dimension that we derive as being favorable for CMOs for our purposes (i.e., transforming increasing maturity into web traffic) may be detrimental in other situations.

  3. The ten most frequent Crunchbase categories in the sample are: software, mobile, enterprise software, software as a service, internet, analytics, advertising, e-commerce, social media, and apps.

  4. While one must account for variations in the data that stem from factors that affect all companies of a certain type, we caution against interpreting these variables as “classic” industry measures. Our sample consists of technology-based new ventures, which are often characterized as combining digital technologies with an industry specialization. For example, Uber (not in our sample) has the SIC code 4111—“local and suburban transit”—but it is also affected by trends in the “computer-related services” industry (SIC code 7370). Not surprisingly, the 2-digit SIC code 73 is the most frequent code in our sample.

  5. Web Appendix D provides a more detailed explanation of the application of the between effects model and the random effects model.

  6. These results are based on the negative binomial model, since prediction of logged dependent variables is not straightforward (Wooldridge 2013, pp. 212–213). Predictions were calculated using the Stata command margins, keeping all other variables at their mean value.

  7. When interpreting the economic magnitude of the effect, it is important to keep in mind that web traffic is not measured in absolute numbers but rather in page views per one million website visits (as provided by Alexa to measure the relevance of a website on a given day, relative to the traffic volume on that day; see also Zhang et al. (2011) and Edelman and Brandi (2015)). To illustrate, two page views per million for a given URL can be interpreted as follows: If one randomly selects 1000,000 website visits, two of those visits would be directed to that particular URL. To put this in perspective, in the United States, 77% of the adult population uses the Internet at least once a day (Perrin and Jiang 2018), and most of these users likely visit multiple webpages each day. This implies that the absolute number of page views is much higher. Hence, when interpreting the effect, the focus should instead lie on the increase or decrease in web traffic from low to high values of the moderator.

References

  • Ailawadi, K. L., & Farris, P. W. (2017). Managing multi- and Omni-Channel distribution: Metrics and research directions. The Future of Retailing, 93, 120–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2016.12.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antonakis, J., Bendahan, S., Jacquart, P., & Lalive, R. (2010). On making causal claims: A review and recommendations. Leadership Quarterly Yearly Review, 21, 1086–1120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.10.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2008). Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 9–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beckman, C. M., & Burton, M. D. (2008). Founding the future: Path dependence in the evolution of top management teams from founding to IPO. Organization Science, 19, 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhave, M. P. (1994). A process model of entrepreneurial venture creation. Journal of Business Venturing, 9, 223–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(94)90031-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjerke, B., & Hultman, C. (2002). Entrepreneurial marketing - the growth of small firms in the new economic era. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.

  • Boyd, D., Chandy, R. K., & Cunha, M. (2010). When do chief marketing officers affect firm value?: A customer power explanation. Journal of Marketing Research, 47, 1162–1176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T. J., Mowen, J. C., Donavan, D. T., & Licata, J. W. (2002). The customer orientation of service workers: Personality trait effects on self- and supervisor performance ratings. Journal of Marketing Research, 39, 110–119. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.39.1.110.18928.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brush, C. G., & Chaganti, R. (1996). Cooperative strategies in non-high-tech new ventures: An exploratory study. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 21(2), 37–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buyl, T., Boone, C., & Wade, J. B. (2017). CEO narcissism, risk-taking, and resilience: An empirical analysis in U.S. commercial banks. Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206317699521.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, M. A., Geletkanycz, M. A., & Sanders, W. (2004). Upper echelons revisited: Antecedents, elements, and consequences of top management team composition. Journal of Management, 30, 749–778.

    Google Scholar 

  • Certo, S. T., Busenbark, J. R., Woo, H.-S., & Semadeni, M. (2016). Sample selection Bias and Heckman models in strategic management research. Strategic Management Journal, 37, 2639–2657. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chatterjee, A., & Hambrick, D. C. (2007). It's all about me: Narcissistic chief executive officers and their effects on company strategy and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(3), 351–386.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chatterjee, A., & Hambrick, D. C. (2011). Executive personality, capability cues, and risk taking: How narcissistic CEOs react to their successes and stumbles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56, 202–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839211427534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ciavarella, M. A., Buchholtz, A. K., Riordan, C. M., Gatewood, R. D., & Stokes, G. S. (2004). The big five and venture survival: Is there a linkage? Journal of Business Venturing, 19, 465–483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2003.03.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Jong, A., Song, M., & Song, L. Z. (2013). How Lead founder personality affects new venture performance: The mediating role of team conflict. Journal of Management, 39(7), 1825–1854.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeKinder, J. S., & Kohli, A. K. (2008). Flow signals: How patterns over time affect the acceptance of start-up firms. Journal of Marketing, 72, 84–97. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.72.5.84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edelman, B., & Brandi, W. (2015). Risk, information, and incentives in online affiliate marketing. Journal of Marketing Research, 52, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.13.0472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engelen, A., Neumann, C., & Schmidt, S. (2016). Should entrepreneurially oriented firms have narcissistic CEOs? Journal of Management, 42, 698–721. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313495413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fried, V. H., & Hisrich, R. D. (1994). Toward a model of venture capital investment decision making. FM: The Journal of the Financial Management Association, 23(3), 28–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Funder, D. (2001). Personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 197–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galasso, A., & Simcoe, T. (2011). CEO overconfidence and innovation. Management Science, 57(8), 1469–1484.

    Google Scholar 

  • Germann, F., Ebbes, P., & Grewal, R. (2015). The chief marketing officer matters! Journal of Marketing, 79(3), 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerstner, W.-C., König, A., Enders, A., & Hambrick, D. C. (2013). CEO narcissism, audience engagement, and organizational adoption of technological discontinuities. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58, 257–291. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839213488773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, L. (1992). The development of markers for the big-five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gruber, M. (2004). Marketing in new ventures: Theory and empirical evidence. Schmalenbach Business Review, 56(2), 164–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gruber, M., MacMillan, I. C., & Thompson, J. D. (2010). From minds to markets: How human capital endowments shape market opportunity identification of technology start-ups. Journal of Management, 38, 1421–1449. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310386228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, A., Nadkarni, S., & Mariam, M. (2018). Dispositional sources of managerial discretion: CEO ideology, CEO personality, and firm strategies. Administrative Science Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839218793128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick, D. C. (2007). Upper echelons theory: An update. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 334–343.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanks, S., Watson, C., Jansen, E., & Chandler, G. (1993). Tighening the life-cycle construct: A taxonomic study of growth stage configurations in high-technology organizations. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18(2), 5–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hellmann, T., & Puri, M. (2002). Venture capital and the professionalization of start-up firms: Empirical evidence. Journal of Finance, 57, 169–197. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6261.00419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrmann, P., & Nadkarni, S. (2014). Managing strategic change: The duality of CEO personality. Strategic Management Journal, 35, 1318–1342. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hills, G., & LaForge, R. (1992). Research at the marketing Interface to advance entrepreneurship theory. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(3), 33–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hills, H., Hultman, C., & Miles, M. (2008). The Evoluation and development of entrepreneurial marketing. Journal of Small Business Management, 46(1), 99–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Homburg, C., Hahn, A., Bornemann, T., & Sandner, P. (2014). The role of chief marketing officers for venture capital funding: Endowing new ventures with marketing legitimacy. Journal of Marketing Research, 51(5), 625–644.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jin, L., Madison, K., Kraiczy, N. D., Kellermanns, F. W., Crook, T. R., & Xi, J. (2017). Entrepreneurial team composition characteristics and new venture performance: A meta-analysis. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41, 743–771. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Josephson, B., Johnson, J., & Mariadoss, B. (2016). Strategic marketing ambidexterity: Antecedents and financial consequences. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(4), 539–554.

    Google Scholar 

  • Judge, T. A., & Zapata, C. P. (2015). The person–situation debate revisited: Effect of situation strength and trait activation on the validity of the big five personality traits in predicting job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 58, 1149–1179. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jung, H., Vissa, B., & Pich, M. (2017). How do entrepreneurial founding teams allocate task positions? AMJ, 60, 264–294. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0813.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kazanjian, R. (1988). Relation of dominant problems to stages of growth in technology-based new ventures. Academy of Management Journal, 31(2), 257–279.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klotz, A. C., & Neubaum, D. O. (2017). Article commentary: Research on the dark side of personality traits in entrepreneurship: Observations from an organizational behavior perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 40, 7–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klotz, A. C., Hmieleski, K. M., Bradley, B. H., & Busenitz, L. W. (2014). New venture teams. Journal of Management, 40, 226–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313493325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leung, A. (2003). Different ties for different needs: Recruitment practices of entrepreneurial firms at different developmental stages. Human Resource Management, 42(4), 303–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, J., & Tang, Y. (2010). CEO hubris and firm risk taking in China: The moderating role of managerial discretion. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 45–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lodish, L., Morgan, H., & Kallianpur, A. (2001). Entrepreneurial marketing: Lessons form Wharton’s pioneering MBA course. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luo, X., & Zhang, J. (2013). How do consumer buzz and traffic in social media marketing predict the value of the firm? Journal of Management Information Systems, 30, 213–238. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222300208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mabey, C., Wong, A. L. Y., & Hsieh, L. (2015). Knowledge exchange in networked organizations: Does place matter? R&D Management, 45, 487–500. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12099.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacMillan, I., Siegel, R., & Narasimha, P. (1985). Criteria used by venture capitalists to evaluate new venture proposals. Journal of Business Venturing, 1(1), 119–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mairesse, F., Walker, M. A, Mehl, M. R., & Moore, R. K. (2007). Using linguistic cues for the automatic recognition of personality in conversation and text. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 30, 457–500.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malhotra, S., Reus, T. H., Zhu, P., & Roelofsen, E. M. (2018). The acquisitive nature of extraverted CEOs. Administrative Science Quarterly, 63, 370–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839217712240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCrae, R., & Costa, P. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1), 81–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menz, M. (2012). Functional top management team members: A review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38(1), 45–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, R. D., Dalal, R. S., & Hermida, R. (2009). A review and synthesis of situational strength in the organizational sciences. Journal of Management, 36, 121–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309349309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nadkarni, S., & Herrmann, P. (2010). CEO personality, strategic flexibility, and firm performance: The case of the Indian business outsourcing industry. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 1050–1073. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.54533196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nath, P., & Mahajan, V. (2008). Chief marketing officers: A study of their presence in Firms' top management teams. Journal of Marketing, 72(1), 65–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nath, P., & Mahajan, V. (2011). Marketing in the C-suite: A study of chief marketing officer power in Firms' top management teams. Journal of Marketing, 75(1), 60–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, D. (2016). Personality traits of an exceptionally strong CMO. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielnewman/2016/12/27/personality-traits-of-an-exceptionally-strong-cmo. Accessed 31 Jan 2018

  • Obschonka, M., Fisch, C., & Boyd, R. (2017). Using digital footprints in entrepreneurship research: A twitter-based personality analysis of superstar entrepreneurs and managers. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 8, 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbvi.2017.05.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ou, A. Y., Waldman, D. A., & Peterson, S. J. (2018). Do humble CEOs matter? An examination of CEO humility and firm outcomes. Journal of Management, 44, 1147–1173. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315604187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, G., Schwartz, H. A., Eichstaedt, J. C., Kern, M. L., Kosinski, M., Stillwell, D. J., Ungar, L. H., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2015). Automatic personality assessment through social media language. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 108(6), 934–952.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patel, P. C., & Cooper, D. (2014). The harder they fall, the faster they rise: Approach and avoidance focus in narcissistic CEOs. Strategic Management Journal, 35, 1528–1540. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pennebaker, J. W., Boyd, R., Jordan, K., & Blackburn, K. (2015). The development and psychometric properties of LIWC2015. Austin: University of Texas at Austin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrin and Jiang. (2018). About a quarter of U.S. adults say they are ‘almost constantly’ online. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/03/14/about-a-quarter-of-americans-report-going-online-almost-constantly/. Accessed 27 Apr 2019

  • Peterson, R. S., Martorana, P. V., Smith, D. B., & Owens, P. D. (2003). The impact of chief executive officer personality on top management team dynamics: One mechanism by which leadership affects organizational performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 795–808.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petrenko, O. V., Aime, F., Ridge, J., & Hill, A. (2014). Corporate social responsibility or CEO narcissism? CSR motivations and organizational performance. Strategic Management Journal, 37, 262–279. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Politis, D. (2005). The process of entrepreneurial learning: A conceptual framework. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29, 399–424. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2005.00091.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Priem, R., Lyon, D., & Dess, G. (1999). Inherent limitations of demographic proxies in top management team heterogeneity research. Journal of Management, 25(6), 935–953.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, R., & Cameron, K. (1983). Organizational life cycles and shifting criteria of effectiveness: Some preliminary evidence. Management Science, 29(1), 33–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rampton, J. (2014). 12 Habits of successful marketing executives. https://www.inc.com/john-rampton/12-habits-of-successful-cmos.html. Accessed 3 January 2018.

  • Ramsinghani, M. (2014). The business of venture capital. Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rao, R. S., Chandy, R. K., & Prabhu, J. C. (2008). The fruits of legitimacy: Why some new ventures gain more from innovation than others. Journal of Marketing, 72(4), 58–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Read, S., Dew, N., Sarasvathy, S. D., Song, M., & Wiltbank, R. (2009). Marketing under uncertainty: The logic of an effectual approach. Journal of Marketing, 73(3), 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Receptiviti Inc. (2017). Receptiviti API user manual. Toronto: Receptiviti Inc.

  • Ridge, J., & Ingram, A. (2017). Modesty in the top management team: Investor reaction and performance implications. Journal of Management, 43(4), 1283–1306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robehmed, N. (2013). Why recent grads are swaming startups. https://www.forbes.com/sites/natalierobehmed/2013/08/13/why-recent-grads-are-swarming-startups/. Accessed 19 December 2017.

  • Roberts, E. (1991). High stakes for high-tech entrepreneurs: Understanding venture capital decision making. Sloan Management Review, 32(2), 9–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruef, M., Aldrich, H. E., & Carter, N. M. (2003). The structure of founding teams: Homophily, strong ties and isolation among U.S. entrepreneurs. American Sociological Review, 68(2), 195–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saboo, A. R., & Grewal, R. (2013). Stock market reactions to customer and competitor orientations: The case of initial public offerings. Marketing Science, 32(1), 70–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samson, E. (2017). 6 qualities all CMOs need to be successful. https://tech.co/6-qualities-cmos-successful-2017-02. Accessed 3 January 2018.

  • Schjoedt, L. (2009). Entrepreneurial job characteristics: An examination of their effect on entrepreneurial satisfaction. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33, 619–644. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00319.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S. (2000). Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science, 11, 448–469. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.11.4.448.14602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shu, S. T., Wong, V., & Lee, N. (2005). The effects of external linkages on new product innovativeness: an examination of moderating and mediating influences. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 13(3), 199–218.

  • Sørensen, J. B., & Stuart, T. E. (2000). Aging, obsolescence, and organizational innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 81–112. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666980.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, G. L. (1996). Reward structure as a moderator of the relationship between extraversion and sales performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(6), 619–627.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stokes, D. (2000). Putting entrepreneurship into marketing: The process of entrepreneurial marketing. Journal of Research in Marketing & Entrepreneurship, 2(1), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tang, Y., Qian, C., Chen, G., & Shen, R. (2015). How CEO hubris affects corporate social (ir)responsibility. Strategic Management Journal, 36, 1338–1357. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tang, Y., Mack, D. Z., & Chen, G. (2018). The differential effects of CEO narcissism and hubris on corporate social responsibility. Strategic Management Journal, 39, 1370–1387. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2761.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tausczik, Y., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2009). The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29, 24–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X09351676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ter Wal, A. L. J., Alexy, O., Block, J., & Sandner, P. G. (2016). The best of both worlds: The benefits of open-specialized and closed-diverse syndication networks for new ventures’ success. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61, 393–432. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839216637849.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tett, R., & Burnett, D. (2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 500–517.

    Google Scholar 

  • Timmons, J. (1999). New venture creation: Entrepreneurship for the 21st century (5th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyebjee, T., & Bruno, A. V. (1984). A model of venture capitalist investment activity. Management Science, 30, 1051–1066. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.30.9.1051.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyebjee, T., Bruno, A., & McIntyre, S. (1983). Growing ventures can anticipate marketing stages. Harvard Business Review, 61(1), 63–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, R., Gupta, A., & Grewal, R. (2017). Mobility of top marketing and sales executives in business-to-business markets: A social network perspective. Journal of Marketing Research, 54, 650–670. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.14.0124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wooldridge, J. (2010). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wooldridge, J. (2013). Introductory econometrics: A modern approach. Mason: Cengage learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yadav, M. S., Prabhu, J. C., & Chandy, R. K. (2007). Managing the future: CEO attention and innovation outcomes. Journal of Marketing, 71(4), 84–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yarkoni, T. (2010). Personality in 100,000 words: A large-scale analysis of personality and word use among bloggers. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 363–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2010.04.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, C., Song, P., & Qu, Z. (2011). Competitive action in the diffusion of internet technology products in emerging markets: Implications for global marketing managers. Journal of International Marketing, 19, 40–60. https://doi.org/10.1509/jim.11.0009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, H., & Seibert, S. E. (2006). The big five personality dimensions and entrepreneurial status: A meta-analytical review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 259–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, H., Seibert, S. E., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2010). The relationship of personality to entrepreneurial intentions and performance: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Management, 36(2), 381–404.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, D. H., & Chen, G. (2015a). CEO narcissism and the impact of prior board experience on corporate strategy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 60, 31–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839214554989.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, D. H., & Chen, G. (2015b). Narcissism, director selection, and risk-taking spending. Strategic Management Journal, 36, 2075–2098. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are thankful for the insightful comments provided by the editor, John Hulland, the associate editor, and by three anonymous reviewers. The authors gratefully acknowledge the helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper provided by Martin Klarmann.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Business and Economics, TU Dortmund University, 44227 Dortmund, Germany

    Hans-Jörg Winkler & Verena Rieger

  2. Department for Management, Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf, 40225, Düsseldorf, Germany

    Andreas Engelen

Authors
  1. Hans-Jörg Winkler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Verena Rieger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andreas Engelen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andreas Engelen.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Vikas Mittal served as Area Editor for this article.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 66.3 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Winkler, HJ., Rieger, V. & Engelen, A. Does the CMO’s personality matter for web traffic? Evidence from technology-based new ventures. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 48, 308–330 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-019-00671-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-019-00671-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation