Journal of Quantitative Criminology

, Volume 13, Issue 4, pp 373–404 | Cite as

The changing of the guard: Top management characteristics, organizational strain, and antitrust offending

  • Sally S. Simpson
  • Christopher S. Koper


From within an organizational strain perspective, this paper examines the effects of managerial succession, CEO background, decentralized management, and product dominant strategies on the reported corporate antitrust offending levels of 43 basic manufacturing companies over a 22-year period. In the aggregate, findings suggest that past illegal involvement predicts future offending; companies headed by finance and administrative CEOs have higher offending levels than do firms headed by CEOs from other backgrounds; a turnover in top management generally decreases offending levels; the pursuit of product dominant strategies increases the number of anticompetitive acts; and offending levels are unrelated to whether new leaders are recruited from within or outside the firm, whether the CEO is also Chair of the Board of Directors, or whether management is centralized or decentralized. The effects of some variables on corporate offending interact with firm performance.

Key words

intraorganizational strain antitrust top management characteristics pooled cross-sectional time series 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Allen, M. P., and Panian, S. K. (1982). Power, performance, and succession in the large corporation.Admin. Sci. Q. 27: 538–547.Google Scholar
  2. Asch, P., and Seneca, J. J. (1976). Characteristics of collusive firms.J. Indust. Econ. 23: 223–247.Google Scholar
  3. Baucus, M. S., and Near, J. P. (1991). Can illegal corporate behavior be predicted? An event history analysis.Acad. Manage. J. 34: 9–36.Google Scholar
  4. Beach, C. M., and MacKinnon, J. G. (1978). A maximum likelihood procedure for regression with autocorrelated errors.Econometrica 46: 51–58.Google Scholar
  5. Bensman, J., and Gerver, I. (1963). Crime and punishment in the factor. Reprinted in Shepard, J. (ed.),Organizational Issues in Industrial Society, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1972.Google Scholar
  6. Braithwaite, J. (1984).Corporate Crime in the Pharmaceutical Industry, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar
  7. Brenner, S. N., and Molander, E. A. (1977). Is the ethics of business changing?Harvard Bus. Rev. 55: 57–70.Google Scholar
  8. Brown, M. C. (1982). Administrative succession and organizational performance: The succession effect.Admin. Sci. Q. 27: 1–16.Google Scholar
  9. Carroll, G. R. (1984). Dynamics of publisher succession in newspaper organizations.Admin. Sci. 29: 93–113.Google Scholar
  10. Chandler, A. D., Jr. (1962).Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the American Industrial Enterprise, MIT Press, Boston.Google Scholar
  11. Chandler, A. D., Jr. (1991). Corporate strategy and structure: Some current considerations.Society Mar./Apr.: 35–38.Google Scholar
  12. Conklin, J. E. (1977).Illegal but Not Criminal, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  13. Clarkson, K. W., and Muris, T. J. (1981).The Federal Trade Commission Since 1970, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  14. Clinard, M. B. (1983).Corporate Ethics and Crime: The Role of Middle Management, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.Google Scholar
  15. Clinard, M. B. (1990).Corporate Corruption, Praeger Press, New York.Google Scholar
  16. Clinard, M. B., and Yeager, P. C. (1980).Corporate Crime, Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
  17. Cohen, D. V. (1995). Ethics and crime in business firms. In Adler, F., and Laufer, W. S. (eds.),Advances in Criminological Theory, Vol. 6, Transaction, New Brunswick, NJ.Google Scholar
  18. Cote, M. B., Higgins, R. S., and McChesney, F. S. (1995). Bureaucracy and politics in FTC Merger Challenges. Reprinted in McChesney, F. S., and Shughart, W. F., II (eds.),The Causes and Consequences of Antitrust, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 213–230.Google Scholar
  19. Daboub, A. J., Rasheed, A. M. S., Priem, R. L., and Gray, D. A. (1995). Top management team characteristics and corporate illegal activity.Acad. Manage. Rev. 20: 138–170.Google Scholar
  20. Denzin, N. (1977). Notes on a criminogenic hypothesis: A case study of the American liquor industry.Am. Sociol. Rev. 42: 905–920.Google Scholar
  21. Faith, R. L., Leavens, D. R., and Tollison, R. D. (1982). Antitrust pork barrel. Reprinted in McChesney, F. S., and Shughart, W. F., II (eds.),The Causes and Consequences of Antitrust, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 201–212.Google Scholar
  22. Farberman, H. A. (1975). A criminogenic market structure: The automobile industry.Social Sci. Q. 16: 438–457.Google Scholar
  23. Finney, H. C., and Lesieur, H. R. (1982). A contingency theory of organizational crime. In Bacharak, S. B. (ed.),Research in the Sociology of Organizations, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 255–259.Google Scholar
  24. Fligstein, N. (1987). The intraorganizational power struggle.Am. Sociol. Rev. 52: 44–58.Google Scholar
  25. Fligstein, N. (1990).The Transformation of Corporate Control, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  26. Fligstein, N., and Brantley, P. (1992). Bank control, owner control, or organizational dynamics: Who controls the large modern corporation?Am. J. Sociol. 98: 280–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gallo, J. C., Dau-Schmidt, K. G., Craycraft, J. L., and Parker, C. J. (1994). Criminal penalties under the Sherman Act: A study of law and economics. In Zerbe, R. O., Jr. (ed.),Research in Law and Economics, Vol. 16, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 25–71.Google Scholar
  28. Gautschi, F. H., and Jones, T. M. (1987). Illegal corporate behavior and corporate board structure. In Frederick, W., and Preston, L. E. (eds.),Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, Vol. 9, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 9–106.Google Scholar
  29. Geis, G. (1968). The heavy electrical equipment antitrust cases of 1961. In Geis, G. (ed.),White Collar Criminal, Atherton Press, New York, pp. 103–118.Google Scholar
  30. Gouldner, A. (1954).Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy, Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
  31. Greene, W. H. (1993).Econometric Analysis, 2nd ed., Macmillan, New York.Google Scholar
  32. Gross, E. (1980). Organizational structures and organizational crime. In Geis, G., and Stotland, E. (eds.),White Collar Crime: Theory and Research, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, pp. 52–76.Google Scholar
  33. Grutsky, O. (1963). Managerial succession and organizational effectiveness.Am. J. Sociol. 69: 21–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hall, B., Schnake, R., and Cummins, C. (1988).Time Series Processor (TSP) Reference Manual, Version 4.1, TSP International, Palo Alto, CA.Google Scholar
  35. Harrison, J. R., Torres, D. C., and Kukalis, S. (1988). The changing of the guard: Turnover and structural change in the top-management positions.Admin. Sci. Q. 33: 211–232.Google Scholar
  36. Hill, C. W. L., Kelley, P. C., Agle, B. R., Hitt, M. A., and Hoskisson, R. E. (1992). An empirical examination of the causes of corporate wrongdoing in the United States.Hum. Relat. 45: 1055–1076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hunt, S. D., Chonko, L. B., and Wilcox, J. B. (1984). Ethical problems of marketing researchers.J. Market. Res. 21: 304–324.Google Scholar
  38. Ippolito, P. M. (1988).Resale Price Maintenance: Economic Evidence from Litigation, Bureau of Economics Staff Report, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  39. Jackall, R. (1988).Moral Mazes: The World of Corporate Managers, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  40. Jamieson, K. (1994).The Organization of Corporate Crime: Dynamics of Antitrust Violation, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
  41. Jenkins, A., and Braithwaite, J. (1993). Profits, pressure and corporate lawbreaking.Crime Law Social Change 20: 221–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Keane, C. (1993). The impact of financial performance on frequency of corporate crime: A latent variable test of strain theory.Can. J. Criminal. July: 30–46.Google Scholar
  43. Kesner, I. F., and Johnson, R. B. (1990). An investigation of the relationship between board composition and stockholder suits.Straleg. Manage. J. 11: 327–336.Google Scholar
  44. Kesner, I. F., Victor, B., and Lamont, B. T. (1986). Board composition and commission of illegal acts: An investigation ofFortune 500 companies.Acad. Manage. J. 29: 789–799.Google Scholar
  45. Kitsuse, J. I., and Cicourel, A. V. (1963). A note on the uses of official statistics.Social Problems 11: 131–139.Google Scholar
  46. Koch, A., Mahan, C. B., and Woykovsky, J. (1996). Antitrust.Am. Crim. Law Rev. 33: 511–539.Google Scholar
  47. Kram, K. E., Yeager, P. C., and Reed, G. E. (1989). Decisions and dilemmas: The ethical dimension in the corporate context. In Post, J. E. (ed.),Research in Corporate Social Policy and Performance, Vol. 11, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 52–76.Google Scholar
  48. Lane, R. E. (1977). Why businessmen violate the law. In Geis, G., and Meier, R. (eds.),White Collar Crime, Free Press, New York, pp. 102–116.Google Scholar
  49. Lean, D. F., Ogur, J. D., and Rogers, R. P. (1982).Competition and Collusion in Electrical Equipment Markets: An Economic Assessment, Bureau of Economics Staff Report to the Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  50. Lynxwiler, J., Shover, N., and Clelland, D. (1984). Determinants of sanction severity in a regulatory bureaucracy. In Hochstedler, E. (ed.),Corporations as Criminals, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.Google Scholar
  51. Merton, R. K. (1964). Anomie, anomia, and social interaction: Contexts of deviant behavior. In Clinard, M. B. (ed.),Anomie and Deviant Behavior, Free Press, New York, pp. 213–242.Google Scholar
  52. Merton, R. K. (1968).Social Theory and Social Structure, 1st ed.(1949), Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
  53. Oppenheim, S. C., Weston, G. E., and McCarthy, J. T. (1981).Federal Antitrust Law: Cases, Text, and Commentary, 4th ed., West, St. Paul, MN.Google Scholar
  54. Passas, N. (1990). Anomie and corporate deviance.Contemp. Crisis 14: 157–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pfeffer, J. (1981).Power in Organizations, Pitman, Marshfield, MA.Google Scholar
  56. Pfeffer, J., and Salancik, G. R. (1978).The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective, Harper and Row, New York.Google Scholar
  57. Posner, R. A. (1970). A statistical study of antitrust enforcement.J. Law Econ. 13: 365–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Reiss, A. J. jr., and Biderman, A. D. (1980).Data Sources on White-Collar Lawbreaking, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  59. Rumuelt, R. P. (1974).Strategy, Structure, and Economic Performance, Harvard University Press, Boston.Google Scholar
  60. Sayrs, L. (1989).Pooled Time Series Analysis, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.Google Scholar
  61. Scalia, J., Jr. (1995). Cases sentenced under the guidelines. Paper presented at the United States Sentencing Commission Symposium, Corporate Crime in America: Strengthening the Good Citizen Corporation, Washington, DC, Sept. 7–8.Google Scholar
  62. Simpson, S. S. (1986). The decomposition of antitrust: Testing a multi-level longitudinal model of profit-squeeze.Am. Sociol. Rev. 51: 859–875.Google Scholar
  63. Simpson, S. S. (1987). Cycles of illegality: Antitrust violations in corporate America.Social Forces 65: 943–963.Google Scholar
  64. Simpson, S. S. (1992). Corporate-crime deterrence and corporate-control policies. In Schlegel, K., and Weisburd, D. (eds.),White Collar Crime Reconsidered, Northeastern University Press, Boston, pp. 289–308.Google Scholar
  65. Simpson, S. S. (1993). Strategy, structure, and corporate crime: The historical context of antitrust offending. In Adler, F., and Laufer, W. S. (eds.),New Directions in Criminological Theory, Transaction, New Brunswick, NJ, pp. 71–93.Google Scholar
  66. Sonnenfeld, J. (1988).The Hero's Farewell, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  67. Sonnenfeld, J., and Lawrence, P. R. (1978). Why do companies succumb to price fixing?Harvard Bus. Rev. 56: 145–157.Google Scholar
  68. Staw, B. M., and Szwajkowski, E. (1975). The scarcity-munificence component of organizational environments and the commission of illegal acts.Admin. Sci. Q. 20: 345–354.Google Scholar
  69. Sutherland, E. (1949).White Collar Crime, Holt, New York.Google Scholar
  70. Tappan, P. W. (1947). Who is criminal?Am. Sociol. Rev. 12: 96–102.Google Scholar
  71. U.S. Congress, Senate Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly of the Committee on the Judiciary (1977).Hearings on Fair and Effective Enforcement of Antitrust Laws, S.1874, 95th Congress, July 21 and 22, Sept. 9.Google Scholar
  72. Vaughan, D. (1983).Controlling Unlawful Organizational Behavior, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  73. Warner, J. B., Watts, R. L., and Wruck, K. H. (1988). Stock prices and top management changes.J. Financial Econ. 20: 461–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Weidenbaum, M. (1995). The evolving corporate board.Society 32: 9–16.Google Scholar
  75. White, H. (1980). A heteroscedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroscedasticity.Econometrica 48: 817–838.Google Scholar
  76. Zey, M. (1993).Banking on Fraud, Aldine De Gruyter, New York.Google Scholar
  77. Zey-Ferrell, M., and Ferrell, O. C. (1982). Role-set configuration and opportunity as predictors of unethical behavior in organizations.Hum. Relat. 35: 587–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sally S. Simpson
    • 1
  • Christopher S. Koper
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Criminology and Criminal JusticeUniversity of MarylandCollege Park
  2. 2.The Urban InstituteWashington, DC

Personalised recommendations