CEO characteristics and corporate turnaround: evidence from Australia

This study explores the role of strategic leadership in declining firms by empirically examining the association between various CEO characteristics such as duality, tenure, interlocking, founder status, functional background and the turnaround outcome for the firm. Using a match-pair sample of 94 turnaround and 94-non-turnaround Australian firms, results show that turnaround firms are more likely to have CEOs that are also board chairpersons, have more external board appointments and short tenures. In contrast, any significant association between a CEO’s functional background, founder status and likelihood of turnaround was not identified. Overall, the findings provide further empirical support for the role of CEOs strategic leadership in shaping organisational outcomes especially when companies are under performing.

Ethical issues in phase I oncology research: a comparison of investigators and institutional review board chairpersons.

PURPOSE Phase I research trials assess the safety of agents never before administered to humans. In the field of oncology, this practice raises several important ethical questions. We examined the ethics of these trials by surveying phase I oncology investigators and institutional review board (IRB) chairpersons at major cancer research centers around the country. METHODS Questionnaires were mailed to 78 investigators and 47 chairpersons to obtain their views on the ethical propriety of conducting phase I oncology research, and on institutional practice regarding these trials. The response rate was 68% in each group. RESULTS The majority of each group reported that phase I oncology trials face no more scrutiny or resistance in their institution's IRB process than other research protocols. Nevertheless, IRB chairpersons were more likely than investigators to favor special procedural safeguards to protect subjects in phase I oncology trials. Nearly all respondents agreed that although actual medical benefit was very uncommon, most patients entered for a chance at a therapeutic effect. Investigators were more likely than chairpersons to report that patients obtained psychologic benefit from participation in phase I trials. CONCLUSION Although individual IRB chairpersons and oncology investigators may have important differences of opinion concerning the ethics of phase I trials, these disagreements do not represent a widespread area of ethical conflict in clinical research.