Immigrant CEOs and their strategic impacts : firms' CSR in the U.S. and entry modes in third countries

Abstract

As global talent mobility intensifies, immigrants have become central drivers of economic development and institutional transformation worldwide. Among all destinations, the United States stands out as the largest recipient of international migrants. In the U.S., these immigrant talents bring diverse cultural perspectives and are increasingly advancing into leadership roles within large firms. Yet, within this broader discourse, one critical group remains underexplored—immigrant CEOs, who spend their formative years overseas and later move to the U.S. to build their careers. To explore how this specific group of executives influences firms’ cross-border strategies, I conducted two studies that investigate how immigrant CEOs’ home-country imprints influence their firms’ strategic decisions in both the host country and other third-country markets. The first essay examines when and how immigrant CEOs’ outsider identities shape firms’ CSR in the host country. Following social identity theory, I contend that immigrant CEOs have varying motivations to engage in CSR in the host country and such motivations are rooted in their home-country CSR norms. I furthermore posit that immigrant CEOs’ social awareness of outsider identities will moderate this proposed relationship. Specifically, immigrant CEOs are more likely to undertake CSR when their home-country CSR norms are weaker than those in a host country, and when their home countries are culturally distant from the host country. Alternatively, immigrant CEOs are less likely to engage in CSR when there are more home-country CEO peers in their industry and/or in their state. Results based on a sample of immigrant CEOs appointed by U.S. public firms support my hypotheses. My findings contribute to the literatures on immigrant CEOs, the liability of outsidership, and firm CSR. The second essay explores how an immigrant CEO’s national animosityrooted in historical antagonism and hostility between the home country and a specific host countryshapes the firm’s choices between alliances and acquisitions when entering a historically hostile foreign country. Rather than assuming that a firm’s national animosity mirrors its executives’, I highlight immigrant CEOs, whose animosity stems from their country of origin rather than the country where their firm is headquartered. Specifically, their heightened animosity fosters distrust and perceived high risk in the host country, making immigrant CEOs’ favor strategic alliances over acquisitions to retain flexibility before deeper commitments. Furthermore, this effect is attenuated when there are positive contemporary intercountry relationships between the immigrant CEO’s home country and the host country, as well as between the firm’s country of headquarters (the U.S. in my context) and the host country. Results based on a sample of immigrant CEOs based in the U.S. support my predictions. As executives increasingly pay attention to geopolitical tensions amid today’s turbulent landscape, my study offers timely insights into the intersection of executive identity, geopolitical risk, and choices between alliances and acquisitions.