臺大管理論叢 NTU Management Review VOL.28 NO.3

Does CEO Career Horizon Lead to Corporate Misconduct? Evidence of Taiwanese Semiconductor Firms 166 higher odds of perpetrating misconduct and are governed by directors with similar backgrounds, this may be a warning sign for possible irresponsible activities. Third, corporate misconduct could result in serious and long-lasting damage but is not easy to detect beforehand. Policymakers need to create a platform in which whistleblowers can be effectively protected and rewarded. Meanwhile, governments can attempt to deter corporate misconduct by evaluating the characteristics of the heads of corporations and establishing norms to raise the performance of corporate governance, such as through the regulations of board governance. 5.3 Limitations and Future Research Despite the theoretical and practical contributions made by this study, it still has several limitations. First, this study relies on CEOs’ observable characteristics to capture their intra-psychological processes. Some scholars doubt the approach of using visible traits to measure invisible theoretical characteristics (Carpenter, Geletkanycz, and Sanders, 2004; Lawrence, 1997). Although we do not look for a means to explore the cognitive processes that actually lead CEOs to perform illegal acts, we pave the way for the future studies adopting different theoretical lens (e.g., cognitive psychology) or methods (e.g., field surveys), both of which enable researchers to collect in-depth knowledge about CEO cognition. Second, our empirical results are derived from a sample of semiconductor firms in Taiwan, thus raising a concern about the generalizability to other industrial sectors. Further studies are suggested in order to validate our findings or compare the nuances across industries. Third, based on the previous findings, this study assumes that corporate misconduct can inflict damage to a firm’s image and reputation, as well as undermine its survival. Therefore, another avenue for further studies is to adopt a more comprehensive approach and longitudinal program to extend our research efforts to the construct of organizational survival or failure. Finally, in addition to the moderating effects of board governance, other individual-, firm- or industry-level practices, such as industrial herding atmosphere, may also confound the extent of a CEO’s influence on corporate misconduct. Top managers’ characteristics (by themselves) or any internal or external contextual factor (in isolation) is inadequate to predict the incidence of corporate illegality. Therefore, future research is suggested to apply more holistic models, incorporating both external and internal factors, as well as managers’ and directors’ characteristics simultaneously, to develop richer insights into the propensity of corporate misconduct.