Corrigendum

Gerstner, W.-C., A. König, A. Anders, and D. C. Hambrick 2013 “CEO narcissism, audience engagement, and organizational adoption of technological discontinuities.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 58: 257–291. (Original DOI: 10.1177/0001839213488773 ) In our analyses of hypotheses 1 and 2, which are reported in models 1–4 in table 2 (p. 275), and in the post-hoc analyses, which are summarized in models 2–4 and 6–8 in the Appendix (p. 289), we erred by simultaneously including an invariant firm-age variable and firm dummies, as this caused perfect multicollinearity between these two sets of variables. (Stata deals with this problem by dropping two dummy variables, shifting the reference points for the fixed effects coefficients.) Given that firm dummies themselves encompass effects from firm age, we have re-run all respective regressions with the redundant firm-age variable excluded (while still retaining the firm dummies). Results of our hypotheses tests remained identical—which is to be expected, as changing the reference points, by definition, exclusively influences the coefficients and significance levels of the dummy variables. Relatedly, we erred in including the continuous audience engagement variable, which was measured annually, and year dummies in the same models, as they are perfectly collinear. Here again, to estimate the effect of the annual value for audience engagement, Stata excluded two year dummies instead of just one, both of which then served as reference points. The selection of the specific pair of reference years, however, does not affect the significance of the audience engagement moderator, given that the interaction term is not multicollinear with the year dummies, so our hypothesized results are not affected. Moreover, all results, including the hypothesized interaction effects, remain the same if we drop the linear audience engagement variable and one calendar year dummy (instead of dropping two dummies). Additionally, we erred when citing Heckman (1979) in the description of our control for endogeneity (p. 273). Heckman’s approach deals with sample selection bias, not the type of endogeneity we were intent on controlling for—namely the possibility “that narcissistic CEOs are attracted by or hired into specific situations and/or that narcissistic tendencies emerge under certain conditions” (p. 273).