Curious and analytical: How analysts evaluate and respond to executive communications about firm strategy

Abstract Research Summary How do analysts react to communication about firms' strategies? Research has shown that executive communication influences markets, but we know little about reactions to the deeper strategy content communicated. Drawing from research on how evaluative frames and expectation violations shape cognition, we show that when executives focus on growth strategies, analysts react by becoming more curious and analytically intensive. These changes in cognition partially mediate a positive effect on analysts' evaluations. Further, we consider two situations that reveal how analysts react to information that reinforces or violates their expectations, demonstrating different analyst reactions to similar strategies among S&P 500 firms. In doing so, we contribute new theory about how the evaluative assumptions of these influential market actors change and can be influenced by managerial framing. Managerial Summary This paper focuses on how securities analysts react to executive communications about their business' strategies. We know that top executive communications influence markets, but this paper probes further to understand reactions to the specific strategies that are communicated. We show that when executives focus on new growth strategies, this piques analyst interest. Specifically, we find that this makes analysts more curious and analytically intensive, thereby shaping their forecasts and evaluations. However, we find that analyst reactions also depend on how well the strategies that executives talk about fit with what is expected from the company. When the strategy articulated aligns with expectations, firms are rewarded with yet stronger evaluations. In contrast, when a strategy does not align with expectations, firms are punished with lower evaluations.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Strategic Management Journal
Published
2026-01-02
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.70063
Primary Topic
Auditing, Earnings Management, Governance
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Curious and analytical: How analysts evaluate and respond to executive communications about firm strategy

John Eklund, Michael J. Mannor
Strategic Management Journal
Auditing, Earnings Management, Governance
article

Curious and analytical: How analysts evaluate and respond to executive communications about firm strategy

John Eklund, Michael J. Mannor
article en

Abstract

Abstract Research Summary How do analysts react to communication about firms' strategies? Research has shown that executive communication influences markets, but we know little about reactions to the deeper strategy content communicated. Drawing from research on how evaluative frames and expectation violations shape cognition, we show that when executives focus on growth strategies, analysts react by becoming more curious and analytically intensive. These changes in cognition partially mediate a positive effect on analysts' evaluations. Further, we consider two situations that reveal how analysts react to information that reinforces or violates their expectations, demonstrating different analyst reactions to similar strategies among S&P 500 firms. In doing so, we contribute new theory about how the evaluative assumptions of these influential market actors change and can be influenced by managerial framing. Managerial Summary This paper focuses on how securities analysts react to executive communications about their business' strategies. We know that top executive communications influence markets, but this paper probes further to understand reactions to the specific strategies that are communicated. We show that when executives focus on new growth strategies, this piques analyst interest. Specifically, we find that this makes analysts more curious and analytically intensive, thereby shaping their forecasts and evaluations. However, we find that analyst reactions also depend on how well the strategies that executives talk about fit with what is expected from the company. When the strategy articulated aligns with expectations, firms are rewarded with yet stronger evaluations. In contrast, when a strategy does not align with expectations, firms are punished with lower evaluations.

Strategic Management Journal
University of Notre Dame (US), University of Southern California (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 99%
Auditing, Earnings Management, Governance
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Curious and analytical: How analysts evaluate and respond to executive communications about firm strategy — John Eklund, Michael J. Mannor · Strategic Management Journal (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS