By integrating role theory and social identity theory, this study examines the differential effects of organizational identification of the chief executive officer (CEO) and the chief financial officer (CFO) on corporate philanthropy. We argue that CEO organizational identification can positively affect corporate philanthropy, whereas the opposite holds for CFO organizational identification. This is because the CEO and the CFO have varying attitudes about corporate philanthropy owing to their different role expectations; thus, those who identify strongly with their organizations would act for the best interests of the firm. Moreover, because the beliefs of top executives are probably influenced by those of other executives, we further explore the interaction between the CEO and the CFO. We propose that the positive influence of CEO organizational identification on corporate philanthropy will be weakened by CFO organizational identification, and the moderating effect of CFO organizational identification will become stronger when the CEO and the CFO have opposite genders or when the CFO has ownership. From a sample of 880 publicly traded firms in China, we found support for our hypotheses. Our study can contribute to the corporate philanthropy literature and research on executive organizational identification by highlighting the importance of executive roles and their interactions.

In this article, we examine the cross-cultural variation in the perceived effects of idealized influence and individualized consideration leadership behaviors – two behavioral dimensions of transformational leadership – on followers’ organizational identification in two culturally distinct countries: Russia and Finland. We also test whether the followers’ role ambiguity mediates these relationships. Using the self-concept-based theory of leadership as an explanatory framework, our analysis of white-collar employees in four Finland-based multinational corporations and their subsidiaries in Russia shows that whereas in Russia both behaviors facilitate followers’ identification, in Finland only idealized influence does. We also find differences in how role ambiguity mediates the relationship between the two behaviors and followers’ identification in the two countries. In Russia, it fully mediates the relationship between individualized consideration and followers’ identification, whereas in Finland it partially mediates the relationship between idealized influence and followers’ identification.