Top management group heterogeneity and firm performance

Using a sample of 84 Fortune 500 food and oil companies, observed over the period 1967 to 1981, this paper tests a number of hypotheses relating top management group composition to firm performance. Specifically, it was expected that homogeneous top management groups would interact more efficiently and therefore be preferable when competition is intense, but that heterogeneous groups would facilitate adaptation and therefore be preferable under conditions of environmental change. Partial support for these hypotheses was found; however, the pattern of results also highlights the numerous difficulties in untangling and identifying the determinants of firm performance.

[1]  D. Hambrick,et al.  Upper Echelons: The Organization as a Reflection of Its Top Managers , 1984 .

[2]  Jeffrey Pfeffer,et al.  Organizational demography and turnover in top-management groups. , 1984 .

[3]  Alan L. Wilkins,et al.  Efficient Cultures: Exploring the Relationship between Culture and Organizational Performance. , 1983 .

[4]  R. Katz.  The Effects of Group Longevity on Project Communication and Performance. , 1982 .

[5]  Nancy Weiner,et al.  A Model of Corporate Performance as a Function of Environmental, Organizational, and Leadership Influences , 1981 .

[6]  R. T. Lenz.  ‘Determinants’ of organizational performance: An interdisciplinary review , 1981 .

[7]  R. Freund,et al.  SAS for linear models : a guide to the ANOVA and GLM procedures , 1981 .

[8]  Richard A. Lambert,et al.  The information content of security prices , 1980 .

[9]  William G. Ouchi,et al.  Markets, Bureaucracies, and Clans. , 1980 .

[10]  Leonard A. Schlesinger,et al.  Do Supervisors Thrive in Participative Work Systems , 1979 .

[11]  Michael T. Hannan,et al.  Approaches to the Censoring Problem in Analysis of Event Histories , 1979 .

[12]  J. Hausman.  Specification tests in econometrics , 1978 .

[13]  W. Ouchi,et al.  Types of organizational control and their relationship to emotional well being. , 1978 .

[14]  Jeffrey Pfeffer,et al.  Constraints On Administrator Discretion , 1977 .

[15]  G. Elder.  Age Differentiation and the Life Course , 1975 .

[16]  K. Arrow.  The limits of organization , 1974 .

[17]  Robert B. Glassman,et al.  Persistence and loose coupling in living systems , 1973 .

[18]  S. Lieberson,et al.  Leadership and organizational performance: a study of large corporations. , 1972, American sociological review.

[19]  E. Fama.  EFFICIENT CAPITAL MARKETS: A REVIEW OF THEORY AND EMPIRICAL WORK* , 1970 .

[20]  Morton Deutsch,et al.  Conflicts: Productive and Destructive* , 1969 .

[21]  P. Berger,et al.  Social Construction of Reality , 1991, The SAGE International Encyclopedia of Mass Media and Society.

[22]  R. Wyer,et al.  Effects of incentive to perform well, group attraction, and group acceptance on conformity in a judgmental task. , 1966, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[23]  B. Tuckman.  DEVELOPMENTAL SEQUENCE IN SMALL GROUPS. , 1965, Psychological bulletin.

[24]  S. Eisenstadt.  From Generation to Generation: Age Groups and Social Structure , 1964 .

[25]  M. E. Shaw,et al.  Some Effects of Sociometric Grouping upon Learning in a Second Grade Classroom , 1962 .

[26]  Tom R. Burns,et al.  The Management of Innovation. , 1963 .

[27]  A. Lott,et al.  Group cohesiveness, communication level, and conformity. , 1961, Journal of abnormal and social psychology.

[28]  L. Berkowitz.  Group Standards, Cohesiveness, and Productivity , 1954 .

[29]  Daniel M. Goodacre,et al.  Group Characteristics of Good and Poor Performing Combat Units , 1953 .

[30]  R. H. V. Zelst.  Sociometrically selected work teams increase production. , 1952 .

[31]  S. Schachter,et al.  An Experimental Study of Cohesiveness and Productivity , 1951 .

[32]  Bovard Ew.  Group structure and perception. , 1951 .

[33]  K. Back.  Influence through social communication. , 1951, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[34]  Jr. French,et al.  The disruption and cohesion of groups. , 1941 .