Strategic Consequences Of Executive Succession Within Diversified Firms

Systematic investigation of leaders and their influence on organizations has been a major area of research interest. In examining the upper echelon-organizational outcome linkage, researchers have come to focus on the issue of executive succession. This focus has been due in large part to an emerging theoretical perspective that managerial differences may explain much of the variance in organizational outcomes. The purpose of this study is to ascertain whether or not top management succession affects subsequent corporate strategy. This article extends previous research efforts by longitudinally examining the linkage between executive succession and the extent of corporate strategic change across a sample of Fortune 1000 diversified firms. The findings confirm that the nature of executive succession has substantial consequences for corporate strategy. Firms have a greater likelihood of experiencing significant changes in strategy when they choose successors from outside the organization; firms that select their key executives by promoting from within are more likely to experience significantly less change in their corporate strategy. The results of this longitudinal investigation of the strategic outcomes of succession have significant implications for those in a position to select successors to the executive ranks.

[1]  O. Grusky,et al.  Managerial Succession and Organizational Effectiveness , 1963, American Journal of Sociology.

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

[3]  J. Dutton,et al.  THE CREATION OF MOMENTUM FOR CHANGE THROUGH THE PROCESS OF STRATEGIC ISSUE DIAGNOSIS , 1987 .

[4]  B. M. Staw.  The Escalation of Commitment To a Course of Action , 1981 .

[5]  P. R. Chandy,et al.  Management Turnover Through Deaths of Key Executives: Effects on Investor Wealth , 1986 .

[6]  M. Hitt,et al.  Industrial Firms' Grand Strategy and Functional Importance: Moderating Effects of Technology and Uncertainty , 1982 .

[7]  Stephen I. Cohen,et al.  Information Flow in Research and Development Laboratories. , 1969 .

[8]  Jeffrey Pfeffer,et al.  Organizational Demography: Implications for Management , 1985 .

[9]  M. Tushman,et al.  Executive succession, strategic reorientations, and organization evolution: The minicomputer industry as a case in point , 1985 .

[10]  Anil K. Gupta.  Contingency Linkages Between Strategy and General Manager Characteristics: A Conceptual Examination , 1984 .

[11]  Ralph A. Alexander,et al.  Leadership: It can make a difference. , 1984 .

[12]  Marc R. Reinganum.  The Effect of Executive Succession on Stockholder Wealth , 1985 .

[13]  R. Daft,et al.  Toward a Model of Organizations as Interpretation Systems , 1984 .

[14]  D. Eitzen,et al.  Managerial Change, Longevity, and Organizational Effectiveness. , 1972 .

[15]  Michael C. White,et al.  Strategy, CEO Specialization, and Succession , 1987 .

[16]  V. Govindarajan.  Implementing competitive strategies at the business unit level: Implications of matching managers to strategies , 1989 .

[17]  William A. Gamson,et al.  Scapegoating in Baseball , 1964, American Journal of Sociology.

[18]  Barry M. Staw,et al.  Commitment to a Policy Decision: A Multi-Theoretical Perspective. , 1978 .

[19]  M. C. Brown,et al.  Administrative Succession and Organizational Performance: The Succession Effect. , 1982 .

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

[21]  L. R. Hoffman,et al.  Quality and acceptance of problem solutions by members of homogeneous and heterogeneous groups. , 1961, Journal of abnormal and social psychology.

[22]  K. Eisenhardt.  Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review , 1989 .

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

[24]  Kae H. Chung,et al.  Stockholder Reactions to CEO Changes in Large Corporations , 1989 .

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

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

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

[28]  C. C. Snow,et al.  Strategy, Distinctive Competence, and Organizational Performance. , 1980 .

[29]  H. Simon,et al.  Selective perception: A note on the departmental identifications of executives. , 1958 .

[30]  Henry Mintzberg,et al.  The Structure of "Unstructured" Decision Processes , 1976 .

[31]  James P. Walsh,et al.  Selectivity and selective perception: An investigation of managers''belief structures and informatio , 1988 .

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

[33]  Warren B. Brown,et al.  Successor Type and Organizational Change in the Corporate Enterprise. , 1972 .

[34]  Jerold B. Warner,et al.  Stock prices and top management changes , 1988 .

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

[36]  Jeffrey Pfeffer,et al.  The Ambiguity of Leadership , 1977 .

[37]  S. Kiesler,et al.  Managerial Response to Changing Environments: Perspectives on Problem Sensing from Social Cognition. , 1982 .

[38]  Michael Patrick Allen,et al.  Managerial Succession and Organizational Performance: A Recalcitrant Problem Revisited. , 1979 .

[39]  Todd R. Zenger,et al.  Organizational Demography: The Differential Effects of Age and Tenure Distributions on Technical Communication , 1989 .

[40]  Rakesh B. Sambharya,et al.  Strategic orientation and characteristics of upper management , 1987 .

[41]  Randolph P. Beatty,et al.  Ceo change and firm performance in large corporations: Succession effects and manager effects , 1987 .

[42]  Milton Leontiades,et al.  CHOOSING THE RIGHT MANAGER TO FIT THE STRATEGY , 1982 .