The Influence of Top Management Team Heterogeneity on Firms' Competitive Moves

The authors acknowledge support from Columbia University's Management Institute. Warren Boeker, Sara Keck, John Michel, Peter Murmann, Michael Tushman, and Ruth Wageman made helpful suggestions on earlier drafts. We are grateful for access to the airline data base jointly assembled by the third author, Martin J. Gannon, Curtis M. Grimm, and Ken G. Smith. This paper explores the executive origins of firms' competitive moves by focusing on top management team characteristics, specifically on team heterogeneity, rather than on the more often studied environmental and organizational determinants of such behaviors. Arguing that competitive actions and responses represent different decision situations, we develop propositions about how heterogeneity may enhance some competitive behaviors but impair others. With a large sample of actions and responses of 32 U.S. airlines over eight years, we find results that largely conform to our propositions. The top management teams that were diverse, in terms of functional backgrounds, education, and company tenure, exhibited a relatively great propensity for action, and both their actions and responses were of substantial magnitude. Heterogeneous teams, by contrast, were slower in their actions and responses and less likely than homogeneous teams to respond to competitors' initiatives. Thus, although team heterogeneity is a double-edged sword, its overall net effect on airline performance, in terms of changes in market share and profits, was positive.*

[1]  J. Schumpeter Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy , 1943 .

[2]  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.

[3]  E. Johnsen Richard M. Cyert & James G. March, A Behavioral Theory of The Firm, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1963, 332 s. , 1964 .

[4]  I. Janis Victims Of Groupthink , 1972 .

[5]  I. Steiner Group process and productivity , 1972 .

[6]  D. Rubinfeld,et al.  Econometric models and economic forecasts , 2002 .

[7]  Lawrence R. Jauch,et al.  Structured Content Analysis of Cases: A Complementary Method for Organizational Research , 1980 .

[8]  K. R. Harrigan Exit Decisions in Mature Industries , 1982 .

[9]  Diana L. Day,et al.  Strategic Attributes and Performance in the BCG Matrix—A PIMS-Based Analysis of Industrial Product Businesses1 , 1982 .

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

[11]  Michael E. Levine,et al.  AIRLINE COMPETITION IN DEREGULATED MARKETS: THEORY, FIRM STRATEGY, AND PUBLIC POLICY , 1987 .

[12]  John E. Prescott,et al.  A project-based approach to competitive analysis , 1987 .

[13]  K. Eisenhardt,et al.  Politics of Strategic Decision Making in High-Velocity Environments: Toward a Midrange Theory , 1988 .

[14]  G. Stalk Time-The Next Source of Competitive Advantage , 1988 .

[15]  C. Gersick MARKING TIME: PREDICTABLE TRANSITIONS IN TASK GROUPS , 1989 .

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

[17]  K. Eisenhardt,et al.  Organizational Growth: Linking Founding Team, Strategy, Environment, and Growth among U.S. Semiconductor Ventures, 1978-1988. , 1990 .

[18]  D. Hambrick,et al.  Top-management-team tenure and organizational outcomes: The moderating role of managerial discretion. , 1990 .

[19]  Kathleen M. Eisenhardt,et al.  Speed and Strategic Choice: How Managers Accelerate Decision Making , 1990 .

[20]  P. Ghemawat Commitment: The Dynamic of Strategy , 1991 .

[21]  Ken G. Smith,et al.  Organizational Information Processing, Competitive Responses, and Performance in the U.S. Domestic Airline Industry , 1991 .

[22]  S. Jackson,et al.  Some differences make a difference: Individual dissimilarity and group heterogeneity as correlates of recruitment, promotions, and turnover. , 1991 .

[23]  Robert Jacobson,et al.  The “Austrian” School of Strategy , 1992 .

[24]  Ken G. Smith,et al.  Action characteristics as predictors of competitive responses , 1992 .

[25]  M. Tushman,et al.  Executive Succession and Organization Outcomes in Turbulent Environments: An Organization Learning Approach , 1992 .

[26]  Ken G. Smith,et al.  Dynamics of Competitive Strategy , 1992 .

[27]  Danny Miller,et al.  SOURCES AND CONSEQUENCES OF COMPETITIVE INERTIA: A STUDY OF THE U.S. AIRLINE INDUSTRY. , 1994 .

[28]  W. Mischel Personality and Assessment , 1996 .