Perspective---The Black Box of Organizational Demography

Since its definition in the early 1980s, organizational demography has become an influential research area. Scholars map the relationship between demographic variables and organizational outcomes, examining such questions as whether increasing work group diversity leads to greater turnover and whether decreasing tenure similarity within a top management team leads to more numerous strategic reorientations. Asking such questions requires only a demographic predictor and an outcome, but answering them often requires additional theoretical constructs. For example, the relationship between work group diversity and turnover might be explained by communication and conflict. As work group diversity increases, communication within the group may become more difficult, resulting in greater conflict and thus increasing turnover.Despite the important, sometimes critical, role of such additional theoretical concepts, researchers often leave them loosely specified and unmeasured, creating a “black box” filled with vague, untested theories. This article presents a critical analysis of this approach. The results show that simple demographic explanations may generate multiple, mutually exclusive, often implicit theories involving numerous additional concepts. An evaluation of these more complex theories against previous research shows that they receive only weak support. Hence, the black box approach to organizational demography presents serious theoretical problems. Examples are provided to illuminate these problems. Four directions are suggested for research in organizational demography: deepening current variance explanations, creating dynamic models, exploring factors that produce demographic distributions, and moving beyond the variance model.

[1]  Andrew Pettigrew,et al.  On studying managerial elites , 1992 .

[2]  Shelby Stewman,et al.  Demographic Models of Internal Labor Markets. , 1986 .

[3]  Pamela S. Tolbert,et al.  Sources of Organizational Demography: Faculty Sex Ratios in Colleges and Universities. , 1991 .

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

[5]  M. Wiersema,et al.  Top Management Team Demography and Corporate Strategic Change , 1992 .

[6]  K. Klein,et al.  Levels Issues in Theory Development, Data Collection, and Analysis , 1994 .

[7]  Barry M. Staw,et al.  What Theory is Not , 1995 .

[8]  E. Hoffman,et al.  The Effect of Race-Ratio Composition on the Frequency of Organizational Communication , 1985 .

[9]  B. Schneider THE PEOPLE MAKE THE PLACE , 1987 .

[10]  D. Izraeli Sex Effects or Structural Effects? An Empirical Test of Kanter's Theory of Proportions , 1983 .

[11]  H. P. Sims,et al.  Top Management Team Demography and Process: The Role of Social Integration and Communication , 1994 .

[12]  G R Ferris,et al.  The age context of performance-evaluation decisions. , 1991, Psychology and aging.

[13]  Madeline E. Heilman,et al.  The impact of situational factors on personnel decisions concerning women: Varying the sex composition of the applicant pool , 1980 .

[14]  L. James,et al.  Mediators, Moderators, and Tests for Mediation. , 1984 .

[15]  H. White,et al.  Chains of Opportunity , 2014 .

[16]  B. Lawrence At the Crossroads: A Multiple-Level Explanation of Individual Attainment , 1990 .

[17]  Bruce J. Avolio,et al.  A meta-analysis of age differences in job performance. , 1986 .

[18]  C. Gersick REVOLUTIONARY CHANGE THEORIES: A MULTILEVEL EXPLORATION OF THE PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM PARADIGM , 1991 .

[19]  Jeffrey Pfeffer,et al.  The effects of departmental demography on turnover: The case of a university. , 1983 .

[20]  J. N. Cleveland,et al.  Applicant pool composition and job perceptions: Impact on decisions regarding an older applicant , 1988 .

[21]  C. Bonjean,et al.  Sex and Power in the Federal Bureaucracy , 1982 .

[22]  John P. Wanous,et al.  Organizational entry : recruitment, selection, and socialization of newcomers , 1982 .

[23]  W. Markham,et al.  Social structure and intergroup interaction: men and women of the federal bureaucracy , 1982 .

[24]  W. P. Barnett,et al.  Work group demography, social integration, and turnover. , 1989 .

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

[26]  Jeanette N. Cleveland,et al.  The Effects of the Age-Type of Tasks and Incumbent Age Composition on Job Perceptions. , 1990 .

[27]  S. Jackson,et al.  Top management and innovations in banking: Does the composition of the top team make a difference? , 1989 .

[28]  A. Tsui,et al.  Beyond Simple Demographic Effects: The Importance of Relational Demography in Superior-Subordinate Dyads , 1989 .

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

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

[31]  Charles A. O'Reilly,et al.  Being different: Relational demography and organizational attachment. , 1991 .

[32]  K. Weick What Theory Is Not, Theorizing Is , 1995 .

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

[34]  Lloyd E. Sandelands What is so Practical about Theory? Lewin Revisited , 1990 .

[35]  M. Rosenberg,et al.  The Logic of Survey Analysis. , 1968 .

[36]  Shelby Stewman,et al.  Careers and Organizational Labor Markets: Demographic Models of Organizational Behavior , 1983, American Journal of Sociology.

[37]  Nancy Cartwright,et al.  The Reality of Causes in a World of Instrumental Laws , 1980, PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association.

[38]  Eve Spangler,et al.  Token Women: An Empirical Test of Kanter's Hypothesis , 1978, American Journal of Sociology.

[39]  Allan Bird,et al.  ORGANIZATIONAL DEMOGRAPHY IN JAPANESE FIRMS: GROUP HETEROGENEITY, INDIVIDUAL DISSIMILARITY, AND TOP MANAGEMENT TEAM TURNOVER , 1993 .

[40]  Lawrence B. Mohr,et al.  Explaining organizational behavior , 1982 .

[41]  R. Kanter Some Effects of Proportions on Group Life: Skewed Sex Ratios and Responses to Token Women , 1977, American Journal of Sociology.

[42]  Heather A. Haveman The Demographic Metabolism of Organizations: Industry Dynamics, Turnover, and Tenure Distributions , 1995 .

[43]  Frederick Suppe,et al.  The Structure of Scientific Theories. , 1975 .

[44]  Linda M. Bleicken,et al.  Effects of Supervisor Age and Subordinate Age on Rating Congruence , 1991 .

[45]  Andrew Abbott,et al.  From Causes to Events , 1992 .

[46]  Gerald R. Ferris,et al.  Social Context of Performance Evaluation Decisions , 1993 .

[47]  L. H. Pelled Demographic Diversity, Conflict, and Work Group Outcomes: An Intervening Process Theory , 1996 .

[48]  Y. Shenhav,et al.  Organizational Demography and Inequality , 1992 .

[49]  D. Rousseau Issues of level in organizational research: Multi-level and cross-level perspectives. , 1985 .

[50]  B. Lawrence,et al.  Organizational age norms: why is it so hard to know one when you see one? , 1996, The Gerontologist.

[51]  J. Lincoln,et al.  Work and Friendship Ties in Organizations: A Comparative Analysis of Relational Networks , 1979 .