The DOI matches its Crossref record.
On studying managerial elites
Abstract
The study of managerial elites is one of the most important, yet neglected areas of social science research. This paper synthesizes and critically reviews three intellectual traditions in the study of managerial elites. These are: interlocking directorates and the study of institutional and societal power, the study of boards and directors, and the composition and correlates of top management teams. The paper concludes by arguing for the development of a complementary research tradition which combines a contextual and processual analysis of managerial elites.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Carpenter, M. A., & Westphal, J. D. (2001) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/3069408 · Cited by 1,312
Leadership and Strategic Change under Ambiguity
Denis, J.-L., Langley, A., Cazale, L., Denis, J.-L., Cazale, L., & Langley, A. (1996) · Organization Studies · doi:10.1177/017084069601700406 · Cited by 275
Metadata
- Authors
- Pettigrew, A. M.
- Venue
- Strategic Management Journal
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1992
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- S2
- Pages
- 163-182
- ISSN
- 0143-2095 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0266
- OpenAlex
- W2161878454
- Cited by
- 840
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 23.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
