The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Inherent limitations of demographic proxies in top management team heterogeneity research
Abstract
Top management team (TMT) heterogeneity—performance research using demographic indicators has contributed to strategic management by showing that top managers do indeed “matter” to firm outcomes. We argue, however, that limitations inherent in demographics-based TMT studies preclude their use in specifying how top managers influence their firms. This is an elemental problem because questions of how top managers can and should influence their firms are central to strategic management. Demographics-based TMT heterogeneity studies are limited by intrinsic trade-offs, which sacrifice: construct validity for measurement reliability; explanation for prediction; and prescription for description. We suggest “next steps” for improving the usefulness of future TMT studies (i.e., addressing the “how” question) by: (1) incorporating more substantive heterogeneity constructs, such as within-TMT power distributions, psychographic variances, and judgment differences; and (2) integrating qualitative research with the quantitative as a base for developing research questions that are more informed, salient, and interesting. We urge researchers to eschew demographic proxies, and instead direct their efforts toward more difficult, but potentially more rewarding, TMT issues.
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
Cites
An introduction to cybernetics
Ashby, W. R. (1956) · doi:10.5962/bhl.title.5851 · Cited by 7,578
Top executive commitment to the status quo: Some tests of its determinants
Hambrick, D. C., Geletkanycz, M. A., & Fredrickson, J. W. (1993) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.4250140602 · Cited by 1,058 · cited 1×
“For instance, Hambrick, Geletkanycz, and Fredrickson (1993) posited that commitment to the status quo among executives “derives from both the individual’s preferences as well as from knowledge.”
Background
Cited by
van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M. C. (2007) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085546 · Cited by 2,200
Damanpour, F., & Schneider, M. (2006) · British Journal of Management · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2006.00498.x · Cited by 1,296
What Differences Make a Difference?: The Promise and Reality of Diverse Teams in Organizations
Mannix, E., & Neale, M. A. (2005) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2005.00022.x · Cited by 1,276
Metadata
- Authors
- Priem, R.
- Venue
- Journal of Management
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1999
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 935-953
- ISSN
- 0149-2063 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1987177976
- Cited by
- 371
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 7.02
- 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.