The DOI matches its Crossref record; 15 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Metacritiques of Upper Echelons Theory: Verdicts and Recommendations for Future Research
Abstract
After more than 35 years, Hambrick and Mason’s upper echelons theory (UET) stands as one of the most influential perspectives in management research. However, as the literature and its attendant reviews have become more numerous and specialized, discussion of the fundamental conceptual and methodological critiques leveled against research utilizing the UET perspective has grown fragmented. As such, the first aim of the present review is to identify and synthesize a set of common critiques levied against UET research. In doing so, we unpack important nuance within each critique while establishing a common vocabulary to facilitate greater consistency in how these critiques are discussed by scholars, editors, and reviewers. Next, we analyze the past decade of UET research (i.e., empirical and conceptual articles) to provide a progress report on the state of the literature as it pertains to each critique. Based on this analysis, we issue a “verdict,” providing clear guidance on what issues still need to be resolved and offering clear recommendations for UET scholars moving forward. Finally, we close by taking stock of how our recommendations position UET scholars to embrace the task of providing impactful insights on emerging challenges facing top executives.
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
Organizing and the process of sensemaking
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1050.0133 · Cited by 6,943
On making causal claims: A review and recommendations
Antonakis, J., Bendahan, S., Jacquart, P., & Lalive, R. (2010) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.10.010 · Cited by 2,441
Power in Top Management Teams: Dimensions, Measurement, and Validation
Finkelstein, S. (1992) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/256485 · Cited by 2,389
Chatterjee, A., & Hambrick, D. C. (2007) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2189/asqu.52.3.351 · Cited by 2,074
Sensemaking in organizations: Taking stock and moving forward
Maitlis, S., & Christianson, M. (2014) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520.2014.873177 · Cited by 1,764
Dinh, J. E., Lord, R. G., Gardner, W. L., Meuser, J. D., Liden, R. C., & Hu, J. (2014) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.005 · Cited by 1,426 · cited 1×
“As an example, research on how cognition and emotion influence leaders’ behaviors—and ultimately affect their followers and organizations—has been a major area of focus in micro leadership research (e.g., Bono & Ilies, 2006; Dinh et al., 2014).”
MethodPashler, H., & Wagenmakers, E. (2012) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691612465253 · Cited by 1,321
Followership theory: A review and research agenda
Uhl-Bien, M., Riggio, R. E., Lowe, K. B., & Carsten, M. K. (2014) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.007 · Cited by 1,213
Dynamic Managerial Capabilities: Review and Assessment of Managerial Impact on Strategic Change
Helfat, C. E., & Martin, J. A. (2015) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206314561301 · Cited by 1,045
Charisma, positive emotions and mood contagion
Bono, J. E., & Ilies, R. (2006) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.04.008 · Cited by 905
For objective causal inference, design trumps analysis
Rubin, D. B. (2008) · The Annals of Applied Statistics · doi:10.1214/08-aoas187 · Cited by 831
Automatic personality assessment through social media language.
Park, G., Schwartz, H. A., Eichstaedt, J. C., Kern, M. L., Kosinski, M., Stillwell, D. J., Ungar, L. H., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2015) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/pspp0000020 · Cited by 802
An inconvenient truth: How organizations translate climate change into business as usual
Wright, C., & Nyberg, D. (2017) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2015.0718 · Cited by 722 · cited 2×
“…Harrison, Thurgood, Boivie, & Pfarrer, 2019; Lovelace, Bundy, Hambrick, & Pollock, 2018) to alternative strategic actions (e.g., Gupta, Briscoe, & Hambrick, 2017; Wright & Nyberg, 2017) to the influence of compensation schemes (e.g., Benischke, Martin, & Glaser, 2019; Hafenbrädl & Waeger, 2016).”
BackgroundCEO servant leadership: Exploring executive characteristics and firm performance
Peterson, S. J., Galvin, B. M., & Lange, D. (2012) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2012.01253.x · Cited by 428
A Blessing and a Curse: How CEOs’ Trait Empathy Affects Their Management of Organizational Crises
König, A., Graf-Vlachy, L., Bundy, J., & Little, L. M. (2020) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2017.0387 · Cited by 237
Cited by
Hensellek, S., Kleine-Stegemann, L., & Kollmann, T. (2023) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113544 · Cited by 94
Metadata
- Authors
- Neely, B. H., Lovelace, J. B., Cowen, A. P., & Hiller, N. J.
- Venue
- Journal of Management
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2020-03-12
- Volume
- 46
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1029-1062
- ISSN
- 0149-2063 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-1211
- OpenAlex
- W3010853778
- Cited by
- 400
- References
- 15
- FWCI
- 72.19
- 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.
