The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Top Management Team Heterogeneity: Personality, Power, and Proxies
Abstract
This article reports partial results of an eight-year field study of the Top Management Teams (TMTs) of a global multidivisional financial services corporation and compares those results with large-sample work in the TMT literature. In particular, it investigates the operationalization of TMT cognitive diversity by the proxies of age, team tenure, industry experience, and functional background heterogeneity most often used in statistical work, and compares those operationalizations with cognitive diversity itself. In addition to highlighting which proxies seemed to most closely approximate cognitive diversity and why, it demonstrates the confounding impact of power on all operationalizations. A comparison of the field results with three representative studies with respect to the operationalization of the dependent variables of diversification, innovation, and performance helps to explain why previous TMT heterogeneity research has often produced inconsistent results or nonfindings. It offers some suggestions that should improve the robustness of statistical research and demonstrates the reciprocal usefulness of case and large-sample research.
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
Building Theories from Case Study Research
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258557 · Cited by 17,455
Organizational Strategy, Structure, and Process
Miles, R. E., Snow, C. C., Meyer, A. D., & Coleman, H. J. (1978) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1978.4305755 · Cited by 4,527
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 by
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
Does a different view create something new? The effect of employee diversity on innovation
Østergaard, C. R., Timmermans, B., & Kristinsson, K. (2011) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2010.11.004 · Cited by 1,016
Nadkarni, S., & Herrmann, P. (2010) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2010.54533196 · Cited by 801
Recognizing and Utilizing Expertise in Work Groups: A Status Characteristics Perspective
Bunderson, J. S. (2003) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3556637 · Cited by 527
Top Management Teams, Strategy and Financial Performance: A Meta‐Analytic Examination
Certo, S. T., Lester, R. H., Dalton, C. M., & Dalton, D. R. (2006) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00612.x · Cited by 485
Metadata
- Authors
- Pitcher, P., & Smith, A. D.
- Venue
- Organization Science
- Published
- 2001-02
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-18
- ISSN
- 1047-7039 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5455
- OpenAlex
- W2169225902
- Cited by
- 407
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 9.24
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Top Management Team Heterogeneity: Personality, Power, and Proxies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1287/orsc.12.1.1.10120
- The paper
- Pitcher, P., & Smith, A. D. (2001). Top Management Team Heterogeneity: Personality, Power, and Proxies. Organization Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.1.1.10120
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.