Cognitive diversity among upper-echelon executives: implications for strategic decision processes

Diversity among executives is widely assumed to influence a firm's strategic decision processes, but empirical research on this linkage has been virtually nonexistent. To partially fill the void, we drew upon three separate studies to examine the impact of executive diversity on comprehensiveness of strategic decision-making and extensiveness of strategic planning. Contrary to common assumptions of researchers and executives, our results suggest that executive diversity inhibits rather than promotes comprehensive examinations of current opportunities and threats, and inhibits rather than promotes extensive long-range planning. In light of the cumulative research showing that firm performance is related to both comprehensiveness and extensiveness, our results provide evidence for an indirect connection between executive diversity and firm performance. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Curvilinearity in the diversification–performance linkage: an examination of over three decades of research

While an extensive literature examines the diversification‐performance relationship, little agreement exists concerning the nature of this relationship. Both theoretical and empirical disagreements abound. This study synthesizes findings from three decades of research to address major theoretical issues that remain open to debate. We derive three competing models from the literature and empirically assess these using meta‐analytic data drawn from 55 previously published studies. The results of our tests indicate that moderate levels of diversification yield higher levels of performance than either limited or extensive diversification. Thus, we provide support for the curvilinear model; that is, performance increases as firms shift from single‐business strategies to related diversification, but performance decreases as firms change from related diversification to unrelated diversification. The results also indicate major effects from variation in diversification and performance operationalizations. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Balancing board? The effects of board independence and capital on firms offering work‐family benefits

While prior research demonstrates the strategic human resource (HR) advantages associated with offering work–family benefits (WFBs), firms continue to be reluctant in providing their employees with these benefits. Drawing on the corporate governance and stakeholder orientation literatures, this study examines the role of board independence and capital for WFBs being offered in publicly‐traded firms. Our results demonstrate that various director independence and capital attributes are related to the firm offering WFBs. Specifically, board directors who are outsiders, women, and holders of additional directorships, with their broad stakeholder orientation, increase the likelihood of WFBs being offered by the firm [Correction added on December 14, 2017, after first online publication: the preceding sentence has been updated to clarify the findings of the study.]. These findings are of importance to HR practitioners considering the influence that corporate boards can have on the firm's use of HR practices, such as WFBs, that affect all employees, not just the executives.     

A Comparison of Conjoint Analysis Response Formats

A split-sample design is used to evaluate the convergent validity of three response formats used in conjoint analysis experiments. We investigate whether recoding rating data to rankings and choose-one formats, and recoding ranking data to choose one, result in structural models and welfare estimates that are statistically indistinguishable from estimates based on ranking or choose-one questions. Our results indicate that convergent validity of ratings, ranks, and choose one is not established. In addition, we find that people frequently use "ties" in responses to rating questions, and that the option not to choose any of the alternatives ("opt-out") affects some preference estimates.     

The impact of strategic dissent on organizational outcomes: A meta‐analytic integration

Research summary: Strategic dissent represents divergence in ideas, preferences, and beliefs related to ideal and/or future strategic emphasis. Conventional wisdom in strategic management holds that such differences in managerial cognitions lead to higher‐quality strategic decisions, and thus to enhanced firm performance. However, 4 decades of empirical research have not provided consistent findings or clear insights into the effects of strategic dissent. Hence, we analyze the relative validity of predictions about these effects from both social psychological theories of group behavior and information processing perspectives on decision‐making. Then, we conduct a meta‐analytic path analysis (MASEM) based on current empirical evidence. Synthesizing data from 78 articles, we put to rest the notion that strategic dissent leads to positive outcomes for organizations and estimate how negative its effects actually are. Managerial summary: Top management teams (TMTs) set the tone and direction for their firms in important ways. Top managers, however, often disagree over fundamental issues related to strategy. Such strategic dissent affects how important decisions are made, and thus how the firm performs. In more specific terms and contrary to popular belief, strategic dissent creates not only dysfunctional relationships among top managers, but also disrupts the process by which these managers exchange, discuss, and integrate information and ideas in making strategic decisions. In short, firms have not yet generated value through numerous perspectives, ideas, and opinions among their top managers. We discuss interventions that could prove helpful in efforts to benefit from having diverse cognitions in a TMT.