| Abstract: | Disappointed by the lack of consistent and robust findings, scholars suspect that the problems may be related to our research methods and have frequently called for longitudinal, clinical, and psychometric studies of succession. This article compares the findings from one such study with representative studies in the literature. Examining the operationalization of key variables used to study succession antecedents, processes, and organizational consequences, it reveals possible reasons for the disappointing results and suggests ways of strengthening those operationalizations. In addition to suggesting refinements in the measurement of performance, the comparative exercise demonstrates why current proxies for personality and power may create difficulty. It concludes that both field and large‐sample research stand to benefit from a closer collaboration. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. |
