Top management team heterogeneity and firm performance: An empirical research on Chinese listed companies

1. Allison P (1978). Measures of inequality. American Sociological Review, (43): 865–880

2. Amason A C, Sapienza H J (1997). The effects of top management team size and interaction norms on cognitive and affective conflict. Journal of Management, 23(4): 495–516

   • Article
   • Google Scholar

3. Blau P M (1977). Inequality and Heterogeneity: A Primitive Theory of Social Structure. New York: Free Press.

   • Google Scholar

4. Carpenter M A (2002). The implications of strategy and social context for the relationship between top management team heterogeneity and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 23(3): 275–284

   • Article
   • Google Scholar

5. Finkelstein S, Hambrick D C (1996). Strategic Leadership: Top Executives and Their Effect on Organizations. St. Paul: West.

   • Google Scholar

6. Hambrick, D. C. and Cho, T. S. and Chen, Ming-Jer. The influence of top management team heterogeneity on firm’s competitive moves. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1996, 41(4): 659–684

   • Article
   • Google Scholar

7. Hambrick D C, Mason P A (1984). Upper Echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2): 193–206

   • Article
   • Google Scholar

8. Glunk U, Heijltjes M G, Olie R (2001). Design characteristics and functioning of top management teams in Europe. European Management Journal, 19(3): 291–300

   • Article
   • Google Scholar

9. Knight D, Pearce C L, Smith K G, Olian J D, Sims H P, Smith K A, Flood P (1999). Top management team diversity, group process, and strategic consensus. Strategic Management Journal, 20(3): 445–465

   • Article
   • Google Scholar

10. Lan Hailin (2004). Research on the behavior of China’s state-owned business groups in the transition economy Beijing: Economic Science Press (in Chinese)

    • Google Scholar

11. Pfeffer J (1983). Organizational demography. In: Cummings L L, Staw B M, eds. Research in Organization Behavior. Greenwich: JAI Press, 299–357

    • Google Scholar

12. Richard H L, Maier N R (1961). Quality and acceptance of problem solutions by members of homogeneous and heterogeneous groups. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, (62): 401–407

13. Richard O C, Shelor R M (2002). Linking top management team age heterogeneity to firm performance: Juxtaposing two mid-range theories. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 13(6): 958–974

    • Article
    • Google Scholar

14. Ronen S, Shenkar Q (1985). Clustering countries on attitudinal dimensions: A review and synthesis. Academy of Management Review, (10): 435–454

15. Simons T L (1995). Top management team consensus, heterogeneity and debate as contingent predictors of company performance: The complimentarity of group structure and process. Academy of Management Proceedings. 62–66

16. Tihanyi L, Ellstrand A E, Daily C M, Dalton D R (2001). Composition of the top management team and firm international diversification. Journal of Management, 26(6): 1157–1177

    • Article
    • Google Scholar

17. Wang Xigang, Cong Haitao, Ouyang Linnan (2003). What can explain corporate value: EVA or accountant index. Economy Science, (2): 98–106 (in Chinese)

18. Wei Liqun, Wang Zhihui (2002). Empirical study on the relationship between characteristics of TMTs and firm performance of Chinese Businesses. Nakai Business Review, (4): 16–22 (in Chinese)

19. West C T, Schwenk C R (1996). Top management team strategic consensus, demographic homogeneity and firm performance: a report of resounding nonfindings. Strategic Management Journal, 17(7): 571–576

    • Article
    • Google Scholar

20. Whitely R (1992). Societies, firms and markets: the social structuring of business systems, In: Whitey R, ed. European Business Systems: Firms and Markets in their National Context. London: Sage

    • Google Scholar

21. Yu Dongzhi, Chi Guohua (2004). Number of directors, board stability and performance: theory and experience. Economy Research, (4): 70–79 (in Chinese)

22. Zenger T, Lawrence B (1989). Organizational demography: The differential effects of age and tenure on communication. Academy of Management Journal, (32): 353–376

Download references