The influence of TMT characteristics on managing
organizational ambidexterity in the energy industry
Tom Bergman
Being able to pursue both explorative and exploitative innovation will support a firm in becoming and maintaining successful in its changing environment. The ability to do so goes hand in hand with conflict which has to be managed by the top management team (TMT). This study looks at how characteristics and diversity (such as educational, functional and tenure diversity) amongst TMT members influence the ability to achieve ambidexterity. Using data from 39 firms in the energy sector, hypotheses are developed with regard to the effect on ambidexterity. Findings show that in the absence of control variables, two hypotheses are moderately supported, however the full model does not show support for the hypothesized propositions.
Tom Bergman S1784447
University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business MBA Strategy & Innovation Management
Supervisor: Florian Noseleit Second assessor: Hans v.d. Bij
1
Introduction
Firms need to be and stay innovative to cope with competition and maintain profitable business over long periods (Tushman & O'Reilly III, 1996). Innovation can be categorized in different types, on the one hand it can be incremental, yet on the other hand it can be radical (Dewar & Dutton, 1986). In an ideal situation, a firm will manage to become ambidextrous, balancing both explorative and exploitative activities at the same time, in order to become successful (Duncan, 1976; He & Wong, 2004; Tushman & O'Reilly III, 1996). Early research on ambidexterity focused on the concept of structural ambidexterity, referring to the establishment of separate business units to address either exploration or exploitation (Duncan, 1976; Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008). More recently, the focus has shifted to organizational ambidexterity. Whereas structural ambidexterity refers to the underlying structure supporting or enabling ambidexterity, organizational ambidexterity emphasizes the behavioral capacity to balance both exploration and exploitation within a firm (Raisch, Birkinshaw, Probst, & Tushman, 2009; Simsek, 2009).
Although the link between successful organizations and ambidexterity has been identified (He & Wong, 2004), and antecedents of ambidexterity, such as leadership styles, have been considered (Jansen, George, Van den Bosch, & Volberda, 2008; Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008; Simsek, 2009), the influence of TMT characteristics on ambidexterity has not been researched thoroughly. Over the last decades, an increasing amount of attention has been given to research on upper echelon theory and the influence on innovative behavior and firm performance (Carpenter, Geletkanycz, & Sanders, 2004; Hambrick & Mason, 1984; Jackson, 1992; Lubatkin, Simsek, Ling, & Veiga, 2006; Talke, Salomo, & Rost, 2010). In order to address the gap in literature concerning TMT characteristics and ambidexterity, a combination of the upper echelon theory and research on ambidexterity may show interesting findings. More specifically, the goal of this paper is to research what influence TMT characteristics and diversity (such as educational and functional diversity) have on establishing and maintaining ambidexterity within firms.
2
This article is divided into four parts, following this introduction, the theoretical background on TMT characteristics and ambidexterity will be presented along with hypotheses. Next, the methodology will be described including the sample and variables. The subsequent chapter will elucidate analysis and results of the research. Finally, the conclusions and discussion regarding this research will be stated.
Theoretical Background
Even though there has been substantial research regarding both ambidexterity (Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008; Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009; Raisch, Birkinshaw, Probst, & Tushman, 2009) and studies regarding influence of TMT characteristics on innovation strategy and performance (Talke, Salomo, & Kock, 2011; Bantel & Jackson, 1989; Auh & Menguc, 2005). There is a lack of research on the direct influence of TMT characteristics on ambidexterity, more specifically the process of integrating both explorative and exploitative activities.
With regard to the upper echelon theory, Simsek, Veiga, Lubatkin, & Dino (2005) establish a link between CEO- and team-level determinants and behavioral integration. Showing that CEO tenure, and TMT characteristics such as size, goal preference diversity and educational diversity have a positive influence on behavioral integration.
Building forth on behavioral integration, Lubatkin, Simsek, Ling, & Veiga (2006) researched the effect of TMT behavorial integration on ambidexterity in small- to medium-sized firms (SMEs) and the effect of ambidexterity on performance. They find that a behavioral integrated TMT leads to an ambidexterous orientation, and they find a significant relation between an ambidextrous orientation and firm performance. Other antecedents of ambidexterity are described by Jansen, George, Van den Bosch, & Volberda (2008), who have researched the relationship between senior team attributes and leadership behavior with regard to organizational ambidexterity. They have found that shared vision and social integration amongst members leads to ambidexterity.
3
team, such as shared vision and social integration. Lubatkin, Simsek, Ling, & Veiga (2006) investigated TMT behavioral integration and its relationship to ambidexterity. However, thusfar no research has been conducted, investigating the direct effect of TMT characteristics on ambidexterity. Therefore, the goal of this study is to examine how TMT characteristics (such as educational, functional and tenure diversity) influence organizational ambidexterity. In order to research this effect, some theoretical concepts have to be clarified.
Organizational Ambidexterity
The term ambidextrous organization was first mentioned by Duncan (1976), who described it as an organization’s ability to manage conflicting demands through using dual structures. These conflicting demands are on the trade-off between on the one hand adaptation, i.e. change and flexibility; and on the other hand alignment and stability. Both these demands can be satisfied through either exploitation of current business activities, refinement of their capabilities and elaboration of existing experiences; or exploration which is related to search for new opportunities, risk taking and experimenting (Holmqvist, 2003). March (1991) argues that the exploration of new possibilities and experimenting reduces the effectiveness of exploitative activities within a firm, whereas on the other hand the latter activities reduce the attractiveness of explorative activities, such as experimenting. Therefore, a balance in attention given to both exploration and exploitation should be sought between to avoid overemphasis on either one (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009; Gupta, Smith, & Shalley, 2006; He & Wong, 2004; Holmqvist, 2003; March, 1991; Raisch, Birkinshaw, Probst, & Tushman, 2009).
4
between exploration and exploitation, the latter integrates exploration and exploitation simultaneously. While managing both exploration of opportunities and exploiting current competencies, is essential for firms (Raisch, Birkinshaw, Probst, & Tushman, 2009; March, 1991), many authors have not made a clear distinction regarding how this can be achieved. As Gupta et al. (2006, p. 697) state: ‘Although near consensus exists on the need for balance, there is considerably less clarity on how this balance can be achieved’. Jansen, George, Van den Bosch & Volberda (2008) also state that these drivers of ambidexterity should be investigated, considering that pursuing both explorative and exploitative activities is complex and difficult to achieve. Therefore, it would be interesting to look at the drivers of ambidexterity, more specifically what effect TMT characteristics have on ambidexterity.
Top management team characteristics
5
Simsek (2009) argues that its senior executives ultimately drive the organization towards ambidexterity. Thus, it is interesting to investigate the influence of diversity in team characteristics on achieving and maintaining ambidexterity.
Team diversity
Characteristics and their diversity amongst top management team members can be divided in four main categories, described by Lawrence (1997). These include demographic characteristics (age, gender, and ethnicity); relational attributes which encompass individual relationships with the organization (organizational tenure or functional area); attributes which include an individual’s position within the society (status attributes); and personal attributes consisting of preferences and beliefs (Lawrence, 1997). Of these categories, demographic, relational and status attributes are directly observable and thus provide more reliable and valid measures (Pfeffer, 1983). Moreover, research concerning team diversity is divided up into two approaches: the demographic and the cognitive approach (Kilduff, Angelmar, & Mehra, 2000). The former approach is dependent on readily observable variables also described in Lawrence (1997), whereas the cognitive approach is reliant on unobservable variables (attitudes, values, and beliefs). Two theories with regard to diversity and its effects within top management team are the ‘similarity/attraction’ (SA) perspective, and the ‘information/decision-making’ (ID) perspective. In the case of the SA perspective, homogenous teams are believed to be preferred over diverse teams, and thus work more smoothly. The ID perspective on the other hand posits that more diverse teams possess a broader range of knowledge, experience and skills, which can be projected in more creative thinking and innovative outcomes (van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007; Mannix & Neale, 2005). Nevertheless, neither of the two perspectives has seen significant empirical results (Bowers, Pharmer, & Salas, 2000; Webber & Donahue, 2001).
Educational diversity
6
Diversity in educational curriculum of team members combines different views and encourages more thoughtful and constructive approaches to a firm’s innovation strategy (Talke, Salomo, & Rost, 2010). Bantel & Jackson (1989) found that the innovative firms of their sample were related to more diverse teams in terms of educational background, this because team members with differing educational backgrounds provide a diversity of perspectives in problem-solving tasks. Naranjo-Gil & Hartmann (2007) found evidence for the effect of TMT heterogeneity on strategic change and innovation, as they are provided with a broader scope of information. Innovativeness, changes in startegy and exploring opportunities, as a result from differing perspectives are all characteristics of explorative activities (March, 1991).
Geletkanycz & Black (2001) find that difference in educational background does not have a significant influence on commitment to the status quo. Further there is no literature, to my knowledge, investigating the relationship between eductional curriculum diversity and exploitation.
Thus, the above listed arguments show that a TMT consisting of diverse educational backgrounds will lead to exploration, and not to exploitation. Ambidexterity, however is attained by balancing both explorative and exploitative activities.
Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H1: A high level of educational curriculum diversity within a top management team is negatively related to achieving ambidexterity within an organization.
Educational level diversity relates to the difference in degrees attained by TMT members (e.g. bachelor’s degree, master’s degree, or doctorate).
7
However, teams composed of members with overall high levels of education also process information more efficiently (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990; Wiersema & Bantel, 1992). March (1991) argues that efficiency is an important aspect of exploitation.
The arguments from literature listed above are associated with homogeneity within a team, a more diverse team would then adversely affect exploration and exploitation.
In order to achieve ambidexterity, team characteristics should positively influence both exploration and exploitation. These conflicting activities should be balanced and integrated (O'Reilly III & Tushman, 2008). However, educational level diversity has a negative influence on behavioral integration, thus also the ability to integrate exploration and exploitation (Simsek, Veiga, Lubatkin, & Dino, 2005; Smith & Tushman, 2005).
Therefore, the following is hypothesized:
H2: A high level of post-secondary educational diversity within a top management team is negatively related to achieving ambidexterity within an organization.
Functional diversity
Functional background refers to the variance in prior business functions of team members, such as finance, marketing and human resources.
Pooling top managers with different functional backgrounds can bring together a broad range of information and experience, increasing the depth of information elaboration (Hambrick, Cho, & Chen, 1996). As a result, functional diversity is believed to avoid groupthink (Boone & Hendriks, 2009). Offsetting groupthink causes team members to come up with original decisions, exploring opportunities (Bantel & Jackson, 1989). Next to that, Bantel & Jackson (1989) found support for a positive effect of functional diversity on innovation, as cross-functional communication stimulates combination of facts and ideas in novel ways. All the above arguments indicate that functional diversity has a positive influence on exploration.
8
The arguments above show that functional diveristy has a positive influence on explorative activities, however negatively influences exploitative activities. It will be problematic for a functional diverse team to balance exploration and exploitation. This leads to the following proposition:
H3: A high level of functional diversity within a top management team is negatively related to achieving ambidexterity within an organization.
Team tenure
An increase in TMT tenure is shown to create a shared mindset throughout the team, pursuing stable and unchanging strategies (Finkelstein & Hambrick, 1990). Additionally, longer tenured teams appear to become isolated from key information over time, in the first years, learning effects show to have a positive effect. However with increasing tenure, team members believe they have accumulated sufficient expertise and knowledge, developing a “Not Invented Here” or NIH syndrome. This reduces the adoption of novel or unique strategies, as the TMT commits to established policies and practices (Katz, 1982). These arguments show that an increase in team tenure is positively related to exploitative activities. Moreover, teams with a higher average organizational tenure change their attitudes towards change, an inherent part of exploration (March, 1991), resisting change as tenure increases (Bantel & Jackson, 1989). Wiersema & Bantel (1992) also indicate that long tenure creates understanding of the status quo within the organization, implying a resistance to change. Commitment to the status quo is related to exploitation (Geletkanycz & Black, 2001).
Finkelstein & Hambrick (1990) argue that shorter tenured teams usually have fresh, diverse information and are willing to take risks. Linking this argument to the aforementioned, the assumption can be made that longer tenured teams are less explorative, i.e. willing to take risks and search for opportunities.
9
search for opportunities is lacking, which is an essential aspect of ambidexterity. These arguments lead to the formulation of the following hypothesis:
H4: An increase in top management team tenure will negatively influence ambidexterity within an organization.
Tenure diversity
Besides the overal tenure of the executive team, diversity amongst members may also show valuable implications for achieving ambidextery. Tenure diversity refers to the differences among team members in terms of the amount of time spent with the organization (Chi, Huang, & Lin, 2009).
March (1991) states that longer tenured individuals accumulate knowledge, developing a more homogenous way of taking action. Kanter (1977) adds that longer tenure also increases understanding of policies and procedures. This implies that longer tenured team members have a positive influence on exploitative activities. As mentioned above, research has shown that longer tenured teams are more persistent to strategy and resist change (Finkelstein & Hambrick, 1990). Indicating that teams with high tenure levels undertake more exploitative activities, because the teams focus on existing skills and capabilities (Lavie, Stettner, & Tushman, 2010).
March (1991) also states that low tenured team members have a positive effect on exploration. The reason is that, although they are less knowledgeable, they deviate from the established way of thinking. Teams with short tenure enage in experimentation and pursue novel strategies (Finkelstein & Hambrick, 1990). Wiersema & Bantel (1992) find that TMTs with diverse tenure among members lead to strategic change and diversification. Arguments above demonstrate that lower tenure is related to explorative activities.
10
H5: Tenure diversity within a top management team is positively related to achieving ambidexterity within an organization.
Top management team size
As the size of the top management team increases, the amount of opinions, values and objectives also increases (Bantel & Jackson, 1989; Wiersema & Bantel, 1992). Reaching a consensus will become more difficult as a result of these varying opinions and objectives (Boeker, 1997). Conflicts may also arise due to diverse points of view within a team (Escribá-Esteve, Sánchez-Peinado, & Sánchez-Peinado, 2009). Amason & Sapienza (1997) find that TMT size is positively related to cognitive and affective conflict. Although cognitive conflict can lead to improvement of decision quality, the combination of these two forms of conflict leads to negative results (Amason & Sapienza, 1997). Curral, Forrester, Dawson, & West (2001) add that next to reaching a consensus, larger teams also have lower levels of participation, emphasis on quality and support for innovation (p. 192). Moreover, together with team size, goal and information asymmetries increase, which have to be coordinated through rules and regulations (Smith, et al., 1994). Such formal controls can impede a firm’s ability to innovate, and explore for new opportunities (Escribá-Esteve, Sánchez-Peinado, & Sánchez-Peinado, 2009). Thus, team size is negatively related to exploration.
The link between TMT size and exploitation is relatively underexplored. Yet, Haleblian & Finkelstein (1993) show that larger groups improve problem-solving skills and information processing. This because they enjoy more capabilities and resouces.
In order to become ambidextrous, a firm should engage in both exploration and exploitation (O'Reilly III & Tushman, 2008). Although, literature shows that team size negatively impacts exploration and therefore a crucial part of ambidexterity. The following hypothesis is created:
11 Educational degree diversity Ambidexterity Functional diversity TMT tenure Tenure diversity TMT size Educational curriculum diversity
12
Methodology
Data collection and sample
Data is collected by using the PFC Energy 100 companies list (Bloomberg.com), consequently filtering out firms originating from countries that do not offer the essential information on their business activities in order to complete this research. Information on residual firms is subsequently gathered through the use of online databases. The majority of data is obtained from Orbis, a database by Bureau van Dijk, in combination with company websites to determine current top management teams. Patent portfolio information is gathered through the combined use of Orbis and the European Patent Office database, which offers the option to search for worldwide patent information. The remaining sample for which sufficient data was available consists out of 39 firms in the energy industry. The reason why the energy industry is considered relevant in relation to ambidexterity is that the industry is constantly developing new ways to provide energy, such as renewables, yet at the same time produce more efficiently. For example, the European Union has planned to rely less on non-renewable resources and transform the energy sector into a more renewable one (EC, 2012). This will lead firms to continuously innovate in order to stay competitive. However, these new technologies often have a disadvantage in costs as compared to incumbent technologies and do not always show direct benefits (Jacobsson & Bergek, 2004). Therefore, firms in the energy sector should focus both on explorative and exploitative activities.
Dependent variable
13
way ambidexterity is measured in this research is through observing whether patents granted in 2012 reside in an area not included in its former portfolio; while also holding patents in (well) known patent areas. Moreover, ambidextrous activity is measured by whether a firm holds patents in an exploitative direction or explorative direction, with a score of 1 representing a perfectly ambidextrous firm, where scores below 1 and closer to 0 indicate a less balanced portfolio, focusing either on exploration or exploitation.
Independent variables
In this research, the influence of TMT characteristics on ambidexterity is investigated. Functions in top management teams in this research typically include: chief executive officer (CEO), chief financial officer (CFO), chief operating officer (COO), chief information officer (CIO), chief administrative officer (CAO), and vice presidents (VP). Composition of the team is taken from company websites. The characteristics of top management which will be considered in this paper are diversity, tenure and size of the team. Diversity is categorized in three different types, namely ‘Educational diversity’, ‘Functional diversity’ and ‘Tenure diversity’.
Educational diversity
In order to observe the most complete effect of educational diversity, both diversity in terms of tenure and educational background are considered. The educational tenure diversity is measured by the coefficient of variation in the TMT. The coefficient of variation is measured by dividing the standard deviation with the mean of education, which is labeled either: 3 (=bachelor), 5 (=master) or 8 (=PhD), relating to the nominal years of study per level. Higher scores on the coefficient of variation indicate greater diversity on the degrees attained by executives.
𝐶𝑉𝑒𝑑𝑢 =
𝜎 𝑥̅
14
executive’s function is registered to exclude any inconsistencies. Explanation on the Blau index is shown below.
𝐵𝑙𝑎𝑢𝐸𝑑𝑢 = 1 − ∑ 𝑠𝑖2 𝑛
𝑖=1
Where n represents the number of top management team members, and si indicates the share each category holds in the TMT. The sum of each squared category is substracted from 1. Furthermore, higher scores imply that TMT is more diversified in terms of educational background. For example, a team consisting of 8 members each with a different educational background1 (12.5% share per category; 0.125² = 0.015625), would result in a score of 0.875, while a whole team sharing the same educational background (100%; 1² = 1) will result in a score of 0.
Functional diversity
The variety of functional backgrounds across TMT members is defined as functional diversity. Functional diversity is measured by using the Blau (1977) index. The index is calculated using the following formula:
𝐵𝑙𝑎𝑢𝐹 = 1 − ∑ 𝑠𝑖2 𝑛
𝑖=1
Functional backgrounds are listed by examining personal information of team members, their history with the firm, which is then assigned a number between 1 and 7. The coding of different functional backgrounds is done through a coding scheme, which is adapted from Hambrick, Cho & Chen (1996) using only categories relevant for this research. This scheme can be found in the appendix.
Tenure diversity
The employment tenure diversity is measured by the coefficient of variation in the TMT. These two variables can be measured using this method because they are ratio-variables.
15 𝐶𝑣 =𝜎
𝑥̅
The variable is log-transformed due to violation of the normality assumption.
Top management team tenure
The tenure of top management teams was measured by collecting the total sum of individual members’ tenure, measured in months, which is then divided by the size of the team.
Size of the team
Top management team size was calculated by identifying the top management team per firm and the count of active members within the TMT for more than two years prior to 2012. This in order to investigate a valid relationship between TMT team and patent applications, since the time for a patent to be granted after application usually takes two to three years.
Net income
The net income of the year 2009 was controlled for, this because high levels of income could subsequently lead to stimuli for moving in new directions of innovation (Scherer, 2001), and investing heavily in research and development which would create a bias towards the relationship being researched in this paper.
Firm size
16
Analysis and results
17
A multiple (OLS) regression analysis is conducted to see whether top management team characteristics predicted ambidextrous activities of firms. Table 1 presents descriptive statistics and correlations, table 2 presents regression results for ambidexterity. Using the enter method results indicate that the amount of variance explained by the model is not significant, F (9,29) = 1.539, p >.05, R² = .323, R² Adjusted = .113. The analysis shows however that diversity of education (β = -.305, t (32) = -1.889, p <.10) and top management team size (β = .320, t (32) = 1.856, p <.10) are significantly related to ambidexterity. Nevertheless, results of model 2 with the control variables included show that these significant relationships do not hold any more. Through investigating the results, the specific relationships between the independent variables and ambidexterity can be identified.
18 Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and correlations
Mean St. dev (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (1) Ambidexterity .706 .162 -
(2) Edu curriculum diversity .635 .170 -.075 -
(3) Educational diversity .280 .119 -.311 .121 - (4) Functional diversity .596 .183 .242 .353 -.124 - (5) Tenure diversity a -.224 .227 .030 -.215 .028 -.060 - (6) Team tenure 180.720 78.244 -.168 .197 -.015 -.149 -.612 - (7) Team size 10.026 4.107 .293 .239 .061 .354 .019 .013 - (8) Net Income 2009 3474.589 5167.445 -.251 .244 .034 -.255 -.531 .598 -.160 - (9) Firm size 43.113 48.753 -.458 .089 .382 -.396 -.235 .317 -.155 .375 -
19
Table 2. Summary of the Multiple Regression Analysis for Ambidexterity
Model 1 Model 2
Variable B SE (B) B SE (B)
Edu curriculum diversity -.121 0.171 -.066 0.17
Educational diversity -.413* 0.218 -.261 0.23 Tenure diversity a -.082 0.144 -.137 0.15 Functional diversity .081 0.170 -.031 0.18 Team tenure .000 0.000 .000 0.000 Team size .013* 0.007 .011 0.01 Ambidexterity dummy .016 0.063 -.007 0.06 Net Income 2009 .000 0.00 Firm size -.001 0.00 R² .253 .323 Adjusted R² .084 .113
a Variable is log transformed.
20
Discussion and conclusions
The goal of this research is to investigate the influence of top management team characteristics on ambidexterity. Results of the multiple regression analysis show that the model does not show support for the direct effect of TMT characteristics on ambidexterity. One interesting result shows that educational diversity in terms of curriculum may have a negative influence, in contrast to prior findings related to innovation/ambidexterity (Bantel & Jackson, 1989). This effect may be caused by the use of the coding scheme by Hambrick, Cho, & Chen (1996) who investigate it’s influence on competitive moves, as Bantel & Jackson (1989) did not elucidate their use of a coding scheme. Although diversity of educational degrees attained found moderate support in model 1 (full regression output is included as appendix), the inclusion of control variables mitigated this significant effect. A viable explanation for this might be that higher levels of education, in contrast to homogeneity, are preferred. Because, homogeneity in educational level diversity may also indicate a team consisting of members with bachelor’s degrees.
Results for functional diversity show a striking development, in the base model, functional diversity is positively related to ambidexterity, however when including control variables this relationship transforms into a negative effect. This may be caused by the influence of adding firm size, which would indicate that together with an increase in size the TMT grows too large and diversity is too high to yield positive outcomes (Boeker, 1997). Little prior research exists on tenure diversity amongst TMTs, indicating that there exists a clear lack of research of the effect of tenure diversity on ambidexterity. The positive effect of tenure diversity in this research has not found any support, this raises the question whether the proposed linear relationship, found by Ely (2004), is correct. It might be that, instead of a linear relationship, a curvilinear relationship exists between team diversity and ambidexterity (Chi, Huang, & Lin, 2009).
21
need to be taken into account. Another reason can be the fact that a mediating factor is missing, as also set forth by Mannix & Neale (2005), that brings together team characteristics and ambidexterity.
A limitation of this study is the data composition. First, the focus on the energy industry raises the question whether the effects are generalizable for other industries, moreover data is collected from the top 100 firms, of which 39 remained, this selection of firms is most likely not representative for the energy industry as a whole considering these firms are best-performing. Secondly, the demographic data regarding team diversity will not fully accommodate for the real psychological and cognitive processes driving the behavior of top managers (Lawrence, 1997). Also, a larger sample size is highly preferred in order to generalize findings. Another limitation is the geographical scope of the dataset, considering the majority of the firms are located in North-America or Western Europe, findings may differ when data is collected from other regions. The operationalization of the dependent variable is another limitation, as there is no clear distinction on what ambidexterity encompasses in terms of patent portfolio.
22
References
Acs, Z. J., & Audretsch, D. B. (1987). Innovation, market structure, and firm size. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 69(4), 567-574.
Ahuja, G., & Lampert, C. M. (2001). Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: A longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6-7), 521-543.
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.
Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2009). Exploitation-Exploration Tensions and Organizational Ambidexterity: Managing Paradoxes of Innovation. Organization Science, 20(4), 696-717.
Auh, S., & Menguc, B. (2005). Top management team diversity and innovativeness: The moderating role of interfunctional coordination. Industrial Marketing
Management, 34(3), 249-261.
Bantel, K. A., & Jackson, S. E. (1989). Top management and innovations in banking: Does the composition of the top team make a difference? Strategic Management Journal, 10(1), 107-124.
Belderbos, R., Faems, D., Leten, B., & Van Looy, B. (2010). Technological Activities and Their Impact on the Financial Performance of the Firm: Exploitation and Exploration within and between Firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27(6), 869-882.
Blau, P. M. (1977). Inequality and heterogeneity - A primitive theory of social structure. New York: Free Press.
Boeker, W. (1997). Executive Migration and Strategic Change: The Effect of Top
Manager Movement on Product-Market Entry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(2), 213-236.
Boone, C., & Hendriks, W. (2009). Top Management Team Diversity and Firm Performance: Moderators of Functional-Background and Locus-of-Control Diversity. Management Science, 55(2), 165-180.
Bowers, C. A., Pharmer, J. A., & Salas, E. (2000). When Member Homogeneity is Needed in Work Teams: A Meta-Analysis. Small Group Research, 31(3), 305-327.
Camelo, C., Fernández-Alles, M., & Hernández, A. B. (2010). Strategic consensus, top management teams, and innovation performance. International Journal of Manpower, 31(6), 678-695.
Camelo-Ordaz, C., Hernández-Lara, A. B., & Valle-Cabrera, R. (2005). The relationship between top management teams and innovative capacity in companies. Journal of Management Development, 24(8), 683-705.
Camisón-Zornoza, C., Lapiedra-Alcamí, R., Segarra-Ciprés, M., & Boronat-Navarro, M. (2004). A Meta-analysis of Innovation and Organizational Size. Organizational Studies, 25(3), 331-361.
23
Carmeli, A., & Halevi, M. Y. (2008). How top management team behavioral integration and behavioral complexity enable organizational ambidexterity: The moderating role of contextual ambidexterity. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(2), 207-218. 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.
Carpenter, M. A., Geletkanycz, M. A., & Sanders, W. G. (2004). Upper Echelons Research Revisited: Antecedents, Elements, and Consequences of Top Mangement Team Composition. Journal of Management, 30(6), 749-778. Chang, Y.-Y., & Hughes, M. (2012). Drivers of innovation ambidexterity in small- to
medium-sized firms. European Management Journal, 30(1), 1-17.
Chi, N.-W., Huang, Y.-M., & Lin, S.-C. (2009). A Double-Edged Sword? Exploring the Curvilinear Relationship Between Organizational Tenure Diversity and Team Innovation: The Moderating Role of Team-Oriented HR Practices. Group & Organization Management, 34(6), 698-726.
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128-152. Coltman, T., Devinney, T. M., Midgley, D. F., & Venaik, S. (2008). Formative versus
reflective measurement models: Two applications of formative measurement. Journal of Business Research, 61(12), 1250-1262.
Curral, L. A., Forrester, R. H., Dawson, J. F., & West, M. A. (2001). It's what you do and the way that you do it: Team task, team size, and innovation related group
processes. European Journal of Work and Organization Psychology, 10(2), 187-204.
Daellenbach, U. S., McCarthy, A. M., & Schoenecker, T. S. (1999). Commitment to innovation: the impact of top management team characteristics. R&D
Management, 29(3), 199-208.
Dewar, R. D., & Dutton, J. E. (1986). The Adoption of Radical and Incremental
Innovations: An Empirical Analsysis. Management Science, 32(11), 1422-1433. Duncan, R. B. (1976). The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for
innovation. The management of organization, 1, 167-188.
EC. (2012, February 13). Innovating for Sustainable Growth: A Bioeconomy for Europe. Brussels, Belgium.
Escribá-Esteve, A., Sánchez-Peinado, L., & Sánchez-Peinado, E. (2009). The Influence of Top Management Teams in the Strategic Orientation and Performance of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises. British Journal of Management, 20(4), 581-597. Finkelstein, S., & Hambrick, D. C. (1990). Top-Management-Team Tenure and
Organizational Outcomes: The Moderating Role of Managerial Discretion. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(3), 484-503.
Geletkanycz, M. A., & Black, S. S. (2001). Bound by the past? Experience-based effects on commitment to the strategic status quo. Journal of Management, 27, 3-21. Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating
role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209-226.
24
Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The internplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 693-706.
Haleblian, J., & Finkelstein, S. (1993). Top Management Team Size, CEO Dominance, and Firm Performance: The Moderating Roles of Environmental Turbulence and Discretion. The Academy of Management Journal, 36(4), 844-863.
Hambrick, D. C. (1994). Top management groups: A conceptual integration and
reconsideration of the 'team' label. Research in organizational behavior, 171-214. Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper Echelons: The Organization as a
Reflection of Its Top Managers. The Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193-206.
Hambrick, D. C., Cho, T. S., & Chen, M.-J. (1996). The Influence of Top Management Team Heterogeneity on Firms' Competitive Moves. Administrative science quarterly, 41(4), 659-684.
Harris, R. J. (2001). A primer of multivariate statistics. Mahwah, New Jersey, United States: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
He, Z.-L., & Wong, P.-K. (2004). Exploration vs. Exploitation: An Empirical Test of the Ambidexterity Hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4), 481-494.
Holmqvist, M. (2003). A dynamic Model of Intra- and Interorganizational Learning. Organization Studies, 24(1), 95-123.
Jackson, S. E. (1992). Consequences of group composition for the interpersonal
dynamics of strategic issue processing. Advances in strategic management, 8(3), 345-382.
Jacobsson, S., & Bergek, A. (2004). Transforming the energy sector: the evolution of technological systems in renewable energy technology. Industrial & Corporate Change, 13(5), 815-849.
Jansen, J. J., George, G., Van den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2008). Senior Team Attributes and Organizational Ambidexterity: The Moderating Role of
Transformational Leadeship. Journal of Management Studies, 45(5), 982-1007. Jansen, J. J., Tempelaar, M. P., van den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2009).
Structural Differentiation and Ambidexterity: The Mediating Role of Integration Mechanisms. Organization Science, 20(4), 797-811.
Kanter, R. (1977). Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic Books. Katz, R. (1982). The Effects of Group Longevity on Project Communication and
Performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27(1), 81-104.
Kilduff, M., Angelmar, R., & Mehra, A. (2000). Top Manangement-Team Diversity and Firm Performance: Examining the Role of Cognitions. Organization Science, 11(1), 21-34.
Kor, Y. Y. (2006). Direct and interaction effects of top management team and board compositions on R&D investment strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 27(11), 1081-1099.
Lavie, D., Stettner, U., & Tushman, M. L. (2010). Exploration and Exploitation Withing and Across Organizations. The Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 109-155. Lawrence, B. S. (1997). The Black Box of Organizational Demography. Organization
Science, 8(1), 1-22.
25
Management Team Behavioral Integration. Journal of Management, 32(5), 646-672.
Mannix, E., & Neale, M. A. (2005). What Differences Make a Difference? The Promise and Reality of Diverse Teams in Organizations. Psychological science in the public interest, 6(2), 31-55.
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71-87.
Naranjo-Gil, D., & Hartmann, F. (2007). Management accounting systems, top
management team heterogeneity and strategic change. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32(7-8), 735-756.
Nishii, L. H., Gotte, A., & Raver, J. L. (2007). Upper Echelon Theory Revisited: The Relationship Between Upper Echelon Diversity, the Adoption of Diversity
Practices, and Organizational Performance. Working Paper, Cornell University. O'Reilly III, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability:
Resolving the innovator's dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 185-206.
Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the Black Box: An Analysis of Work Group Diversity, Conflict, and Performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 1-28.
Pfeffer, J. (1983). Organizational Demography. Research in Organizational Behavior, 5, 299-357.
Pfeffer, J. (1985). Organizational Demography: Implications for Management. California Management Review, 28(1), 67-81.
Priem, R. L. (1990). Top management team group factors, consensus, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 11(6), 469-478.
Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational Ambidexterity: Antecedents, Outcomes, and Moderators. Journal of Management, 34(3), 375-409. Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., & Tushman, M. L. (2009). Organizational
Ambidexterity: Balancing Exploitation and Exploration for Sustained Performance. Organization Science, 20(4), 685-695.
Scherer, F. M. (2001). The Link Between Gross Profitability and Pharmaceutical R&D Spending. Health Affairs, 20(5), 216-220.
Simons, T., Pelled, L. H., & Smith, K. A. (1999). Making use of difference: Diversity, debate, and decision comprehensiveness in top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 42(6), 662-673.
Simsek, Z. (2009). Organizational Ambidexterity: Towards a Multilevel Understanding. Journal of Management Studies, 46(4), 597-624.
Simsek, Z., Veiga, J. F., Lubatkin, M. H., & Dino, R. N. (2005). Modeling the Multilevel Determinants of Top Management Team Behavioral Integration. Academy of Management Journal, 48(1), 69-84.
26
Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing Strategic Contradictions: A Top Management Model for Managing Innovation Streams. Organization Science, 16(5), 522-536.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1989). Using Multivariate Statistics. Cambridge: Harper & Row.
Talke, K., Salomo, S., & Kock, A. (2011). Top Management Team Diversity and Strategic Innovation Orientation: The Relationship and Consequences for
Innovativeness and Performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28, 819-832.
Talke, K., Salomo, S., & Rost, K. (2010). How top management team diversity affects innovativeness and performance via the strategic choice of focus on innovation fields. Research Policy, 39(7), 907-918.
Tushman, M. L., & O'Reilly III, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous Organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8-30.
van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M. C. (2007). Work Group Diversity. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 515-541.
Webber, S. S., & Donahue, L. M. (2001). Impact of highly and less job-related diversity on work group cohesion and performance: a meta-analysis. Journal of
Management, 27(2), 141-162.
27
Appendices
Categories educational diversity:
1. Engineering 2. Science 3. Business Administration 4. Economics 5. Liberal Arts 6. Law (LL.B./J.D.)
7. Business (other than administration, e.g. accounting, finance) 8. Other
Categories functional diversity:
1. Finance
2. Human Resources 3. Marketing
4. Operations
29 Coefficientsa Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) .774 0.146 5.303 .000
Blau index education -.121 0.171 -0.126 -.705 .486 .749 1.334
CoefEdu -.413 0.218 -0.305 -1.889 .068* .928 1.077
Var_Tenure_Log -.082 0.144 -0.115 -.572 .571 .593 1.688
Blau index of functional
diversity .081 0.170 0.091 .475 .638 .651 1.535
Average TMT tenure .000 0.000 -0.195 -.922 .364 .540 1.851
Top management team size .013 0.007 0.320 1.856 .073* .812 1.232
Ambi_dummy .016 0.063 0.044 .258 .798 .824 1.214
2 (Constant) .807 0.145 5.569 .000
Blau index education -.066 0.175 -0.069 -.375 .710 .694 1.441
CoefEdu -.261 0.234 -0.193 -1.118 .273 .784 1.275
Var_Tenure_Log -.137 0.149 -0.192 -.915 .368 .531 1.883
Blau index of functional
diversity -.031 0.180 -0.035 -.169 .867 .560 1.786
Average TMT tenure .000 0.000 -0.122 -.559 .580 .487 2.054
Top management team size .011 0.007 0.270 1.554 .131 .774 1.293
Ambi_dummy -.007 0.063 -0.019 -.109 .914 .773 1.293
Net Income 2009 .000 0.000 -0.109 -.491 .627 .479 2.090
Firm size calculated by
employees -.001 0.001 -0.320 -1.629 .114 .604 1.657
