“Nationality Diversity in Top Management Teams and Firm Performance: a European Perspective”

“Nationality Diversity in Top Management

Teams and Firm Performance: a European

Perspective”

By: Daan Van Der Mee Student Number: 1428241

Double Degree Program: International Financial Management

Groningen, May 2007

Rijksuniversiteit Groningen Faculty of Management and Organization Landleven 5, 9747 AD Groningen, The Netherlands

&

Uppsala Universitet Department of Economics

P.O. Box 513 SE-751 20 Uppsala, Sweden

PREFACE

This report is a reflection of all the elements of my studies in International Business and Management with specialization Financial Management. Studying large corporations in Europe and their management teams in relation to their financial performance has been an optimal experience to round off my studies in the form of this thesis.

Prior to writing this thesis I stayed in Uppsala (Sweden) for one semester. An experience that has enriched my understanding of international business intensely. Swedish firms in this research, I have actually visited and studied in that period. During the process this gave me a certain point of recognition and makes it all the more interesting because I know what these firms are like in reality. Furthermore, I have experienced the reality of Hofstede’s dimensions. He typifies Sweden as a more open, feminine and collectivist culture, which I can completely agree with. I have worked with Swedes and know from my own experience that group processes take place, which can both enhance and deteriorate performance. Mutual understanding and respect are utterly important when working in a multinational environment and multinational teams. Thus, even though Hofstede’s theory is considered a generalization I consider it to be very useful and valid. Studying at two universities, with each their own distinct teaching methods and practices has broadened my perspective and enhanced my understanding of the subject matter.

Over the last 6 months the paper you are about to read has controlled a large part of my life. Even though the final product carries my name I would like to take this opportunity to thank the people who either directly or indirectly contributed to it. First of all my gratitude goes to Mr. Hermes who has always taken the effort and time to give me feedback and guide me in the process of writing this thesis, but above all for his openness, enthusiasm and commitment. In addition I would like to give many thanks to Mr. Kees van Veen, my second supervisor for his commitment, help and interest into my proceedings and Mr. Elving Gunnarsson, my Swedish supervisor for his feedback and interest. Furthermore I would like to thank Ilse Marsman for letting me use her database. Finally I want to thank my girlfriend and my parents for their endless support and faith in me.

ABSTRACT

This paper researches the influence of diversity in the nationalities of top management teams on the performance of the firms they govern. The main objective of this paper is therefore to find out whether there is a connection between the diversity in nationalities of the top management teams and the firm’s financial performance. Hypotheses are developed by mainly using sources from strategic management and sociology literature. The current study comprises the largest firms of the fifteen countries which first formed the European Union, adding up to a total of 363 companies. This research is partly based upon previous research carried out by another student of the faculty of management and organization. A database with all the companies and their executives plus some additional demographic information like age, gender and tenure were borrowed from my predecessor.

Nationality of an individual in the management team is used as a demographic proxy to measure diversity within the team. Nationality diversity is the term used for the independent variable. Hofstede’s cultural dimensions were used to measure nationality. A score for each team was calculated by taking the square root of the squared difference for each of Hofstede’s dimensions for each individual. A composite of financial accounting measures, which includes return on assets, return on sales and return on equity is used to measure firm performance. Control variables used are the composite of the logs of total assets, annual sales (revenue or turnover) and employees as an indicator for firm size. Leverage is used as control for financial structure. Furthermore there is control for industry and team size.

Correlation and multiple regression tests have been run to answer the main question and the subsequent hypotheses. In general it can be concluded that for the year 2005, direct linear and non-linear relationships between the TMT variables and performance are not existent. Furthermore, the interaction effects with moderating variables show no significant results, except for the tenure variable, which shows a weak negative influence as a moderating variable. Further research will be necessary to explore the hypothesized relationship in more detail.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ... 6

EMPIRICAL BACKGROUND ... 9

Diversity & The Upper Echelon Perspective... 9

Diversity and firm performance... 11

Nationality Diversity... 13

Conclusion... 16

HYPOTHESES: TMT DIVERSITY AND PERFORMANCE ... 17

Social Identity Theory & Similarity/ Attraction Theory... 17

Information and Decision Making Theory... 19

A combination of theories... 19

Influencing the diversity - performance relationship... 20

Environmental Complexity ... 20

Tenure... 22

Innovation... 23

METHODOLOGY... 25

Sample... 25

Who constitutes the TMT?... 25

Data Description and Data Collection... 26

Variables... 27

Dependent Variable: firm performance... 28

Independent Variable: nationality diversity ... 28

RESULTS... 35 Sample Descriptives... 35 Companies involved ... 35 TMTs involved ... 35 Firm Performance... 36 Nationality Diversity ... 36

Summary Descriptive Statistics ... 37

Correlation matrix ... 38

Empirical results... 39

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS... 43

CONCLUSION... 49

REFERENCES ... 50 COMPANY WEBSITES ...Error! Bookmark not defined.

INTRODUCTION

Since its foundation in 1992 many countries accessed the European Union. Currently, 27 countries are member states. The abolishment of internal borders should make it easier for EU citizens to live, travel and work anywhere within the union. In theory therefore, multinational firms within this market have access to a huge labor force from all member countries. The free movement of labor across borders increases the necessity to interact effectively with broader constituencies. Diversity directly addresses this trend. (Ashkanasy et al., 2002) Moreover, has this trend led to a more diverse and international workforce in multinational firms. Hambrick et al. (1998) acknowledged this trend and state that international companies are rapidly increasing their use of multinational groups, and will do even more so in the future.

Integration and immigration are topics that are high on the political agendas of many nations in the European Union. According to the dictionary1 integration means so much as “an act or instance of integrating a racial, religious, or ethnic group” and “behaviour, as of an individual, that is in harmony with the environment”. From its mere definition it becomes clear that integration is a very subtle issue open to multiple interpretations To have multiple nationalities in the company means that people with different cultural backgrounds, values, norms, belief systems and so forth, have to work together and produce results beneficial for the firm. In a way, people have to integrate into the firm, department or team. It is acknowledged that nationality affects a person in multiple interconnected ways. This ranges from the deeply underlying values and cognitions to the readily apparent characteristics. Nationality thus shapes and influences values, cognitive schema, demeanour, and language. (Hambrick et al., 1998)

In explaining decisions top managers make and the subsequent organizational outcomes or performance, it is often emphasized that understanding demographic variables such as age, tenure, functional background and education, as well as their distribution and/or diversity, are important. (Haleblian and Finkelstein, 1993) Therefore, like most prior top management researchers this study relies on demographics of the group, where nationality serves as a proxy for the aforementioned values and cognitions, belief systems and networks. Such an approach is considered most practical when studying TMTs (Richard and Shelor, 2002).

1

Williams and O'Reilly's (1998) have reviewed forty years of diversity research and concluded that there are no consistent main effects of diversity of management on organizational performance. However, there has been a particular lack of attention to national diversity in research of top management teams (Heijltjes et al., 2003) and this is changing very slowly (Palmer and Varner, 2007). These authors (Heijltjes et al., 2003; Palmer and Varner, 2007) notice that the question that has not been addressed in their study but is nonetheless interesting for future research is how international top management teams perform. Using an existing dataset of European blue chip firms, which includes top management team (TMT herinafter) members’ nationality, I will use differences in the nationalities of TMT members as demographic variable and link it to firm performance. Whereas the majority of the empirical investigations into TMTs focuses on U.S. based companies, studies of top management teams related to firm performance of non-US firms are rare. (Heijltjes et al., 2003) Incorporating national diversity as a variable into the research of top management teams adds a dimension to the research linking TMT diversity to firm performance, which might lead to new insights. The following research question is used to guide this research;

Does national diversity of TMT members of European blue chip companies influence their financial performance?

EMPIRICAL BACKGROUND

Since the 1980s many researchers have increasingly devoted attention to studying the relationship between TMTs and their impact on the strategic behaviour and performance of firms. (Hambrick and Mason, 1984; Heiltjes et al., 2003). Even nowadays the influence of top executives on firm performance remains a widely studied relationship. Strategy scholars emphasize that the link between the people at the strategic apex of the organization and organization’s performance is highly relevant. (Certo et al., 2006)

Diversity & The Upper Echelon Perspective

Diversity as a topic for organizational research has mainly sprung from the anti-discrimination movement in the United States that began in the 1960s and the majority of research on diversity agrees that the issue of diversity is an important topic of organizational research (Ashkanasy et al., 2002). Originally, the development of the ‘dominant coalition’ perspective by Cyert and March (1963) shifted the level of analysis in studies of organizational leadership from the individual (CEO) to the entire team of top managers (the dominant coalition). Hambrick and Mason (1984) assert that any discussion of group heterogeneity is aided by the concept ‘cohort’. A cohort is characterised as a group of individuals that have some commonalities like year of birth, entry into job market etc. The dominant coalition concept and the demographic approach were united in the UE perspective of Hambrick and Mason (1984). In the past decade, the domain “diversity” has evolved into a wide range of research on a variety of phenomena (Jackson et al., 2003). Diversity in a team is generally acknowledged as the variation in team members’ characteristics and the subsequent amount of dispersion that exists in that team (Hambrick and Mason, 1984). Strategy and organizational demography researchers have directed efforts towards the effect of group members’ demographic attributes and have tried to link various factors to firm performance. Pfeffer (1985) recognizes that the demography of an organization is basically nothing more than describing it in terms of the distribution of characteristics of personnel such as age, sex, date of hire.

idea of their article is “The values and cognitive bases of powerful actors in the organization

are reflected in the organizational outcomes” (p. 193). Hambrick and Mason’s contribution to literature has spurred many others after them to continuously research this linkage. (e.g. Fiegener et al., 1996 Nordburn and Birley, 1988; Roger and Shelor, 2002). As Carpenter et al. (2004) state: ”the study’s citation in over 500 subsequent referenced journal articles reflects its formidable impact and far-reaching scope” (p. 750). It is thus clear that the Hambrick and Mason’s (1984) UE stream is a flourishing one and there is empirical evidence that executives “matter” to organizations. With regards to the question whether (top) managers matter, Fiedler already stated in 1965 that the success or failure of an organization depends on the quality of its management. Priem et al., (1999) strengthen this notion when they state that top managers do “matter” to firm outcomes. However, much debate remains about the question why top managers influence the firm. One possible answer lies in the position of the top managers in the strategic apex of the organization and the subsequent ability to make major strategic decisions and determine the direction of the organization. This is summarized, as “hierarchy is generally greatly predictive of power and influence. The

hierarchically top ten individuals in an organization will almost invariably have an influence on the course of the firm, through their actions, inactions and behaviours, more than any other ten people in the organization” (Hambrick, 1994; p. 174). Considering that the TMT is at the strategic apex of the organization the distribution of characteristics amongst the team as well as the functioning within the team to arrive at sensible and competitive decisions is of importance to the organization and its performance. Therefore most current literature recognizes that top management has an influence on firm performance.

The perspective developed by Hambrick and Mason (1984) implies that organizational outcomes, strategic choices and performance levels can partially be explained by managerial background characteristics. The approach focuses on the observable characteristics of top managers such as age, tenure, gender, education and background as well as characteristics of the top management team (TMT) as a whole, such as average age, tenure and heterogeneity of the group’s attributes, related to organizational outcomes. These demographic characteristics of executives are used as a measurement proxy for individual and group cognitions and behaviors.

argued that these values and cognitive bases of these actors are a function of their observable characteristics like the ones mentioned above. Finally, organizational outcomes are associated with these observable characteristics of these actors.

Diversity and firm performance

The most important difference underlying diversity dimensions made by researchers is between social category diversity differences which consists of readily detectable attributes such as sex, age, and ethnicity versus informational/functional diversity differences in less visible underlying attributes that are more job-related, such as functional and educational background. (Knippenberg et al., 2004). In this paper I follow the former of the two dimensions, focusing on readily observable characteristics. Nationality background data is readily available through company websites and other public sources such as annual reports. Data on functional and educational backgrounds is harder to acquire and often not readily available through public sources and would therefore require a different research approach.

As mentioned before, research on nationality variables does not appear to be abundant in literature. Hambrick and Mason (1984) did not include this dimension in their upper echelon framework. Nationality is considered a demographic variable relevant to this research. (e.g. Harrison et al., 1998; Tsui and O’Reilly, 1989; Milliken and Martins, 1996) Ethnicity can be considered as an alternative whereas it has the advantage of greater specificity for characterizing some cultural groups. Ethnicity refers to characteristics of a people (ethnic group) sharing a common and distinctive culture, race, religion, language etc.2 However, it also has the potential to yield more ambiguous categories since many people have multiple ethnic backgrounds, making the execution of empirical tests much more difficult without increasing explanatory power or understanding. (Hambrick et al., 1998) Nationality has major advantages over other constructs for considering orientations of individuals. It is analytically traceable and is an easily observable categorization in many global organizations. Nonetheless, it is possible for an individual to carry multiple nationalities, which is recently highly debated in the Netherlands for some of the members of parliament. However, in this research the nationality reported by the company is used. A further discussion of the collected data can be found in the methodology section.

2

A considerable amount of research has been carried out investigating the linkage between TMTs characteristics and firm financial performance. TMT heterogeneity has been linked to numerous dependent variables including performance, strategy, strategic consensus, strategic change, management turnover and organizational innovation (Knight et al., 1999) but also international diversification (Tihanyi et al., 2000) and corporate failure (Hambrick and D’aveni, 1992). A more complete overview can be found in Carpenter et al. (2004), Williams and O’Reilly (1998) and Milliken and Martins (1996). Certo et al. (2006) conducted a meta-analysis of TMT indicators and firm financial performance and found modest support for a direct relationship between TMT size and firm growth. The size findings are complemented by findings for functional heterogeneity, which is positively associated with return on assets.

In their study on TMTs, Hambrick et al. (1996) link the heterogeneity to firms’ competitive moves and conclude that diverse TMTs respond by great propensity for action on competitive forces but their reaction is slower. Knight et al. (1999) conducted a study in which they linked concepts from UE, group process and social cognition theories and found that TMT diversity had primarily negative effects on strategic consensus. This implies that it will take longer for the diverse TMT to make strategic decisions and thus affects firm performance negatively.

Cox and Blake (1991) have reviewed a significant amount of existing research and conclude that theoretically, diversity in an organization provides a competitive advantage through increased creativity and problem-solving capabilities. More specifically, these authors conclude that cultural diversity in groups can lead to competitive advantage when properly addressed. However, realistically, a number of studies have found that diversity has a negative effect on processes that influence organizational performance. (Richard and Shelor, 2002) Two main streams of literature can be identified that deal with the question of how TMT demographic characteristics, more specifically the diversity of the group, relates to outcomes of the organization.

(Williams and O’Reilly, 1998) These theories will be used to develop hypotheses in the next section, where a more in-depth discussion is held. In the context of this research nationality is the key demographic variable that influences group processes. When group processes occur within the TMT they will have an influence on strategic decisions (see Hambrick, 1994; p. 174) and thus on firm performance. Within this particular field, specific focus on top management teams (TMT) and groups’ performance literature is put on the question whether diversity of group attributes either inhibits or enhances firm performance. (Richard and Shelor, 2002). When reading the rest of this research paper it should therefore be kept in mind that group processes occurring in the TMT are assumed to influence firm financial performance.

Nationality Diversity

Hambrick et al. (1998) have conducted a study about multi-national groups and related it to group performance and acknowledge that nationalities represented in a group have consequences for the group’s functioning and performance. They conclude that multi- nationality of the group and the effects of diversity depend on whether the group’s task is creative, computational or coordinative. In addition, different types of diversity give rise to different performance effects. Multinational diverse teams are most beneficial in situations where creativity is needed. It causes most problems in case the groups is involved in coordinated tasks. The results indicate that multinational teams or group do not necessarily posses advantages over single-nationality groups, rather it depends on the task at hand. However, it is beyond the limits of this study to identify the type of tasks at hand. Orlando (2000) researched cultural diversity in relation to firm performance. He used race as a proxy and found that cultural diversity does add value to the firm in terms of performance, albeit in the proper context.

international top management teams perform. Furthermore they recognize that the issue is of particular interest given the contradictory research outcomes with respect to the effects of TMT diversity on performance. A more recent study by Palmer and Varner (2007) studied the national composition of the top management teams of the largest multinational corporations in Europe, Asia and the US and found that the most international teams can be found in Europe. These authors also call for more research into the link between internationalization of top management and firm performance.

The extent to which the shared norms and values in one country differ from those in another is generally defined as national cultural distance. This cultural distance, (which is a measure for nationality diversity in this research) in most studies have used Kogut and Singh’s (1988) index, which is based on Hofstede’s (1980) dimensions of national culture. (Drogendijk and Slangen, 2006) Hofstede’s (1980) culture clusters are almost without a doubt the best-known culture groupings. According to Hofstede, culture is a key determinant of practices in the workplace. As such it is used in this research to determine nationality diversity within the TMTs of each of the companies involved. The prominent dimensions of national culture values identified by theorists are individualism vs. collectivism, universalism vs. particularism, power distance, relationship to time and uncertainty avoidance. (Hambrick et al., 1998)

would complicate matters beyond the feasible when looking at TMTs in the context of this study. Furthermore, the question is raised whether a more complicated score including more dimensions would enhance the explanatory power of values used in subsequent tests. Thus, even though criticisms on Hofstede’s theory of national culture have been numerous, his research remains the most comprehensive and best of its kind, whereas its clusters are very consistent with those found in other studies of national culture (Gomez – Mejia and Palich, 1997), and little progress has been made in developing reliable alternatives (Drogendijk and Slanger, 2006).

Four out of the five dimensions constructed by Hofstede3 have been used in this research, which are discussed in more detail in the methodology section. Unfortunately, the fifth dimension, Long Term Orientation (LTO) is not used in this research because of its large amount of missing values for nationalities involved in this research. A professor of the Chinese University of Hong Kong has discovered this fifth dimension of national culture difference. LTO values positively related to this dimension are thrift and perseverance and values negatively related are respect for tradition and fulfilling social expectations. LTO is strongly related to recent economic growth. (Hosftede, 1994) LTO values are merely available for four countries in the sample (Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK). The majority of the countries from the sample are missing, therefore this dimension is not included in this research.

The overall different results on these dimensions or “cultural syndromes” affect perception, cognition, emotion, motivation and behavior of individuals. A life history of communication and socialization in a specific cultural society leads to the development of a culture-specific self. (Singh et al., 2001) Therefore, in the context of this research Hofstede’s scores on four dimensions are used to indicate an individual’s nationality in relation to other nationalities. Nationality is known to affect one’s values, which are categorized into cultural clusters based on a factor analysis of a survey by Hofstede (1980) (Hambrick et al., 1998). The subsequent developed national dimensions, influence people, and thus their position and behavior in the group. This in turn has an effect on group process and group outcomes. At the level of the TMT this has direct influence on firm strategy and subsequent performance.

3

Conclusion

From reviewing the existing literature it is possible to see that the majority of empirical studies dealing with diversity in management were conducted based on data from U.S. firms. (e.g. Hambrick et al., 1996; Tihanyi et al., 2000; Wagner, et al., 1984). Even though numerous studies have found significant associations between demographic composition of the top management team and organizational outcomes, the results related to heterogeneity of groups have been contradictory and inconsistent (Hambrick et al., 1996; Certo et al., 2006). Many researchers concluded therefore that diversity can be seen as a “double edged sword” leading to both positive and negative findings. (e.g. Carpenter et al., 2004; Lawrence, 1997; Hambrick et al., 1996; Knippenberg, 2004)

HYPOTHESES: TMT DIVERSITY AND PERFORMANCE

Group effectiveness is the economic return to the larger organization that stem from the group’s efforts. It is a function of the group’s creativity, speed, efficiency and so on. (Hambrick et al., 1998). The key underlying logic of the hypotheses is that differences between nationalities of the team members influence group processes, their outcomes and subsequently firm performance. The aforementioned differences within groups are referred to as ‘diversity’ in the context of this research. A number of theories have been used by researchers to explain the effects of diversity on performance, where different theories often lead to plausible but contradictory predictions of the effects of diversity on groups or individuals. The three most common theories for investigating diversity are: social categorization, similarity/ attraction and informational diversity and decision-making. These theories are used in the majority of studies on organizational demography and are important for interpreting empirical results (Williams and O’Reilly, 1998) Using the aforementioned theories, arguments in favor of and against diversity in groups in relation to their performance are developed into hypotheses below.

Social Identity Theory & Similarity/ Attraction Theory

As is known from Hambrick and Mason (1984), demography has an impact on the cognitive processes and will subsequently be revealed in strategic and financial performance. (Carpenter et al., 2004) Two theories (social identity and similarity/attraction theory) serve as a foundation for interpreting the empirical findings concerning the negative consequences of nationality diversity. (Richard and Shelor, 2002)

process leads to a division of in-groups (a group one belongs to) and out-groups (a group one does not belong to). Visible demographic diversity variables (e.g. age, race etc.) are more likely to trigger categorization and thus are more likely to lead to conflict between the defined groups. As such, visible demographic variables have a positive effect on conflicts in groups and tend to increase the likeliness of conflict and hostility (Pelled, 1996; Richard and Shelor, 2002). In heterogeneous groups it has been shown that this process leads to stereotyping, polarization and anxiety. This in turn leads to decreased satisfaction within the group, increased turnover of people, lower levels of cohesiveness, reduced within-group communication, decreased cooperation and higher levels of conflict. (Williams and O’Reilly, 1998) In general, studies show that dissimilarity results in performance loss, less positive attitudes, less frequent communication and higher turnover among group members. Thus studies in this field typically confirm the negative effects of diversity on group process and outcomes. Group interaction is negatively influenced and thus diversity within a group from this perspective has negative organizational consequences. (Richard and Shelor, 2002)

The similarity/ attraction theory produces similar predictions consistent with social identity and social categorization theory. In this theory the distribution of demographic differences in groups and organizations is assumed to affect the process and performance. Demographic composition of groups could result in variations in communication, cohesion and integration. Individuals who are similar in background may share common values and beliefs and may find interacting with each other easier and more desirable. Similarity positively reinforces one’s attitudes and believes. Empirical findings in this stream of literature show that dissimilarity leads to group process and performance loss, less positive attitudes, less frequent communication and higher likelihood of turnover among those who are different. (Williams and O’Reilly, 1998) The difference between the two theories lies in the focus. Similarity/attraction theory focuses on the positive effects of similarity, whereas social identity theory focuses on the negative effects of difference. Among others, differences in the nationalities of members of the TMT thus create a situation where social identity and similarity/ attraction processes occur that will have a negative influence on the performance of the TMTs and thus on the performance of the firm. This line of reasoning leads to the following hypothesis:

Information and Decision Making Theory

This theory is quite different from the previous perspectives and holds that diverse groups should outperform homogeneous groups. (Knippenberg, 2002) This theoretical perspective explores how information and decision-making can be affected by variations in-group composition. Hambrick and Mason's (1984) model support the idea that a heterogeneous team will gather information from a variety of sources and have diverse interpretations and perspectives. (Sanders and Carpenter, 1998) In situations where a lot of information needs to be processed, nationality diversity may thus enhance this information processing and thus the performance. Individuals in diverse groups have greater access to informational networks outside the work group, which enhances group performance even as diversity has a negative effect on group processes. (Williams and O’Reilly, 1998) Diversity may be coupled with better environmental scanning and greater flexibility to respond to environmental changes because members of diverse teams are more likely to question each other and easier break with the status quo. (Gomez – Mejia and Palich, 1997) A few studies have suggested that nationality differences may have positive effects on group process (cooperation) by expanding the number of alternatives considered and the perspectives taken. (Willams and O’Reilly, 1998). This stream of research clearly views diversity as having a positive effect on firm performance. Similar but in the opposite direction of the former hypothesis, diversity in nationalities will enhance the information and decision making and as such have a positive effect on performance. This line of reasoning leads to the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1b: Holding all other factors constant, TMT Nationality diversity has a positive linear effect on firm performance.

A combination of theories

(Richard and Shelor, 2002) Hambrick and D’aveni (1992), stress that an inverted U-shape indicates that very small and very large groups have disadvantages.

However, as diversity increases social identity theory processes increasingly strengthen and begin to have a negative effect on creativity. Furthermore, social integration of the TMT begins to deteriorate and high levels of affective conflict causes members of the team to communicate less. As a result performance also decreases (Richard and Shelor, 2002). In relation to the theme of nationality diversity among TMT members and performance, this line of reasoning implies a weak and positive relationship at low levels of nationality diversity. A strong and positive relationship would exist at moderate levels of diversity and a strong negative relationship at high levels of diversity. Some increments of diversity have large positive increases in group problem-solving but relatively small negative effects on group functioning. At large amounts of diversity groups offer little added value from unique information and make group functioning and cohesion more difficult. (Willams and O’Reilly, 1998) Non-linearity would explain how the two theories (social identity theory and information and decision-making theory) complement each other. This leads to the following hypothesis:

H2: The relationship between nationality diversity in the TMT and firm performance is non-linear, with a positive slope at moderate levels of nationality diversity and a negative slope at high levels of nationality diversity.

Influencing the diversity - performance relationship

Recent research has reported the necessity of accounting for contextual variables when studying the TMT diversity – firm performance relationship. Therefore, context can help to gain a more thorough understanding of the impact of top management team heterogeneity on organizational effectiveness. (Richard and Shelor, 2002) I use this argument in developing the next hypotheses. Three further hypotheses are constructed using the moderating variables environmental complexity, tenure and innovation, which were mainly selected based on previous research and data availability.

Environmental Complexity

complex environment. Managers facing a more complex environment thus have greater uncertainty and have greater information-processing requirements than managers facing a simple environment. (Dess and Beard, 1984) Firms that operate in complex environments should thus benefit more from heterogeneity of its management.

When working on complex, non-routine problems, groups composed of individuals with diverse types of perspectives tend to experience greater task conflict. Task conflict is defined as the ‘disagreements among members about the content of the tasks being performed, including differences in viewpoints, ideas, and opinions’. Task conflict is believed to lead to more complete analyses of issues and hence, improved decision-making and performance. (Pelled, 1996). Hambrick et al. (1998) concluded that diversity has most effect when it matches the task. As mentioned, diversity in general is best for creative tasks whereas homogeneity of the group is preferred for coordinated tasks. Even though it is not possible to distinguish between the types of tasks the TMTs in this study face, I will use the complexity argument in developing the next hypothesis.

TMTs reside at the strategic apex of he firm (Mintzberg, 1979) and therefore deal with complexity that firms face in their environments (Sanders and Carpenter, 1998). The everyday work of top management involves non-routine tasks and problems. Information overload is a matter that confronts management regularly. Furthermore, the information is often ambiguous, complex and unstructured. (Hambrick and Mason, 1984). This position of the TMT requires that its members process large amounts of diverse and conflicting information. (Sanders and Carpenter, 1998). Complexity in the context of this paper is related to the degree of internationality of the environment of the firm and it’s management. Internationalization increases complexity and the more extensive a firm’s degree of internationalization the greater the level of complexity the TMT has to face. (Sanders and Carpenter, 1998) Internationalization thus functions as a proxy for complexity and is measured by the number of countries a firm operates in.

‘requisite variety’, which is the diverse knowledge and perspectives necessary to create and evaluate solutions to complex problems. (Richard and Shelor, 2002) Using this line of reasoning, it is expected that diversity or TMT heterogeneity and its subsequent breadth of perspectives and creativity positively relate to firms operating in complex environments. From this point of view diverse TMTs should outperform homogeneous TMTs in complex environments. This line of reasoning leads to the following hypothesis:

H3: Environmental complexity positively moderates the relationship between TMT nationality diversity and firm performance.

Tenure

Tenure is a variable that is encountered in many studies researching the effects of demographic diversity on performance. Pfeffer (1985) suggested that similarity in time of entry leads to increased communication, which subsequently positively influences integration and cohesion. This research has spurred other organizational demography researchers to examine this variable, resulting in over 30 studies investigating the effects of group and organizational tenure. (Williams and O’Reilly, 1998) It is therefore considered a relevant variable in this research. Tenure diversity can be split up between firm tenure and TMT tenure. This research, however, focuses on the TMT only and thus ignores firm tenure. Furthermore, the tenure is often considered an independent variable and indexed as heterogeneity or homogeneity in relation to its influence on the group processes and subsequent outcomes or performance. In the context of this research the focus lies on average tenure because of the cross-sectional approach on a team level. In addition the main focus of this research lies on diversity in nationalities of TMT members. From this point of view tenure becomes the moderating variable. A laboratory study by Watson et al. (1993) uses a methodology that is suitable in the context of this research.

effectiveness, reduced conflict, being better able to solve complex problems that their homogeneous counterparts. Barkema et.al. (1996) argue that the disadvantages of greater cultural diversity are temporary in nature because over time it is possible to adapt and overcome the problems, thereby increasing performance.

These findings are highly relevant in light of this research since the results show a possible relationship between tenure and nationality diversity. The advantages of homogenous teams appear to be short-lived, whereas over time the differences between the groups began to converge and after a certain point the diverse teams performed slightly better than the homogeneous teams. In relation to this research it is therefore hypothesized that:

H4: Higher average TMT tenure positively moderates performance of firms that have TMTs with higher nationality diversity.

Innovation

TMT heterogeneity has been linked to numerous variables including innovation (Knight et al., 1999). Lumpkin and Dess, (1996) define innovativeness as a firm’s tendency to engage in and support new ideas, novelty, experimentation and creative processes that may result in new products, services or technological processes. Diverse groups are more likely to possess a broader range of task-relevant knowledge, skills and abilities that lead to different opinions and perspectives on tasks at hand. This may have beneficial effects like the creation of more creative and innovative ideas and solutions (Knippenberg, 2002). According to Wiersema and Bantel (1992) a culturally diverse TMT is likely to exhibit diversity in ideas, novel approaches and comprehensiveness in considering alternatives. This appears to be particularly beneficial when decisions regarding innovative products or services are necessary. (Richard and Shelor, 2002). The members of such a diverse team are able and willing to challenge each others’ viewpoints and suggestions. Reconciliation of diverse solutions stimulates group discussion and subsequently leads to higher quality decisions. (Wiersema and Bantel, 1992) Furthermore, it has been stressed over the years by many authors that successful new products development requires the support of top management. Hegarty and Hoffman (1990) found that culture did influence the innovation and the processes related to it.

and Blake, 1991) In the light of this research, in companies where higher levels of innovativeness are found a more diverse TMT should exist. Based on the previous discussion the following hypothesis was constructed:

H5: Innovation positively moderates the relationship between nationality diversity of the TMT and firm performance.

METHODOLOGY

Sample

One of the major considerations for obtaining the required data for this paper is that it had to be within easy access due to the limitations of this thesis. However, demographics and firm performance data is relatively easy to access though documentary analysis. (Hambrick et al., 1996)

The sample in this research is composed of the largest firms in the fifteen countries that first joined the European Union. The choice for the largest firms was made based on information availability and the possibility to use an existing dataset4. A sample that consists of the largest firms in the European Union has a huge potential for diversity both between countries and within TMTs. The open European market should facilitate unrestricted transfer of labor and as such lead to a nationally more diverse workforce. Moreover, Palmer and Varner (2007) found that compared to the US and Asia, European MNCs have the most internationally qualified staff in the executive ranks. Furthermore, taking these countries ensures a certain level of information availability. The dataset consists of a total of 363 companies that are all listed on their respective national stock exchange. A list of these firms can be found in the table 1 in the appendix. More specific information on the amount of companies per country in the sample is discussed in the results section. The companies in the sample operate in various industries and are categorized into different industry classifications for control purposes. Accordingly the members of the TMT were selected, which is discussed next.

Who constitutes the TMT?

The focal point of this research constitutes the TMT of the organization; therefore it is relevant to elaborate on the theoretical discussion about which members actually belong to the TMT. Carpenter et al. (2004) emphasize that in light of the Upper Echelon’s dual role as both a theoretical framework as well as a research methodology the definition of the TMT is of paramount importance. Hambrick and Mason (1984) speak about powerful actors in the organization. Most studies that take an UE perspective however, take the ‘dominant coalition’ as a starting point for the definition of the TMT. This group of executives is of interest because this group and its members are the link with the firm’s environment and they are

4

relatively powerful. Therefore their choices and actions are most likely to affect the organization. (Carpenter et al., 2004) Only a few studies take other approaches to define the TMT. Some authors identified the TMT as executives who also served on the board of directors (e.g. Finkelstein and Hambrick, 1990; Haleblian and Finkelstein, 1993). However, most empirical definitions of the TMT reflect a convenience sample5, using a selection of cases with non-probability methods. (Carpenter et al., 2004) This means that the individuals at strategic level in the firm will most likely have influence on a particular strategic outcome and thus firm performance. They are the most powerful actors.

In line with the discussion of the literature on various approaches to define the TMT, the ‘dominant coalition’ is assumed to comprise the TMT in this research, including all the executives in the company. It would also have been interesting to include (supervisory) board members and/or managers from lower echelons but this data is more difficult to acquire. Furthermore this would complicate matters for such a large sample due to possibility of a dual role of some executives on boards. This kind of data would call for a different research question. The choice for executives only has yielded information on a total of 2234 managers and should be sufficient to be able to draw conclusions in relation to the main research question.

Data Description and Data Collection

As a result of the data collection process two datasets were available. One included the independent executive variables, whereas the other included all firm variables. In both cases, secondary data obtained through documentary analysis has been used.6 However, the content of the existing database was checked on errors and completeness. The main purpose of the created database was to get a thorough impression of the level of internationalization of top managers in Europe. In doing so, the other variables such age, tenure, nationality and gender have been collected. The decision to enclose the 15 countries7 that first became a member of the European Union and to exclude the 10 countries8 that became a member in 2004 is based on the lack of accessible data for the latter countries, which would make research in this area increasingly difficult and complex.

5

This is the selection of units from the population based on units that are easily available and/or accessible.

6

The existing database consisted of executive data only, this was supplemented with performance data

7

Belgium, Denmark, Germany, the UK, Finland, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Spain and Sweden.

8

In the next step, the researchers involved in the creation of the database considered the selection of the companies eligible for the research. Subsequently, the organizations that are listed on the major stock exchanges of the country involved were included in the database. In table one the companies from the various EU countries are listed, which make up the sample.

[INSERT TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE]

These companies are primarily recognized as ‘blue-chip’ companies, meaning they have a relative long history, strong financial track-record and are relatively more stable than their smaller counterparts. Furthermore, these companies are obliged to publish annual reports, which contain the necessary information to execute this research in the first place. It has to be noted that the reasons for including these companies in the data set are also valid for this research. Finally, It has to be emphasized that the choice for countries’ largest companies is not a representative sample from the total population of organizations per country. Therefore it is very likely that the database consists of the largest and most international organizations. Knowing this, it should be noticed that the selected companies do not form a representative sample of all the companies in these countries. These companies are more likely to show a solid financial performance and therefore the relationship between the TMT and performance might be biased and could be overestimated.

Secondary data of the years 2005/2006 was used for the collection of the data. Documentary analyses of annual reports complemented with information from corporate websites were the main sources of information. When these sources provided insufficient information other websites such as ‘Google Finance’ (finance.google.com), ‘ZoomInfo’ (zoominfo.com) and ‘Top Management’ (topmanagement.net) were used. Furthermore, most financial information was gathered from powerful databases such as DATASTREAM9 and AMADEUS10.

Variables

In this section the variables used in this research are discussed. A further distinction has been made into control and moderator variables. A complete overview of the variables for which

9

DATASTREAM is a database covering financial data of listed firms world-wide

10

data has been gathered and which have been processed into SPSS can be found in table 2 in the appendix

[INSERT TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE]

Dependent Variable: firm performance

It is important to choose a proper measurement of performance. Most often firm performance is measured in accounting-based financial terms like return on assets (ROA), return on sales (ROS) and return on equity (ROE). Whereas the core goal of most enterprises is maximizing profits, financial analysis is right at the heart of these companies. These indicators are easy to access and allow comparability between companies. On the other hand, market-based indicators can be used like market-to-book ratio’s and stock price increases. However, there appears no consensus regarding efficacy of reliance on either market or accounting based measures. (Postma et al., 1999) For this reason I chose to use a composite (arithmetic mean) measure of the accounting based performance measures ROE and ROA and ROS. These are considered well-established measures (Hitt et al., 1997) and have been dominant in strategy research (Venkatraman and Ramanujam, 1986). An overview of the formulas used to calculate the various ratios can be found in Table 3 in the appendix.

Independent Variable: nationality diversity

While nationality is considered convenient and powerful construct it is open to various definitions and operationalizations (Hambrick et al., 1998). In this research nationality is considered to be the legal status of the executives reported by the companies. Data on the nationalities of the individual top managers was available from the existing database. The researchers that compiled information for this part of the database used the country of birth as starting point for determining the nationality of the individual. When this data was not available, additional search for different indicators (e.g. country where majority of education was taken, country of origin of previous employers) was carried out. In case of doubt, the name of person in question was compared to names of persons in the team from the country of origin to determine whether this was a name recognizable for that country.

not as diverse as a group of Swedes and Koreans or Saudis. It is thus highly relevant to consider varying ‘distances’ between nationalities. Furthermore, aggregate distance grows as number of nationalities in the group increases; the TMT in this case. (Hambrick et al., 1998) Nationality diversity is therefore viewed as a continuum. In this study it is assumed that the individual TMT member adheres to its nationality as registered by the company. This enables the ability to create overall ‘cultural distance or variety’ scores for each TMT.

Culture has been described and defined by many authors. However, in the context of this research where the focus is on national culture, Hofstede’s (1980) definition of culture as the ‘collective programming of the mind which distinguishes members of one human group from another’ is used. In the context of this research it is important to distinguish between cultural characteristics that can be used to describe national diversity. Kogut and Singh (1988) argue that the further apart two countries are in terms of culture, the less likely they will have similar practices in the workplace. They define the gap between two cultures as “cultural distance” or the degree to which the cultural norms in one country differ from those of another country. In this research this gap will be used for each of the individuals in the TMT in relation to each of the other persons in the TMT.

Hofstede’s dimensions of cultural distance will be used to determine nationality diversity of the TMT. These dimensions are uncertainty avoidance (UAI), power distance (PDI),

The following formula (Kogut and Singh, 1988) is used to calculate cultural distance within the TMTs, which is used as an indicator for nationality diversity:

ND

= {

√

∑(C

– C

)²}/N

Formula 1: Nationality Diversity

Source: Based on CIBER working paper by Singh et al., 2001

In this formula NDx is the nationality diversity measured as the cultural distance based on Hofstede’s scores on the four dimensions; PDI, UAI, IND and MAS for team X. Cij stands for the index for the ith cultural dimension and the jth country. For each dimension the score the squared difference is calculated. Subsequently the square root of the sum of the squared products for all dimensions is taken. This total score is then divided by the number of individuals in the team (N). In calculating the cultural distance scores for the individual team member, the difference between each team member in relation to the other team members is the outcome. All the scores for the individual team members are added up, leading to a team score.

More specifically, Hofstede’s scores were related to each individual in the team. The base for comparing was the country where the company and team were located. A native in the TMT therefore has a score of 0 compared to the others, also to the non-natives since scores are not counted twice. A non-native has a relative score on all dimensions to the other team members, to both the natives and other non-natives that are different that have a different nationality than the non-native in question. For example, a TMT in Belgium consists of four people, two Belgians, a German and an American. The Belgian have scores of 0 towards the others but the German does have score towards the Belgians (2) and to the American. The American in turn has a score to the Belgians (2) but not to the German because this score was already counted in score of the German. For an example, see table 4.

scores when many a large team consists of many relatively small distances. The scores for the nationalities encountered in the TMTs of the companies involved in this research have been taken directly of Hofstede’s website11. The composite of each dimension is taken whereas all values are assumed to have an influence on the individual person and subsequently on his or her role in the team, i.e. there is no ranking of the influence of the specific dimensions in this context. An overview of the used scores can be found in table 2.

[INSERT TABLE 5 AROUND HERE]

The only country missing from the countries involved in this research is Luxembourg. Unfortunately Hofstede’s index does not provide for any score on this country and it has therefore been excluded from any further analysis.

Control Variables

To control for factors that have a potential influence on firm performance control variables have been constructed; company size, TMT size, industry, financial structure and county.

Company size

This is an important variable in particular whereas many other variables are a function of firm scale. A firm’s size may be determining in its level of efficiency and thus influence its performance indicators. Size is assumed to have a direct effect on firm performance because of economies of scale and market power. (Orlando, 2000) To avoid any potential influence this variable is introduced as a control in the analysis. Considering the scope of the research three control variables for size are available. First of all, the logarithm of the number of employees is used as a proxy for size and is a well-acknowledged measure. (Hitt et al., 1997; Richard and Shelor, 2002; Tihanyi et al., 2000) Furthermore, firm size is controlled by the logarithm of annual sales. Finally, the log of total assets is used as an indicator of firm size (Postma et al., 1998) A composite measure of these three variables was constructed by taking the arithmetic mean. All three measures showed high correlation towards each other.

TMT size

Size of the TMT is often considered a control variable whereas it is likely to influence strategic capacity of the firm. (Haleblian and Finkelstein, 1993) The diversity in nationality of

11

the team members is measured as a relative score. This means that the total score is divided by the amount of individuals in the team. However, team size is included as control variable in order to reduce the probability of size related phenomena to the effects of diversity. Prior research has found that team size is associated with work attitudes and related outcomes. (Jackson and Joshi, 2004) Furthermore, team size may influence the level of diversity found in the team. Larger groups are more likely to contain members with diverse backgrounds. To limit possible effects discussed, this variable is included in the model. In addition, TMT size is discussed from two spectrums that indicate both implications and benefits of larger teams. For instance, large TMTs have greater information processing and decision-making capabilities but on the other hand create communication and coordination problems. Moreover, external factors such as environmental turbulence as well as internal factors such as the type of task (complex, routine or simple) are of relevance. (Haleblian and Finkelstein, 1993) In sum, TMT size can be seen as a non-linear variable. However, in the context of this research TMT size is used as control variable and is measured by the number of individuals in each TMT.

Industry Effects

To take industry effects into account a broad control for industry type is included. The sample of companies has been divided into general classes based on the indication found in the DATASTREAM database. The indication found in the DATASTREAM database has then been compared with both the U.S. Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)12 and the North America Industry Classification System (NAICS) available through the AMADEUS database. The latter of the two classifications is a revised and a more specific version of the former. Any missing or unclear variable was then controlled by a company web-site search and manually assigned a value by looking at the key revenue generating activities. This has resulted into a general categorization with eleven possibilities, giving each category an indication between 1 and 11. The created categories are; mining, utilities, construction, manufacturing, wholesale, retail, transportation & warehousing, information, finance, insurance & real estate and services. However, this classification led to groups, which contained only a few cases. Therefore, a more rigorous classification into two categories; namely manufacturing and non-manufacturing has been made. As with company size, industry effects also influence other company variables, like performance.

12

Financial Structure

The financial structure of the firm is represented by the leverage variable. (e.g. Richard & Shelor, 2002; Postma et al., 1998) Capital structure relates to firm performance and is therefore used as control variable in this research. The ratio of debt to assets has been calculated by subtracting shareholders’ equity from assets and divided the result by the total assets.

Country Variables

Fifteen different countries are included in this research in total. In order to account for the possible influence of countries, country dummies are added to the regression model as control factors. A study by van Veen and Marsman (2007) on the internationalization of top management in Europe which involves the same countries and TMTs as this study, shows that the addition of these dummies changes the level of explained variance by the model. With the exclusion of Luxembourg, thirteen dummy variables are included in the regression model. It is beyond the scope of this research to go into specific detail on a country level to discover the factors that are most relevant. However, by using the country dummies, possible effects are accounted for.

Moderator Variables Innovation

For the measure of innovation, research and development intensity is used as a proxy. More specifically, R&D intensity is measured as the ratio of research and development expenditure to the firm’s total number of employees. The use of a ratio for this measure avoids problems of an artificial relationship with firm size. (Hitt et al., 1997) Furthermore, the R&D ratio is widely used in studies of innovation (Richard and Shelor, 2002; Hitt et al., 1997) Data on the amount of R&D expenditures was also gathered through the DATASTREAM database. A high ratio represents more innovation than a low ratio.

Tenure

calculate the tenure of the individuals in the TMT. In case of missing data, the individual team members that were missing are assumed to have the same tenure as the average of the team excluding themselves, thereby not influencing the score. The tenure score in this research is therefore an average of all the individual TMT member tenure scores. This approach is possible because of the fact that a cross-sectional approach is used. Tenure of the current TMT is measured at a fixed point in time.

Complexity

In this research complexity is considered to be part of the TMTs environment. According to Sanders and Carpenter (1998) the degree of internationalization can be considered a measure of complexity. Increased internationalization is associated with increased complexity. Researchers agree upon the fact that the enactment of international markets increases complexity of managerial tasks throughout an organization. Therefore, the more extensive the degree of internationalization of the firm, the greater level of complexity top management has to face. The degree of internationalization is measured by the firms’ geographical dispersion, which is translated into the number of countries it has operations in. Subsequently, a relative country index was calculated in where the countries a firm has operations in is expressed as a percentage of the highest number of countries represented in the sample. The range of the dimension is between 0 and 1. This way, extreme differences in the values were minimized whereas some firms have operations in 200 countries compared to those that merely have operation in the home country. This approach, resulting in a theoretical range, is well acknowledged. (e.g. Sullivan, 1994; Sanders and Carpenter, 1998)

Procedure

RESULTS

This section will start with descriptive statistics of the variables. Data is presented on a company level, starting with a more detailed description of the sample. Subsequently more specific tests related to the hypotheses are presented and discussed.

Sample Descriptives

Companies involved

In total 363 companies were included in the final sample. Unfortunately Luxembourg was excluded from the sample for further testing due to a lack of data of cultural variables. France, with its 38 companies takes up the largest chunk of companies involved. Belgium has the smallest proportion companies in the sample and is with 18 companies just a little less than half of the largest country in the sample; France. The remaining countries involved contribute between 20 and 33 companies to the sample.

[INSERT TABLE 6 ABOUT HERE]

TMTs involved

Furthermore it is possible to observe that the largest TMT consists of 20 people compared to the smallest team of 1 individual. The maximum number of foreigners in a team is 10. The mean number of foreigners is less than 1 (0.87) meaning that on average across all 363 teams less than 1 foreigner can be found in the TMT. Looking at the homogeneity/ heterogeneity variable a mean of 0.40 is reported. This implies that in 40% of the sample or 147 companies of the sample have a heterogeneous TMT. This means that there are at least two different nationalities present in such a team, thus requiring a minimum team size of two. The largest TMT consists of 20 people (see table 7). A non-native in a team of 1 is still considered homogeneous. In the remaining 60% of the companies, or 216 cases in the sample, the TMT is strictly homogeneous.

[INSERT TABLE 7 ABOUT HERE]

teams with two, three or four foreigners. (64 out of 147). A minority of teams consists of five or more foreigners. Furthermore, table 7 shows that most TMTs consist out of two to seven people; 71% to be precise. Only one team consists of 10 foreigners and no natives.

Firm Performance

Financial performance of the firm was measured by taking a composite measure of three financial indicators, which resulted in a mean performance variable. In table 8, the descriptive statistics of these variables are shown. The minimum values for all four indicators are quite similar, ranging from –0.541 to –0.254. The maximum levels differ a little bit more but are relatively similar to each. There are no extreme differences in the different performance measures. Furthermore the standard deviations a relatively large compared to the mean; implying that the mean is not a very good representation of the data. In addition to this the dependent variable has been explored for normality. The results can be found in table 8. The significant results of the Kolmogorov – Smirnov and Shapiro – Wilk tests ( p< .05) indicate that the distribution of this variable is not normal. This is visually presented by Q-Q plot that can be found underneath table 9. In this graph, any deviation of dots from the straight line represents non-normality. This has implications for the use of correlation tests, discussed later in this chapter.

[INSERT TABLE 8 & 9 ABOUT HERE]

Nationality Diversity

has the most diversified TMTs followed by Germany, the UK and France. Portugal has the lowest absolute amount of diversified TMTs with only three teams, followed by Greece, Denmark, Spain and Finland. However, relatively Spain scores lowest. The mean score for nationality diversity of the total sample is 23,60. The relatively large standard deviation of 41,53 clearly shows this mean is not representative of the sample, which is likely caused by majority of the scores that have a zero value. When all the zero values are filtered out, meaning that all the homogeneous teams (and thus firms) are deleted from the sample, a larger mean of 61,40 is observed compared with a smaller, but still relatively somewhat large, standard deviation.

[INSERT TABLE 10 ABOUT HERE]

Summary Descriptive Statistics

In order to get a better impression of the data used in this research an overview of the means, median values and standard deviations is given in the table below.

Table 1: Summary Descriptive statistics

Mean Median Standard Deviation Valid

Industry 0.34 0.00 0.48 363 TMT size 6.16 5.00 3.45 363 Number of foreigners 0.87 0.00 1.47 363 Homogeneous vs. heterogeneous 0.40 0.00 0.49 363 Nationality diversity (relative) 0.08 0.00 0.14 354 Mean performance 0.15 0.13 0.12 351 Leverage 0.69 0.69 0.20 348 Log of R&D 3.30 4.21 2.35 277 Size 6.00 6.01 0.68 356 Average tenure 5.67 5.00 3.97 275 Countries active 42.42 23.00 48.17 363 Complexity 0.19 0.10 0.22 363