Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T22:49:11.704Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

CEO Leadership, Strategic Decision Comprehensiveness, and Firm Performance: The Moderating Role of TMT Cognitive Conflict

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 June 2021

Yaqun Yi Open the ORCID record for Yaqun Yi [Opens in a new window] ,
Yu Chen  and
Xiaoming He
Yaqun Yi
Affiliation:
Xi'an Jiaotong University, China
Yu Chen
Affiliation:
Xi'an Jiaotong University, China
Xiaoming He*
Affiliation:
East China University of Science & Technology, China
*
Corresponding author: Xiaoming He ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Managers make comprehensive strategic decisions to cope with environmental challenges. Questions remain regarding how different types of leadership styles influence top management team (TMT) strategic decision comprehensiveness (SDC) and firm performance. This study explores the impact of two different CEO leadership styles on TMT SDC and subsequent firm performance, considering the moderating role of TMT cognitive conflict. Based on data from 357 questionnaires of 126 firms in China, we found that 1) CEO empowering leadership positively affects SDC; 2) CEO directive leadership generates an inverted U-shaped effect on SDC; 3) the effect of SDC on firm performance is positive; and 4) TMT cognitive conflict weakens the relationship between CEO empowering leadership and SDC. This study takes a systematic approach by integrating CEO-TMT dynamics into SDC, which in turn affects firm performance, and thus offers a holistic view of how upper echelons influence firm performance.

摘要

管理者需做出全面的战略决策以应对环境挑战。不同类型的领导风格如何影响高管团队的战略决策全面性和企业绩效仍然是一个问题。本研究探讨了两种不同的CEO领导风格对高管团队战略决策全面性以及企业绩效的影响，并考虑了高管团队认知冲突的调节作用。基于126家中国企业的357份问卷数据，本研究发现：1）CEO授权型领导对战略决策全面性有积极的影响；2）CEO 命令型领导对战略决策全面性产生倒U型影响；3）战略决策全面性对企业绩效的影响是积极的；4）TMT认知冲突削弱了CEO授权型领导与战略决策全面性的关系。本研究采用了系统的观点将CEO-TMT动态整合到战略决策全面性中，而这又会影响企业绩效，从而为高阶梯队如何影响企业绩效提供了一个整体视角。

Аннотация

Руководители принимают комплексные стратегические решения, чтобы отвечать на сложные вызовы во внешней среде. Однако, не совсем ясно то, каким образом различные стили руководства влияют на полноту стратегических решений в команде высшего звена и производительность компании. В этом исследовании изучается влияние двух разных стилей руководства генерального директора на полноту стратегических решений в команде высшего звена и, следовательно, на деятельность компании с учетом регулирующей роли когнитивного конфликта в команде высшего звена. На основании данных из 357 анкет в 126 китайских компаниях, мы обнаружили, что 1) стиль руководства генерального директора, который наделяет полномочиями, положительно влияет на полноту стратегических решений; 2) директивное руководство со стороны генерального директора оказывает на полноту стратегических решений влияние, которое соответствует перевернутой U-образной кривой; 3) влияние полноты стратегических решений на результаты деятельности компании положительное; и 4) когнитивный конфликт в команде высшего звена ослабляет влияние со стороны генерального директора, наделяющего полномочиями, на полноту стратегических решений. Данное исследование использует системный подход и интегрирует влияние взаимоотношений между генеральным директором и командой высшего звена на полноту стратегических решений, что, в свою очередь, влияет на производительность компании; таким образом, данная работа предлагает целостное представление о том, как высшие эшелоны влияют на производительность компании.

Resumen

Los gerentes toman decisiones estratégicas exhaustivas para hacer frente a los desafíos ambientales. Aún quedan preguntas sobre cómo los diferentes tipos de liderazgo influencian la exhaustividad de las decisiones estratégicas del equipo de alta dirección (TMT por sus iniciales en inglés) y desempeño de la empresa. Este estudio explora el impacto de dos estilos de liderazgo diferentes de Directores Generales sobre las decisiones estratégicas del equipo de alta dirección y el desempeño de la empresa subsiguiente, teniendo en cuenta el papel moderador del conflicto cognitivo del equipo de alta dirección. Con base en datos de 357 cuestionarios a 126 empresas en China, encontramos que 1) El liderazgo de empoderamiento del Director General afecta positivamente la exhaustividad de las decisiones estratégicas; 2) El liderazgo directivo del Director General produce un efecto en forma de U invertida sobre la exhaustividad de las decisiones estratégicas; 3) el efecto de la exhaustividad de las decisiones estratégicas en el desempeño de la empresa es positivo; y 4) el conflicto cognitivo del equipo de alta dirección debilita la relación entre el liderazgo de empoderamiento del Director General y la exhaustividad de las decisiones estratégicas. Este estudio adopta un enfoque sistemático al integrar la dinámica entre el Director General y el equipo de alta dirección en la exhaustividad de las decisiones estratégicas, que a su vez afecta el desempeño de la empresa, y ofrece así una visión holística de cómo los niveles superiores influyen en el desempeño de la empresa.

Keywords

CEO directive leadershipCEO empowering leadershipfirm performanceTMT cognitive conflictTMT strategic decision comprehensivenessTMT战略决策全面性CEO授权型领导CEO 命令型领导TMT认知冲突企业绩效директивный стиль руководства со стороны генерального директорастиль руководства генерального директоракоторый наделяет полномочиямипроизводительность компаниикогнитивный конфликт в команде высшего звенаполнота стратегических решений в команде высшего звенаliderazgo directivo del Director Generalliderazgo de empoderamiento del Director Generaldesempeño de la empresaconflicto cognitivo del equipo de alta direcciónexhaustividad de las decisiones estratégicas del equipo de alta dirección
Type
Article
Information
Management and Organization Review , Volume 18 , Issue 1 , February 2022 , pp. 131 - 166
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The International Association for Chinese Management Research

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

ACCEPTED BY Senior Editor Zhi-Xue Zhang

References

REFERENCES

Akhtar, P., Kaur, S., & Punjaisri, K. 2017. Chain coordinators’ strategic leadership and coordination effectiveness: New Zealand-Euro agri-food supply chains. European Business Review, 29(5): 515–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amason, A. C. 1996. Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 39(1): 123–148.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atuahene-Gima, K., & Li, H. 2004. Strategic decision comprehensiveness and new product development outcomes in new technology ventures. Academy of Management Journal, 47(4): 583–597.Google Scholar
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y., 1988. On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1): 74–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baruch, Y. 1999. Response rate in academic studies-a comparative analysis. Human Relations, 52(4): 421–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bascle, G. 2008. Controlling for endogeneity with instrumental variables in strategic management research. Strategic Organization, 6(3): 285–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baum, R. J., & Wally, S. 2003. Strategic decision speed and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 24(11): 1107–1129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckman, C. M., & Burton, M. D. 2011. Bringing organizational demography back in: Time, change and structure in top management team research. In Carpenter, M. A. (Ed.), Handbook of research on top management teams: 49–70. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
Blau, T. H. 1977. Quality of life, social indicators, and criteria of change. Professional Psychology, 8(4): 464–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boulu-Reshef, B., Holt, C. A., Rodgers, M. S., & Thomas-Hunt, M. C. 2019. The impact of leader communication on free-riding: An incentivized experiment with empowering and directive styles. The Leadership Quarterly, 31(3): 101351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourgeois, L. J. III, & Eisenhardt, K. M. 1988. Strategic decision processes in high velocity environments: Four cases in the microcomputer industry. Management Science, 34(7): 816–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brislin, R. W. 1986. The wording and translation of research instrument. In Lonner, W. J. & Berry, J. W. (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research: 137–164. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Bromiley, P., & Rau, D. 2016. Social, behavioral, and cognitive influences on upper echelons during strategy process: A literature review. Journal of Management, 46(1): 174–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunderson, J. S. 2003. Team member functional background and involvement in management teams: Direct effects and the moderating role of power centralization. Academy of Management Journal, 46(4): 458–474.Google Scholar
Cannella, A., & Holcomb, T. 2005. A multilevel analysis of the upper echelons model. In Dansereau, A. & Yammarino, F. (Eds.), Multilevel issues in strategy and methods. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Carmeli, A., Friedman, Y., & Tishler, A. 2013. Cultivating a resilient top management team: The importance of relational connections and strategic decision comprehensiveness. Safety Science, 51(1): 148–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chebat, J. C., & Kollias, P. 2000. The impact of empowerment on customer contact employees’ roles in service organizations. Journal of Service Research, 3(1): 66–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheong, M., Spain, S. M., Yammarino, F. J., & Yun, S. 2016. Two faces of empowering leadership: Enabling and burdening. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(4): 602–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chiniara, M., & Bentein, K. 2016. Linking servant leadership to individual performance: Differentiating the mediating role of autonomy, competence and relatedness need satisfaction. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(1): 124–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Das, T. K., & Teng, B. S. 1999. Cognitive biases and strategic decision processes: An integrative perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 36(6): 757–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. 2000. The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4): 227–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Clercq, D., & Belausteguigoitia, I. 2017. Overcoming the dark side of task conflict: Buffering roles of transformational leadership, tenacity, and passion for work. European Management Journal, 35(1): 78–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Dreu, C. K. W. 2006. When too little or too much hurts: Evidence for a curvilinear relationship between task conflict and innovation in teams. Journal of Management, 32(1): 83–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. 2003. Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4): 741–749.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Edmondson, A. 1999. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2): 350–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenhardt, K. 1989. Making fast strategic decisions in high-velocity environments. Academy of Management Journal, 32(3): 543–576.Google Scholar
Euwema, M. C., Wendt, H., & Van Emmerik, H. 2007. Leadership styles and group organizational citizenship behavior across cultures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(8): 1035–1057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faraj, S., & Sambamurthy, V. 2006. Leadership of information systems development projects. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 53(2): 238–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finkelstein, S. 1992. Power in top management teams: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 35(3): 505–538.Google ScholarPubMed
Finkelstein, S., & Hambrick, D. C. 1996. Strategic leadership: Top executives and their effects on organizations. Eagan, MN: West Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Fredrickson, J. W., & Iaquinto, A. L. 1989. Inertia and creeping rationality in strategic decision processes. Academy of Management Journal, 32(3): 516–542.Google Scholar
Fredrickson, J. W., & Mitchell, T. R. 1984. Strategic decision processes: Comprehensiveness and performance in an industry with an unstable environment. Academy of Management Journal, 27(2): 399–423.Google Scholar
Friedman, R. A., Tidd, S. T., Currall, S. C., & Tsai, J. C. 2000. What goes around comes around: The impact of personal conflict styles on work conflict and stress. International Journal of Conflict Management, 11: 32–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, S. D., & Saul, K. 1991. A leader's wake: Organization member reactions to CEO succession. Journal of Management, 17(3): 619–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Y., Carmeli, A., & Tishler, A. 2016. How CEOs and TMTs build adaptive capacity in small entrepreneurial firms. Journal of Management Studies, 53(6): 996–1018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. 2005. Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gamble, J. 2000. Localizing management in foreign-invested enterprises in China: Practical, cultural, and strategic perspectives. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 11(5): 883–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Georgakakis, D., Greve, P., & Ruigrok, W. 2017. Top management team faultlines and firm performance: Examining the CEO-TMT interface. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(6): 741–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giebels, E., de Reuver, R. S. M., Rispens, S., & Ufkes, E. G. 2016. The critical roles of task conflict and job autonomy in the relationship between proactive personalities and innovative employee behavior. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 52(3): 320–341.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goll, I. 2005. The relationships between top management demographic characteristics, rational decision making, environmental munificence, and firm performance. Organization Studies, 26(7): 999–1023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodstein, J., Gautam, K., & Boeker, W. 1994. The effects of board size and diversity on strategic change. Strategic Management Journal, 15 (3): 241–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haleblian, J., & Finkelstein, S. 1993. Top management team size, CEO dominance, and firm performance: The moderating roles of environmental turbulence and discretion. Academy of Management Journal, 36(4): 844–863.Google Scholar
Hambrick, D. C. 1994. Top management groups: A conceptual integration and reconsideration of the team label. Research in Organizational Behavior, 16: 171–214.Google Scholar
Hambrick, D. C, & Mason, P. A. 1984. Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2): 193–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heavey, C., Simsek, Z., Roche, F., & Kelly, A. 2009. Decision comprehensiveness and corporate entrepreneurship: The moderating role of managerial uncertainty preferences and environmental dynamism. Journal of Management Studies, 46(8): 1289–1314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hmieleski, K. M., & Ensley, M. D. 2007. A contextual examination of new venture performance: Entrepreneur leadership behavior, top management team heterogeneity, and environmental dynamism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(7): 865–889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture consequences, comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
House, R. J. 1971. A path goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16(3): 321–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
House, R. J. 1996. Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, and a reformulated theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 7(3): 323–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
House, R. J., & Mitchell, T. R. 1974. Path-goal theory of leadership. Contemporary Business, 3: 81–98.Google Scholar
Hu, N., Wu, J., & Gu, J. 2019. Cultural intelligence and employees’ creative performance: The moderating role of team conflict in interorganizational teams. Journal of Management & Organization, 25(1): 96–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurt, K. J., & Abebe, M. A. 2015. The effect of conflict type and organizational crisis on perceived strategic decision effectiveness. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 22(3): 340–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, L. R. 1982. Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(2): 219–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. 1993. RWG: An assessment of within-group interrater agreement. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2): 306–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janis, I. L., 1972. Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Jehn, K. A., & Bendersky, C. 2003. Intragroup conflict in organizations: A contingency perspective on the conflict-outcome relationship. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25: 187–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, R. E., Jacobs, L. W., & Vonriesen, R. D. 1991. Effective strategic decision processes in high tech firms: Empirical support for comprehensive rationalism. International Journal of Commerce and Management, 1(1/2): 40–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, M., & Beehr, T. A. 2018. Organization-based self-esteem and meaningful work mediate effects of empowering leadership on employee behaviors and well-being. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 25(4): 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leana, C. R. 1985. A partial test of Janis’ groupthink model: Effects of group cohesiveness and leader behavior on defective decision making. Journal of Management, 11(1): 5–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, A., Willis, S., & Tian, A. W. 2018. Empowering leadership: A meta-analytic examination of incremental contribution, mediation, and moderation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(3): 306–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, H., & Li, J. 2009. Top management team conflict and entrepreneurial strategy making in China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 26(2): 263–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, H. C., & Rababah, N. 2014. CEO–TMT exchange, TMT personality composition, and decision quality: The mediating role of TMT psychological empowerment. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(5): 943–957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ling, Y., Simsek, Z., Lubatkin, M. H., & Veiga, J. F. 2008. Transformational leadership's role in promoting corporate entrepreneurship: Examining the CEO-TMT interface. Academy of Management Journal, 51(3): 557–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, D., Fisher, G., & Chen, G. 2018. CEO attributes and firm performance: A sequential mediation process model. Academy of Management Annals, 12(2): 789–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lo, F. Y., & Fu, P. H. 2016. The interaction of chief executive officer and top management team on organization performance. Journal of Business Research, 69(6): 2182–2186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorinkova, N. M., Pearsall, M. J., & Sims, H. P. 2013. Examining the differential longitudinal performance of directive versus empowering leadership in teams. Academy of Management Journal, 56(2): 573–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ma, S., & Seidl, D. 2018. New CEOs and their collaborators: Divergence and convergence between the strategic leadership constellation and the top management team. Strategic Management Journal, 39(3): 606–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, S. L., Liao, H., & Campbell, E. 2013. Directive versus empowering leadership: A field experiment comparing impacts on task proficiency and proactivity. Academy of Management Journal, 56(5): 1372–1395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meissner, P., & Wulf, T. 2014. Antecedents and effects of decision comprehensiveness: The role of decision quality and perceived uncertainty. European Management Journal, 32(4): 625–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, C. C. 2008. Decisional comprehensiveness and firm performance: Towards a more complete understanding. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 21(5): 598–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, C. C., Burke, L. M., & Glick, W. H. 1998. Cognitive diversity among upper-echelon executives: Implications for strategic decision processes. Strategic Management Journal, 19(1): 39–58.3.0.CO;2-A>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, R., Boyle, B., & Nicholas, S. 2016. Boundary conditions of a curvilinear relationship between decision comprehensiveness and performance: The role of functional and national diversity. Journal of Business Research, 69(8): 2801–2811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mooney, A. C., Holahan, P. J., & Amason, A. C. 2007. Don't take it personally: Exploring cognitive conflict as a mediator of affective conflict. Journal of Management Studies, 44(5): 733–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Narikae, P. O., Namada, J. M., & Katuse, P. 2017. The role organizational leadership plays in strategy implementation. American Journal of Leadership and Governance, 1(1): 96–111.Google Scholar
Papadakis, V. M., Lioukas, S., & Chambers, D. 1998. Strategic decision-making processes: The role of management and context. Strategic Management Journal, 19(2): 115–147.3.0.CO;2-5>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parayitam, S., Olson, B. J., & Bao, Y. 2010. Task conflict, relationship conflict and agreement-seeking behavior in Chinese top management teams. International Journal of Conflict Management, 21(1): 94–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearce, C. L., Sims, H. P. Jr., Cox, J. F., Ball, G., Schnell, E., Smith, K. A., & Trevino, L. 2003. Transactors, transformers and beyond: A multi-method development of a theoretical typology of leadership. Journal of Management Development, 22(4): 273–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, R. S., Smith, D. B., Martorana, P. V., & Owens, P. D. 2003. The impact of chief executive officer personality on top management team dynamics: One mechanism by which leadership affects organizational performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5): 795–808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plambeck, N., & Weber, K. 2010. When the glass is half full and half empty: CEOs’ ambivalent interpretations of strategic issues. Strategic Management Journal, 31(7): 689–710.Google Scholar
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. 1986. Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4): 531–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reimer, M., Van Doorn, S., & Heyden, M. L. M. 2018. Unpacking functional experience complementarities in senior leaders’ influences on CSR strategy: A CEO–top management team approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 151(5): 977–995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaffer, B. S., & Riordan, C. M. 2003. A review of cross-cultural methodologies for organizational research: A best-practices approach. Organizational Research Methods, 6(2): 169–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Semadeni, M., Withers, M. C., & Trevis Certo, S. 2014. The perils of endogeneity and instrumental variables in strategy research: Understanding through simulations. Strategic Management Journal, 35(7): 1070–1079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. 1979. Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2): 420–427.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.Google Scholar
Souitaris, V., & Maestro, B. M. 2010. Polychronicity in top management teams: The impact on strategic decision processes and performance of new technology ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 31(6): 652–678.Google Scholar
Stock, J., & Yogo, M. 2005. Testing for weak instruments in linear IV regression. In Andrews, D. W. & Stock, J. H. (Eds.), Identification and inference for econometric models: Essays in honor of Thomas Rothenberg: 80–108. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tajfel, H. 1982. Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33: 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talaulicar, T., Grundei, J., & Werder, A. V. 2005. Strategic decision making in start-ups: The effect of top management team organization and processes on speed and comprehensiveness. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(4): 519–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, L., & Ambrosini, V. 2015. Materializing strategy: The role of comprehensiveness and management controls in strategy formation in volatile environments. British Journal of Management, 26(S1): 105–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, J. C. 1982. Toward a cognitive definition of the group. In Tajfel, H. (Ed.), Social identity and intergroup relations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ullah, S., Zaefarian, G., & Ullah, F. 2020. How to use instrumental variables in addressing endogeneity? A step-by-step procedure for non-specialists. Industrial Marketing Management, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.03.006.Google Scholar
Vecchio, R. P., Justin, J. E., & Pearce, C. L. 2010. Empowering leadership: An examination of mediating mechanisms within a hierarchical structure. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(3): 530–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walters, B. A., & Bhuian, S. N. 2004. Complexity absorption and performance: A structural analysis of acute-care hospitals. Journal of Management, 30(1): 97–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, F., Huang, M., & Shou, Z. 2015. Business expansion and firm efficiency in the commercial banking industry: Evidence from the US and China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 32(2): 551–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yi, Y., Ndofor, H. A., He, X., & Wei, Z. 2018. Top management team tenure diversity and performance: The moderating role of behavioral integration. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 64(1): 1–13.Google Scholar
Yun, S., Faraj, S., & Sims, H. P. Jr. 2005. Should I be directive or empowering? Contingent leadership in high risk and high reliability situations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6): 1288–1296.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, J., Wang, Y., & Zhang, M. Y. 2018. Team leaders matter in knowledge sharing: A cross-level analysis of the interplay between leaders’ and members’ goal orientations in the Chinese context. Management and Organization Review, 14(4): 715–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Y., & Begley, T. M. 2011. Power distance and its moderating impact on empowerment and team participation. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(17): 3601–3617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Y., & Rajagopalan, N. 2010. Once an outsider, always an outsider? CEO origin, strategic change, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 31(3): 334–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, Y., Du, J., Shi, Q., & Horlen, J. 2016. Directive vs. empowering leadership in temporary project teams: An agent-based modeling approach. Construction Research Congress Proceedings: 1876–1885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Yi et al. supplementary material

Yi et al. supplementary material
Download Yi et al. supplementary material(File)
File 23.7 KB