Inhoud
Hambrick (2007): Upper Echelons Theory: An Update...........................................................................2
Resource Dependence Theory: A Review – Hilman, Withers & Collins (2009).......................................6
Roberts, McNulty and Stiles (2005): Beyond Agency Conceptions of the Work of the Non-Executive
Director: Creating Accountability in the Boardroom............................................................................12
Gabrielsson...........................................................................................................................................13
Article presentation TMPS....................................................................................................................16
Bezemer et al. 2014..............................................................................................................................16
Bezemer, P.-J., Peij, S., de Kruijs, L., & Maassen, G. (2014). How two-tier boards can be more
effective. Corporate Governance, 14(1), 15–31....................................................................................19
Heemskerk et al ...................................................................................................................................21
Negotiation (Thompson).......................................................................................................................25
Flying too close to the sun? Hubris among CEOs and how to prevent it..............................................28
Valérie Petit, Helen Bollaert.................................................................................................................28
TMPS SV Sebenius- Six Habits of Merely Effective Negotiators ...........................................................31
Support Theory in Negotiation: How Unpacking Aspirations and Alternatives Can Improve Negotiation
Performance – Michael P. Haselhuhn...................................................................................................33
A proposed model for effective negotiation skill development Chapman, Miles & Maurer, 2017.......36
Chapman, Miles & Maurer (2017): A proposed model for effective negotiation skill development....40
The book: Getting to yes.......................................................................................................................48
From Game Design Elements to Gamefulness: Defining “Gamification” by Deterding et al. ..............63
I PLAY AT WORK—ten principles for transforming work processes through gamification...................70
Wilson no summary..............................................................................................................................73
Galinsky, A. D., Maddux, W. W., Gilin, D., White, J. B. (2008). Why it pays to get inside the head of
your opponent: The differential effects of perspective taking and empathy in strategic interactions.
Psychological Science, 19(4), 378–384..................................................................................................74
.............................................................................................................................................................74
BAARVELD, M., SMIT, M. & DEWULF, G. (2015) NEGOTIATION PROCESSES IN URBAN
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS: DEALING WITH CONFLICTS BY BALANCING INTEGRATIVE AND
DISTRIBUTIVE APPROACHES.................................................................................................................75
1
,Hambrick (2007): Upper Echelons Theory: An Update
Abstract
‘The central premise of upper echelons theory is that executives’ experiences, values, and
personalities greatly influence their interpretations of the situations they face and, in turn, affect
their choices.’
Aim
The author discusses the theory, responses to skepticism and lays out future research directions.
Recap of the initial article
Upper echelons theory:
1. Executives act on the basis of their personalized interpretations of the strategic situations
they face
2. These personalized construals are a function of the executives’ experiences, values and
personalities
‘If we want to understand why organizations do the things they do, or why they perform the way
they do, we must consider the biases and dispositions of their most powerful actors—their top
executives.’
There are two subordinate ideas:
Focus on the characteristics of the top management team (TMT) will yield stronger
explanations of organizational outcomes than a customary focus on the individual to
executive (eg. CEO) alone -> this means a meso perspective instead of micro perspective
Demographic characteristics of executives can be used as valid, albeit incomplete and
imprecise, proxies of executives’ cognitive frames -> and therefore for strategy and
performance outcomes
Later refinements of the theory
There are two opposing views on the effects of top executives on organizational outcomes:
Strategic management: top executives greatly influence what happens in their organizations
Population ecology; new institutional theory: executives have little effect because
organizations are constrained
Which perspective is more valid, depends on two moderators.
‘Among the most notable refinements have been the introduction of two important moderators—
managerial discretion and executive job demands— which affect the theory’s predictive strength.’
‘... upper echelons theory offers good predictions of organizational outcomes in direct proportion to
how much managerial discretion exists.’
-> So, the amount of influence executives have on organizations are moderated by (the amount of)
managerial discretion.
Discretion exists when there is an absence of constraint and when there are multiple plausible
alternatives.
‘If a great deal of discretion is present, then managerial characteristics will become reflected in
strategy and performance. If, however, discretion is lacking, executive characteristics do not much
matter. Several studies have shown that managerial discretion is a pivotal modera- tor of upper
echelons predictions (e.g., Crossland & Hambrick, in press; Finkelstein & Hambrick, 1990).’
2
,Executive job demands are the second moderator. The demand of the job depends on:
task challenges
performance challenges
executive aspirations
‘As with managerial discretion, we envision executive job demands as a potentially impor- tant
moderator of the basic predictive strength of upper echelons theory.’
‘Executives who are under heavy job demands will be forced to take mental shortcuts and fall back
on what they have tried or seen work in the past; thus, their choices will reflect their backgrounds
and dispositions. Conversely, executives who face minimal job demands can afford to be more
comprehensive in their analyses and decision making; thus, their choices will more greatly match the
objective conditions they confront.’
The proposition is: the greater the executive job demands, the stronger the relationship between
executive characteristics and strategic choices.
-> That is, when the demands are high, the executive will use their personal experiences to make
decisions
Additional refinements
The influence of the TMT also depends on other things:
intra TMT power distributions, so ‘As important, however, his work reminds us that some
executives have much more say than others, and their biases should accordingly be given
more weight when trying to predict TMT actions.’
TMT behavioral integration = ‘Behavioral integration, then, is the degree to which a TMT
engages in mutual and collective interaction. A behaviorally integrated TMT shares
information, resources, and decisions.’
‘Behavioral integration has been shown to have direct positive effects on organizational performance
(Hambrick, 1998; Li & Hambrick, 2005; Lubatkin, Simsek, Ling, & Veiga, 2006). But its most important
implications for upper echelons theory concern how it affects the ba- sic relevance of the TMT as a
meaningful unit of analysis.’
-> So, you can only analyse the influence of the TMT on the organizations if the TMT operates as a
collective.
This is not always the case, so the authors call for more research into ‘subgroups’ of the TMT.
What’s needed now
The author proposes some steps for research:
‘Open the black box’ - a proposed methodology : ‘By exploring the actual information-
processing behaviors of managers, we could improve both our theories and our practical
insights.’ -> however this is proven to be very hard (as mentioned in the lectures)
o The author proposes an alternative method, namely a strategy simulation game (I
refer to the article if you would want to read it)
Sorting out reverse causality and endogeneity :
o Reverse causality = the question of what is the cause of the executive’s behavior
o Endogeneity = ‘Instead, the causal chain is propelled because the board (or other
hiring body) believes that these executives have precisely the right characteristics
3
, needed for the conditions at hand. In turn, the executives’ ac- tions are due more to
their mandate than to any unwittingly biased information processing on their part.’
-> So, the author proposes to check for endogeneity and reverse causality in your
analysis.
‘More generally, however, there is a need to turn upper echelons theory on its head
by considering executive characteristics as consequences rather than as causes.’
Executive effects under different national systems : ‘Upper echelons theory presumes that
executives vary and that the strategic alternatives available to them vary as well. These
presumptions may be far more valid in some societies, or national systems, than in others. If
a society has a single, uniform track for grooming top executives, then there will be no
variance to study. Similarly, if a society places extreme restrictions on executive actions
(either explicitly or implicitly), then executive effects on company outcomes will be
muted.’
‘It would be intriguing to study how countries differ in terms of the homogeneity of their
corporate elites, as well as what happens when a society’s filtering process changes —
particularly when it starts allowing more variety in its executive ranks.’
-> So, American samples of research are more likely to generate results in support of upper
echelons theory
The author did research on cultural differences in CEO’s performance: ‘we found that CEOs of
American firms had a significantly greater effect on company performance (i.e., explained
more variance) than did CEOs in the other two countries. At the other extreme, the CEOs of
Japanese companies had barely any statistical effect on performance, suggesting that CEOs in
Japan are essentially interchangeable—either because they are homogeneous in their mind-
sets and outlooks or because they are greatly constrained (explicitly or implicitly) in the
actions they can take.’
Interactive effects of executive characteristics and compensation systems : the author calls
for research on the impact of compensation arrangements on strategic choices.
‘There is a need to advance our understanding of just how much behavioral change can be
elicited from compensation arrangements and when the executives themselves must be
changed.’
‘At another level, we need to consider the interactive effects of executive characteristics and
compensation.’
The author conducted research on this topic and found: ‘there was an association between
changes in executive compensation (toward pay-for-performance) and changes in strategies.
But we additionally found an interactive effect between changes in TMT composition and
compensation on changes in strategy.’
Responses to philosophical skepticism about the theory
Skeptical questions proposed to the theory:
1. Do top executives really matter as much to company outcomes as the theory seems to
presume?
2. Doesn’t the study of top executives amount to a glorification of elites?
Responses:
4
