Call for Papers Special issue of Long Range Planning:
"Internal And External Interfaces Of The Executive Suite;
Advancing Research On The Porous Bounds Of Strategic Leadership."
Submission deadline: May 12th, 2020
Guest Editors:
- Tine Buyl, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands
- Craig Crossland, Mendoza College of Business, Notre Dame, USA
- Sebastiaan van Doorn, UWA Business School, Perth, Australia
- Mariano Heyden, Monash Business School, Melbourne, Australia
- Marko Reimer, WHU – Otto Beisheim School of Management, Vallendar, Germany
- Henk Volberda, Amsterdam Business School, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Web version: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/long-range-planning/call-for-papers/internal-and-external-interfaces-of-the-executive-suite-adva
Background to the special issue
New developments such as the global disaggregation of value chains, the emergence of cooperative innovation frameworks, and the changing position of firms in the larger ecosystem create new challenges for senior leaders. These leaders may therefore call on different actors, both within and beyond firm boundaries, to assist in decisions pertaining to key organizational processes and outcomes (Alexiev, Jansen, Van den Bosch, & Volberda, 2010; van Doorn, Heyden, & Volberda, 2016). It is then not surprising that the upper echelons tradition to strategy research increasingly emphasizes the interface between the top management team (TMT) and other constituents –both in close proximity and more peripheral to the executive suite (Arendt, Priem, & Ndofor, 2005; Bromiley & Rau, 2015; Roberto, 2003; Simsek, Heavey, & Fox, 2017).
Acknowledging the differentiated, yet co-dependent, influences of key actors in strategic processes and outcomes (Olie, van Iterson, & Simsek, 2012), scholars have increasingly embraced the ecological complexities of how executives ultimately influence the organizations they represent (Cao, Simsek, & Zhang, 2010). For instance, scholars have discerned between CEOs and their TMTs (Buyl, Boone, Hendriks, & Matthyssens, 2011; Heyden, Reimer, & Van Doorn, 2017; Ling, Simsek, Lubatkin, & Veiga, 2008), TMTs and Boards (Kor, 2006; Kroll, Walters, & Le, 2007), TMTs and middle managers (Heyden, Sidhu, & Volberda, 2015; Raes, Heijltjes, Glunk, & Roe, 2011), and TMTs and external advisors (Alexiev et al., 2010; Heyden et al. 2013; Vissa & Chacar, 2009), and theorized about their joint impact on key organizational processes and outcomes such as innovation and performance.
The "interface" approach represents a departure from the "teamness" assumptions of classic upper echelons theory, which views the group of senior-most executives (the TMT) as a collective decision-making unit (Boone & Hendriks, 2009; Hambrick, 1994; Simsek, Veiga, Lubatkin, & Dino, 2005). Studies in this tradition are increasingly expanding the predictive domain of upper echelons theory beyond the "team", to understand the influence of a more inclusive, yet differentiated, set of internal and external actors. As a result, the bounds of the TMT have become porous, with a multiplicity of internal and external actors involved in processes and outcomes traditionally attributed to the TMT, through a variety of interfaces (Simsek et al., 2017). Although this "interface" approach holds the exciting potential to inform a more comprehensive and ecologically valid theory of strategic leadership, the allied richness also carries with it the risk of fragmenting the field further. Our aim in this special issue is to consolidate interest in conceptual and empirical research on this topic.
Potential Themes
With this special issue we aim to compile state-of-the-art research developing the "interface" approach to upper echelons research. Given the increasing interest in the boundaries of the upper echelon, a coherent collection of state-of-the-art studies on the changing assumptions related to the executive interfaces can guide future upper echelons researchers and inform practitioners. A non-exhaustive list of potential themes, which can be tackled from different epistemological traditions and corresponding research designs (e.g., conceptual, qualitative, quantitative), include:
- Teamness. Revisiting the "teamness" assumption of upper echelons theory (Hambrick, 1994) by examining how factors such as colocation (Cannella, Park, & Lee, 2008); structural interdependence (Hambrick, Humphrey, & Gupta, 2015); behavioral integration (Carmeli & Halevi, 2009; Carmeli & Schaubroeck, 2006; Simsek et al., 2005); and group processes such as conflict and trust (Amason 1996; Carmeli, Tishler, & Edmondson, 2012; Simons & Peterson 2000) shape (intra-TMT) interfaces.
- Deconstructing the TMT. Unpacking the TMT as a hierarchically structured body and examining the varying roles and functions within the TMT (Menz, 2012).
- Bilateral interfaces. Exploring the implications of bilateral interactions between important senior managers such as CEO and COO (Zhang 2006; Hambrick & Cannella 2004), CEO and CFO (Chen et al. 2017), as well as CEO and chairman of the board (Fiss 2006).
- Internal interfaces. Conceptualizing and studying intra-TMT interfaces, such as between a stable core and a dynamic periphery (Roberto, 2003), between demographically segregated sub-groups (Georgakakis, Greve, & Ruigrok, 2017), and between factional groups (Li & Hambrick, 2005).
- External interfaces. Charting the links and exploring the interfaces between the executive suite and actors outside of the TMT (e.g., board of directors, middle management, employees) and outside of the organization (e.g., external advisors, government agencies).
- Interfaces for leading new organizational forms. Studying the emergence and relevance of interfaces to lead new organizational forms and business models.
- Decision processes. Examining how decision speed and decision quality change depending on different compositions and characteristics of decision-making bodies.
- Accountability. Taking a compliance/legal perspective: who can/should be made accountable for decision quality, when different actors are involved?
- Power and influence. Exploring the power and influence tensions between different actors, such as CEOs and boards (Tang, Crossan, & Rowe, 2011).
- Contextual and multi-level approaches. Exploring the boundary conditions and multi-level dimensions of interface models. In particular, how do interfaces differ in their function and effectiveness across macro- and meso- contexts (Crossland & Hambrick, 2007)?
- Technological advances. How is the meaning (and relevance) of core concepts in upper echelons research (e.g., behavioral integration) changing in an increasingly digital and virual world? How are technologies and organizational agility influencing how TMT members interact at the helm of an organization? How will advances in artificial intelligence complement or substitute key processes at the different interfaces within and around the executive suite?
Submission process and deadlines
Manuscripts will be reviewed according to LRP's double-blind review process.
Submissions should be prepared using the Guide for Authors (see: https://www.elsevier.com/journals/long-range-planning/0024-6301/guide-for-authors).
The new deadline for submission is May 12th 2020.
Manuscripts should be submitted via
https://www.evise.com/profile/api/navigate/LRP
For informal inquires related to the Special Issue, proposed topics and potential fit, and/or the conferences below, please contact the guest editors at [Sebastiaan.vandoorn@uwa.edu.au]
References;
Alexiev, A. S., Jansen, J. J., Van den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. 2010. Top management team advice seeking and exploratory innovation: the moderating role of TMT heterogeneity. Journal of Management Studies, 47(7): 1343-1364.
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.
Arendt, L. A., Priem, R. L., & Ndofor, H. A. 2005. A CEO-adviser model of strategic decision making. Journal of Management, 31(5): 680-699.
Boone, C. & Hendriks, W. 2009. Top management team diversity and firm performance: Moderators of functional-background and locus-of-control diversity. Management Science, 55(2): 165-180.
Bromiley, P. & Rau, D. 2015. Social, Behavioral, and Cognitive Influences on Upper Echelons During Strategy Process A Literature Review. Journal of Management: 0149206315617240.
Buyl, T., Boone, C., Hendriks, W., & Matthyssens, P. 2011. Top management team functional diversity and firm performance: The moderating role of CEO characteristics. Journal of Management Studies, 48(1): 151-177.
Cannella, A. A. & Holcomb, T. R. 2005. A multi-level analysis of the upper-echelons model. Research in multi-level issues, 4: 197-237.
Cannella, A. A., Park, J.-H., & Lee, H.-U. 2008. Top management team functional background diversity and firm performance: Examining the roles of team member colocation and environmental uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 51(4): 768-784.
Cao, Q., Simsek, Z., & Zhang, H. 2010. Modelling the joint impact of the CEO and the TMT on organizational ambidexterity. Journal of Management Studies, 47(7): 1272-1296.
Carmeli, A. & Halevi, M. Y. 2009. How top management team behavioral integration and behavioral complexity enable organizational ambidexterity: The moderating role of contextual ambidexterity. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(2): 207-218.
Carmeli, A. & Schaubroeck, J. 2006. Top management team behavioral integration, decision quality, and organizational decline. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(5): 441-453.
Carmeli, A., Tishler, A., & Edmondson, A. C. 2012. CEO relational leadership and strategic decision quality in top management teams: The role of team trust and learning from failure, Strategic Organization, 10(1): 31-54
Chen, G., Crossland, C., & Luo, S. 2015. Making the same mistake all over again: CEO overconfidence and corporate resistance to corrective feedback, Strategic Management Journal, 36(10): 1513-1535
Crossland, C., Hambrick, D. C. 2007. How national systems differ in their constraints on corporate executives: A study of CEO effects in three countries. Strategic Management Journal, 28: 767-789.
Fiss, P. C. 2006. Social influence effects and managerial compensation evidence from Germany, Strategic Management Journal, 27(11): 1013-1031.
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.
Hambrick, D. 1994. Top management groups: A conceptual integration and reconsideration of the team label. In BM Staw & LL Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, Vol. 16: 171-214. Greenwich, CT: JAI: CT: JAI Press.
Hambrick, D. C., & Cannella, A. A. 2004. CEOs who have COOs: contingency analysis of an unexplored structural form. Strategic Management Journal, 25(10): 959–979.
Hambrick, D. C., Humphrey, S. E., & Gupta, A. 2015. Structural interdependence within top management teams: A key moderator of upper echelons predictions. Strategic Management Journal, 36: 449–461.
Heyden, M. L., van Doorn, S., Reimer, M., Van Den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. 2013. Perceived Environmental Dynamism, Relative Competitive Performance, and Top Management Team Heterogeneity: Examining Correlates of Upper Echelons' Advice-Seeking. Organization Studies, 34(9): 1327-1356.
Heyden, M. L., Reimer, M., & Van Doorn, S. 2017. Innovating Beyond the Horizon: CEO Career Horizon, Top Management Composition, and R&D Intensity. Human Resource Management, 56(2): 205–224.
Heyden, M. L., Sidhu, J. S., & Volberda, H. W. 2015. The Conjoint Influence of Top and Middle Management Characteristics on Management Innovation. Journal of Management, 44(4): 1505-1529.
Kor, Y. Y. 2006. Direct and interaction effects of top management team and board compositions on R&D investment strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 27(11): 1081-1099.
Kroll, M., Walters, B. A., & Le, S. A. 2007. The impact of board composition and top management team ownership structure on post-IPO performance in young entrepreneurial firms. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5): 1198-1216.
Li, J. & Hambrick, D. C. 2005. Factional groups: A new vantage on demographic faultlines, conflict, and disintegration in work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5): 794-813.
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.
Menz, M. 2012. Functional Top Management Team Members A Review, Synthesis, and Research Agenda. Journal of Management, 38(1): 45-80.
Olie, R., van Iterson, A., & Simsek, Z. 2012. When Do CEOs Versus Top Management Teams Matter in Explaining Strategic Decision-Making Processes? International Studies of Management and Organization, 42(4): 86-105.
Raes, A. M., Heijltjes, M. G., Glunk, U., & Roe, R. A. 2011. The interface of the top management team and middle managers: A process model. Academy of Management Review, 36(1): 102-126.
Roberto, M. A. 2003. The stable core and dynamic periphery in top management teams. Management Decision, 41(2): 120-131.
Simons, T. L., & Peterson, R. S. 2000. Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 102-111.
Simsek, Z., Heavey, C., & Fox, B.C. 2017. Interfaces of strategic leaders: A conceptual framework, review, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 44(1): 280-324.
Simsek, Z., Veiga, J. F., Lubatkin, M. H., & Dino, R. N. 2005. Modeling the multilevel determinants of top management team behavioral integration. Academy of Management Journal, 48(1): 69-84.
Tang, J., Crossan, M., & Rowe, W. G. 2011. Dominant CEO, deviant strategy, and extreme performance: The moderating role of a powerful board. Journal of Management Studies, 48(7): 1479-1503.
van Doorn, S., Heyden, M. L., & Volberda, H. W. 2016. Enhancing Entrepreneurial Orientation in Dynamic Environments: The Interplay between Top Management Team Advice-Seeking and Absorptive Capacity. Long Range Planning, 50(2): 134-144.
Vissa, B. & Chacar, A. S. 2009. Leveraging ties: the contingent value of entrepreneurial teams' external advice networks on Indian software venture performance. Strategic Management Journal, 30(11): 1179-1191.
Zhang, Y. 2006. The presence of a separate COO/president and its impact on strategic change and CEO dismissal, Strategic Management Journal, 27(3): 283-300
------------------------------
Dr. Mariano (Pitosh) Heyden
Associate Professor
Monash University, Australia
CAULFIELD EAST VIC
------------------------------