M2492 - CARPENTER.indd

Organizational scholars have achieved broad consensus on two facts: the era of the loyal “organization man” is over, and traditional large bureaucracies are being replaced by new organizational forms. Commentators in both the popular press and the scholarly literature have documented the myriad ways that jobs at all levels are less secure and how both organizations and employees are less loyal (cf., Cappelli, 1999; Osterman, 1999). These changes in the nature of the employment relationship are particularly visible in the executive ranks. The promotions and ousters of corporate leaders that are core to academic theories of governance and motivation are chronicled in the press in colorful detail. Executive tenure has declined and executive mobility is facilitated by professional executive search fi rms (Khurana, 2002). At the same time, we see widespread change in how organizations are designed and managed (Barley, 1992; Guillen, 1994); and in diff erent eras, diff erent organizational forms dominate (e.g., functional, divisional, and matrix forms; see Chandler, 1962; Davis et al., 1994; Shenhav, 2000; Zuckerman, 2000). We have seen the rise (Fligstein, 1987) and fall (Davis, 2009) of fi nancial capitalism, and the emergence of new executive roles such as the Chief Operating Offi cer (COO) (Hambrick and Cannella, 2004) and the Chief Financial Offi cer (CFO) (Zorn, 2004; Zorn et al., 2004). Given the known game of musical chairs in the executive suite as people come and go, and the extensive changes in organizational structures that change the chairs drawn up to the table, it is surprising that most scholarship on top management team (TMT) demography is crosssectional in nature and implicitly treats the TMT as a stable entity. In the 25 years following the publication of Hambrick and Mason’s (1984) “Upper echelon theory” and Pfeff er’s (1983) “Organizational demography,” TMT research has been one of the most vibrant research areas in organizational studies. Researchers have conducted an impressive array of studies linking TMT characteristics to such factors as organizational performance, strategic change, and turnover. Despite these vigorous eff orts, attempts to synthesize the cumulative wisdom have been unproductive. The fi ndings are often contradictory, the methods and measures inconsistent, and the theoretical underpinnings poorly specifi ed (Finkelstein and Hambrick, 1996; Jackson et al., 2003; Carpenter et al., 2004; Cannella et al., 2008; Nielson, 2009). There have been many excellent reviews of the broader TMT literature: Williams and O’Reilly (1998) reviewed over 80 articles published between 1959 and 1997 on organizational demography and diversity (not TMT demography in particular); Jackson et al. (2003) reviewed 63 articles on workplace diversity published between 1997 and 2002; Carpenter et al. (2004) identifi ed 31 TMT articles that build on upper echelons theory between 1996 and 2003; Nielsen (2009) reviewed 60 articles on TMT heterogeneity published between 1984 and 2005. All of these reviews document the vibrancy of the research