Top management team’s participative decision-making, heterogeneity, and management innovation: an information processing perspective

Abstract

Drawing on the information processing perspective, this study examines the effects of TMT participative decision-making and heterogeneity on management innovation. It finds that TMT participative decision-making and heterogeneity individual and jointly contribute to management innovation. In addition, the effect of TMT participative decision-making is positively moderated by firm age, whereas that of TMT heterogeneity is negatively moderated by firm age. This study offers insights into how TMTs matter to management innovation, enriching the knowledge of the antecedents of management innovation. It also represents one of the first attempts that introduce firm age as a contingency for the innovation implications of TMTs.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Notes

  1. 1.

    The information processing perspective has generated a large body of literature that examines innovation at both organizational and individual levels. This study focuses on the organizational level, and all variables used in the study are organizational-level variables.

References

  1. Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. 1991. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Alexiev, A. S., Jansen, J. J. P., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. 2010. Top management team advice seeking and exploratory innovation: The moderating role of TMT heterogeneity. Journal of Management Studies, 47: 1343-1364.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. 1988. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103: 411-423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Antons, D., Declerck, M., Diener, K., Koch, I., & Piller, F. T. 2017. Assessing the not-invented-here syndrome: Development and validation of implicit and explicit measurements. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38: 1227-1245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. 1977. Estimating non-response bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14: 396-402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Birkinshaw, J. 2010. Reinventing management. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Birkinshaw, J., Hamel, G., & Mol, M. 2008. Management innovation. Academy of Management Review, 33: 825-845.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Birkinshaw, J., & Mol, M. 2006. How management innovation happens. Sloan Management Review, 47: 81-88.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Cai, Y., Jia, L. & Li, J. 2017. Dual-level transformational leadership and team information elaboration: The mediating role of relationship conflict and moderating role of middle way thinking. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 34: 399-421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Carmeli, A., Sheaffer, Z., & Halevi, M. Y. 2009. Does participatory decision-making in top management teams enhance decision effectiveness and firm performance? Personnel Review, 38: 696-714.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Carpenter, M. A. 2002. The implications of strategy and social context for the relationship between top management team heterogeneity and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 23: 275-284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Carpenter, M. A., Geletkanycz, M. A., & Sanders, W. G. 2004. Upper echelons research revisited: Antecedents, elements, and consequences of top management team composition. Journal of Management, 30: 749-778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Chang, S., Witteloostuijn, A., & Eden, L. 2010. Common method variance in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 41: 178-184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Chang, Y. Y., Gong, Y., & Peng, M. W. 2012. Expatriate knowledge transfer, subsidiary absorptive capacity, and subsidiary performance. Academy of Management Journal, 55: 927-948.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Chen, S., Bu, M., Wu, S., & Liang, X. 2015. How does TMT attention to innovation of Chinese firms influence firm innovation activities? A study on the moderating role of corporate governance. Journal of Business Research, 68: 1127-1135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Cronbach, L. J. 1971. Test validation. In Thorndike, R. L. ed. Educational measurement (2nd ed). Washington: American Council on Education.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Crossan, M. M., & Apaydin, M. 2010. A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Management Studies, 47: 1154-1191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Daft, R. L. 1978. A dual-core model of organizational innovation. Academy of Management Journal, 21: 193-210.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Damanpour, F. 2014. Footnotes to research on management innovation. Organization Studies, 35: 1265-1285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Damanpour, F., & Aravind, D. 2012. Managerial innovation: Conceptions, processes, and antecedents. Management and Organization Review, 8: 423-454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Damanpour, F., & Schneider, M. 2006. Phases of the adoption of innovation in organizations: Effects of environment, organization, and top managers. British Journal of Management, 17: 215-236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ding, Z., Au, K., & Chiang, F. 2015. Social trust and angel investors’ decisions: A multilevel analysis across nations. Journal of Business Venturing, 30: 307-321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Doorn, S. V., Jansen, J. J. P., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. 2013. Entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance: Drawing attention to the senior team. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30: 821-836.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18: 39-50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Galbraith, J. R. 1973. Designing complex organizations. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Galbraith, J. R. 1977. Organization design. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Gilbert, C. G. 2005. Unbundling the structure of inertia: Resource versus routine rigidity. Academy of Management Journal, 48: 741-763.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hambrick, D. C. 2007. Upper echelons theory: An update. Academy of Management Review, 32: 334-343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. H. 1984. Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 49: 149-164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Heyden, M. L. M., Sidhu, J. S., & Volberda, H. W. 2018. The conjoint influence of top and middle management characteristics on management innovation. Journal of Management, 44: 1505-1529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Huff, J. O., Huff, A. S., & Thomas, H. 1992. Strategic renewal and the interaction of cumulative stress and inertia. Strategic Management Journal, 13: 55-75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. 1993. Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57: 53-70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Jiao, L., Harrison, G., Dyball, M. C., & Chen, J. 2017. CEO values, stakeholder culture, and stakeholder-based performance. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 34: 875-899.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Kelly, D., & Amburgey, T. L. 1991. Organizational inertia and momentum: A dynamic model of strategic change. Academy of Management Journal, 34: 591-612.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Kimberly, J. R., & Evanisko, M. J. 1981. Organizational innovation: The influence of individual, organizational, and contextual factors on hospital adoption of technological and administrative innovations. Academy of Management Journal, 24: 689-713.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Kleinschmidt, E., Brentani, U. D., & Salomo, S. 2010. Information processing and firm-internal environment contingencies: Performance impact on global new product development. Creativity & Innovation Management, 19: 200-218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Knight, D., Pearce, C. L., Smith, K. G., Olian, J. D., Sims, H. P., Smith, K. A., & Flood, P. 1999. Top management team diversity, group process, and strategic consensus. Strategic Management Journal, 20: 445-465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Kumar, V., Jones, E., Venkatesan, R., & Leone, R. P. 2011. Is market orientation a source of sustainable competitive advantage or simply the cost of competing? Journal of Marketing, 75: 16-30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Lin, H., Su, J., & Higgins, A. 2016. How dynamic capabilities affect adoption of management innovations. Journal of Business Research, 69: 862-876.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. 2001. Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 114-121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Luo, S., & Lin, H. 2020. How do TMT shared cognitions shape firm performance? The roles of collective efficacy, trust, and competitive aggressiveness. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-020-09710-4.

  42. Mol, M., & Birkinshaw, J. 2009. The sources of management innovation: When firms introduce new management practices. Journal of Business Research, 62: 1269-1280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Moser, R., Kuklinski, C. P. J., & Srivastava, M. 2017. Information processing fit in the context of emerging markets: An analysis of foreign SBUs in China. Journal of Business Research, 70: 234-247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Naranjo-Gil, D., Hartmann, F., & Maas, V. S. 2008. Top management team heterogeneity, strategic change and operational performance. British Journal of Management, 19: 222-234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Nelson, K. M., & Cooprider, J. G. 1996. The contribution of shared knowledge to IS group performance. MIS Quarterly, 20: 409-432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Neter, J., Wasserman, W., & Kutner, M. H. 1985. Applied linear statistical models: Regression, analysis of variance, and experimental design. Homewood: Richard, Irwin.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Peeters, C., Massini, S., & Lewin, A. Y. 2014. Sources of variation in the efficiency of adopting management innovation: The role of absorptive capacity routines, managerial attention and organizational legitimacy. Organization Studies, 35: 1343-1371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 879-903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Premkumar, G., Ramamurthy, K., & Saunders, C. S. 2005. Information processing view of organizations: An exploratory examination of fit in the context of interorganizational relationships. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22: 257-294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Ridge, J. W., Johnsonb, S., Hill, A. D., & Bolton, J. 2017. The role of top management team attention in new product introductions. Journal of Business Research, 70: 17-24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Rogers, P. R., Miller, A., & Judge, W. Q. 1999. Using information-processing theory to understand planning/performance relationships in the context of strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 20: 567-577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Saldanha, T. J. V., Mithas, S., & Krishnan, M. S. 2017. Leveraging customer involvement for fueling innovation: The role of relational and analytical information processing capabilities. MIS Quarterly, 41: 267-286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Sidhu, J. S., Commandeur, H. R., & Volberda, H. W. 2007. The multifaceted nature of exploration and exploitation: Value of supply, demand, and spatial search for innovation. Organization Science, 18: 20-38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Sparrowe, R. T., & Liden, R. C. 1997. Process and structure in leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Review, 22: 522-552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Srinivasan, R., & Swink, M. 2015. Leveraging supply chain integration through planning comprehensiveness: An organizational information processing theory perspective. Decision Sciences, 46: 823-861.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Srinivasan, R., & Swink, M. 2018. An investigation of visibility and flexibility as complements to supply chain analytics: An organizational information processing theory perspective. Production and Operations Management, 27: 1849-1867.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Su, Z., Peng, J., Shen, H., & Xiao, T. 2013. Technological capability, marketing capability, and firm performance under turbulence conditions. Management and Organization Review, 9: 115-137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Su, Z., Chen, J., & Wang, D. 2019. Organisational structure and managerial innovation: The mediating effect of cross-functional integration. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 31: 253-265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Turner, K., & Makhija, M. 2012. The role of individuals in the information processing perspective. Strategic Management Journal, 33: 661-680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Vaccaro, I. G., Jansen, J. J. P., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. 2012. Management innovation and leadership: The moderating role of organizational size. Journal of Management Studies, 49: 28-51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Volberda, H. W., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Heij, C. V. 2013. Management innovation: Management as fertile ground for innovation. European Management Review, 10: 1-15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Volberda, H. W., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Mihalache, O. R. 2014. Advancing management innovation: Synthesizing processes, levels of analysis, and change agents. Organization Studies, 35: 1245-1264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Walker, R. M., Chen, J., & Aravind, D. 2015. Management innovation and firm performance: An integration of research findings. European Management Journal, 33: 407-422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Wang, D., Su, Z. F., & Guo, H. 2019. Top management team conflict and exploratory innovation: The mediating impact of market orientation. Industrial Marketing Management, 82: 87-95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Wang, H., Law, K. S., Hackett, R. D., Wang, D. X., & Chen, Z. X., 2005. Leader-member exchange as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and followers’ performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 48: 420-432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Wong, C. S., & Law, K. S. 1999. Testing reciprocal relations by nonrecursive structural equation models using crosssectional data. Organizational Research Methods, 2: 69-87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Zahra, S. A., Neubaum, D. O., & Huse, M. 2000. Entrepreneurship in medium-size companies: exploring the effects of ownership and governance systems. Journal of Management, 26: 947-976.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the National Natural Science Foundation of China (71472087 and 71832009) for the generous financial support.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hai Guo.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Su, Z., Chen, J., Guo, H. et al. Top management team’s participative decision-making, heterogeneity, and management innovation: an information processing perspective. Asia Pac J Manag (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-021-09752-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • TMT participative decision-making
  • TMT heterogeneity
  • Management innovation
  • Firm age
  • The information processing perspective