Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Asia Pacific Journal of Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  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

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Management, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, 710049, China

    Zhongfeng Su & Jie Chen

  2. School of Business, SME Development Research Center, Renmin University of China, Beijing, 100872, China

    Hai Guo

  3. State Key Laboratory of Media Convergence and Communication, Communication University of China, Beijing, 100024, China

    Donghan Wang

Authors
  1. Zhongfeng Su
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jie Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hai Guo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Donghan Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

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

Check for updates. 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 39, 149–171 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-021-09752-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-021-09752-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation