Published Online:https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2019.0378

This paper offers a novel theoretical account of why and when top management team (TMT) gender diversity lends strategic advantage. Building on social role theory, we develop a moderated-mediation model showing: (a) TMT psychological safety mediates the effect of TMT gender diversity on firm ambidextrous strategic orientation (ASO) (why), and (b) firm slack moderates this mediated effect (when). We tested our model in the context of Chinese high-tech small- and medium-sized enterprises. After confirming gender differences in social role–based proclivities at the TMT level, a multiwave survey study of 373 members from 120 TMTs showed that TMT gender diversity positively affects ASO via TMT psychological safety, and this mediated effect is stronger when firm slack is lower than higher. We further interviewed 23 top managers to supplement key quantitative results. Our study advances upper echelons research on TMT gender diversity in two ways. First, it highlights the gender-specific interpersonal benefit of TMT gender diversity, which is markedly distinct from the cognitive-variety argument associated generically with TMT demographic diversity. Second, it considers both men and women in TMTs in a more balanced manner, thereby offering an alternative account to the female-focused theorization of the positive strategic implications of TMT gender diversity.

REFERENCES

  • Ali, M., Metz, I., & Kulik, C. T. 2015. The impact of work–family programs on the relationship between gender diversity and performance. Human Resource Management, 54: 553–576. Google Scholar
  • 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: 123–148.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. 2009. Exploitation–exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20: 696–717. Google Scholar
  • Apesteguia, J., Azmat, G., & Iriberri, N. 2012. The impact of gender composition on team performance and decision making: Evidence from the field. Management Science, 58: 78–93. Google Scholar
  • Baker, T., & Nelson, R. E. 2005. Creating something from nothing: Resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50: 329–366. Google Scholar
  • Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. 1986. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51: 1173–1182. Google Scholar
  • Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Hill, J., Raste, Y., & Plumb, I. 2001. The “Reading the Mind in the Eyes” test revised version: A study with normal adults, and adults with Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 42: 241–251. Google Scholar
  • Bear, J. B., & Woolley, A. W. 2011. The role of gender in team collaboration and performance. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 36: 146–153. Google Scholar
  • Becker, T. E., Atinc, G., Breaugh, J. A., Carlson, K. D., Edwards, J. R., & Spector, P. E. 2016. Statistical control in correlational studies: 10 essential recommendations for organizational researchers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37: 157–167. Google Scholar
  • Berdahl, J. L. 2007. Harassment based on sex: Protecting social status in the context of gender hierarchy. Academy of Management Review, 32: 641–658. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Bettis, R., Gambardella, A., Helfat, C., & Mitchell, W. 2014. Quantitative empirical analysis in strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 35: 949–953. Google Scholar
  • Birkinshaw, J., & Gupta, K. 2013. Clarifying the distinctive contribution of ambidexterity to the field of organization studies. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27: 287–298.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Blau, P. M. 1977. Inequality and heterogeneity: A primitive theory of social structure, vol. 7, New York, NY: Free Press. Google Scholar
  • Bliese, P. D. 2000. Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. KleinS. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions: 349–381. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Google Scholar
  • Brescoll, V. L. 2016. Leading with their hearts? How gender stereotypes of emotion lead to biased evaluations of female leaders. Leadership Quarterly, 27: 415–428. Google Scholar
  • Briscoe, F., Chin, M. K., & Hambrick, D. C. 2014. CEO ideology as an element of the corporate opportunity structure for social activists. Academy of Management Journal, 57: 1786–1809.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Brislin, R. W. 1980. Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology, vol. 2: 389–444. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Google Scholar
  • Bromiley, P., & Rau, D. 2016. Social, behavioral, and cognitive influences on upper echelons during strategy process: A literature review. Journal of Management, 42: 174–202. Google Scholar
  • Brown, S. P., & Leigh, T. W. 1996. A new look at psychological climate and its relationship to job involvement, effort, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81: 358–368. Google Scholar
  • 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: 768–784.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Cao, Q., Gedajlovic, E., & Zhang, H. 2009. Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: Dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organization Science, 20: 781–796. Google Scholar
  • 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: 1272–1296. Google Scholar
  • Carli, L. L. 2001. Gender and social influence. Journal of Social Issues, 57: 725–741. Google Scholar
  • Carlson, K. D., & Wu, J. 2012. The illusion of statistical control: Control variable practice in management research. Organizational Research Methods, 15: 413–435. Google Scholar
  • 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: 31–54. 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. Google Scholar
  • Chen, M.-J., Lin, H.-C., & Michel, J. G. 2010. Navigating in a hypercompetitive environment: The roles of action aggressiveness and TMT integration. Strategic Management Journal, 31: 1410–1430. Google Scholar
  • Chen, J., & Nadkarni, S. 2017. It’s about Time! CEOs’ temporal dispositions, temporal leadership, and corporate entrepreneurship. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62: 31–66. Google Scholar
  • Cohen, J. 2013. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Routledge. Google Scholar
  • Credit Suisse. 2019, October. The CS gender 3000 in 2019: The changing face of companies. Retrieved from https://boardagenda.com/resource/the-cs-gender-3000-in-2019-the-changing-face-of-companies/. Google Scholar
  • Cronin, M. A., Weingart, L. R., & Todorova, G. 2011. Dynamics in groups: Are we there yet? Academy of Management Annals, 5: 571–612.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • De Clercq, D., & Belausteguigoitia, I. 2017. The usefulness of tenacity in spurring problem-focused voice: The moderating roles of workplace adversity. Journal of Business and Psychology, 32: 479–493. Google Scholar
  • De Jong, S. B., Van der Vegt, G. S., & Molleman, E. 2007. The relationships among asymmetry in task dependence, perceived helping behavior, and trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 1625–1637. Google Scholar
  • Dess, G. G., & Robinson, R. B. 1984. Measuring organizational performance in the absence of objective measures: The case of the privately-held firm and conglomerate business unit. Strategic Management Journal, 5: 265–273. Google Scholar
  • Detert, J. R., & Edmondson, A. C. 2011. Implicit voice theories: Taken-for-granted rules of self-censorship at work. Academy of Management Journal, 54: 461–488.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Dezsö, C. L., & Ross, D. G. 2012. Does female representation in top management improve firm performance? A panel data investigation. Strategic Management Journal, 33: 1072–1089. Google Scholar
  • Dooley, R. S., & Fryxell, G. E. 1999. Attaining decision quality and commitment from dissent: The moderating effects of loyalty and competence in strategic decision-making teams. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 389–402.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Eagly, A. H. 1987. Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Google Scholar
  • Eagly, A. H. 2018. The shaping of science by ideology: How feminism inspired, led, and constrained scientific understanding of sex and gender. Journal of Social Issues, 74: 871–888. Google Scholar
  • Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & Van Engen, M. L. 2003. Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and men. Psychological Bulletin, 129: 569–591. Google Scholar
  • Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. 2002. Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109: 573–598. Google Scholar
  • Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. 1999. The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54: 408–423. Google Scholar
  • Edmondson, A. 1999. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 350–383. Google Scholar
  • Edmondson, A. C. 2002. The local and variegated nature of learning in organizations: A group-level perspective. Organization Science, 13: 128–146. Google Scholar
  • Edmondson, A. C. 2003. Speaking up in the operating room: How team leaders promote learning in interdisciplinary action teams. Journal of Management Studies, 40: 1419–1452. Google Scholar
  • Edmondson, A. C., & Lei, Z. 2014. Psychological safety: The history, renaissance, and future of an interpersonal construct. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1: 23–43. Google Scholar
  • Ely, R. J. 1995. The power in demography: Women’s social constructions of gender identity at work. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 589–634.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Eriksen, W., & Einarsen, S. 2004. Gender minority as a risk factor of exposure to bullying at work: The case of male assistant nurses. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13: 473–492. Google Scholar
  • Featherstone, E. 2017, January 11. The women-led startups smashing the glass ceiling. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/small-business-network/2017/jan/11/women-led-startups-smashing-glass-ceiling-investment. Google Scholar
  • Fernandez-Mateo, I., & Kaplan, S. 2018. Gender and organization science: Introduction to a virtual special issue. Organization Science, 29: 1229–1236. Google Scholar
  • Fernhaber, S. A., & Patel, P. C. 2012. How do young firms manage product portfolio complexity? The role of absorptive capacity and ambidexterity. Strategic Management Journal, 33: 1516–1539. Google Scholar
  • Finkelstein, S., Hambrick, D. C., & Cannella, A. A. 2009. Strategic leadership: Theory and research on executives, top management teams, and boards. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  • George, G. 2005. Slack resources and the performance of privately held firms. Academy of Management Journal, 48: 661–676.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Ghoshal, S., & Bartlett, C. A. 1997. The individualized corporation: Great companies are defined by purpose, process and people. New York, NY: HarperPerennial. Google Scholar
  • Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. 2004. The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47: 209–226.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Gong, Y., Cheung, S.-Y., Wang, M., & Huang, J.-C. 2012. Unfolding the proactive process for creativity: Integration of the employee proactivity, information exchange, and psychological safety perspectives. Journal of Management, 38: 1611–1633. Google Scholar
  • Grant Thornton. 2013, October 1. Women in senior management: Setting the stage for growth. Retrieved from https://www.grantthornton.global/globalassets/1.-member-firms/global/insights/pdf-cover-images/ibr2013_wib_report_final.pdf. Google Scholar
  • Grant Thornton. 2017, March 8. Women in business: New perspectives on risk and reward. Retrieved from https://www.grantthornton.global/globalassets/1.-member-firms/global/insights/pdf-cover-images/ibr2013_wib_report_final.pdf. Google Scholar
  • Haleblian, J., & Finkelstein, S. 1993. Top management team size, CEO dominance, and firm performance: The moderating roles of environmental turbulence and discretion. Academy of Management Journal, 36: 844–863. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Haleblian, J., McNamara, G., Kolev, K., & Dykes, B. J. 2012. Exploring firm characteristics that differentiate leaders from followers in industry merger waves: A competitive dynamics perspective. Strategic Management Journal, 33: 1037–1052. Google Scholar
  • Hambrick, D. C. 2007. Upper echelons theory: An update. Academy of Management Review, 32: 334–343.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Hambrick, D. C., Cho, T. S., & Chen, M.-J. 1996. The influence of top management team heterogeneity on firms’ competitive moves. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41: 659–684. Google Scholar
  • Harmon, D. J. 2019. When the fed speaks: Arguments, emotions, and the microfoundations of institutions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 64: 542–575. Google Scholar
  • Harrison, D. A., & Klein, K. J. 2007. What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32: 1199–1228.AbstractGoogle Scholar
  • Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., Gavin, J. H., & Florey, A. T. 2002. Time, teams, and task performance: Changing effects of surface-and deep-level diversity on group functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 1029–1045.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Hayes, A. F. 2013. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. A regression-based approach. New York, NY: The Guildford Press. Google Scholar
  • Hayes, A. F. 2015. An index and test of linear moderated mediation. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 50: 1–22. Google Scholar
  • Hayes, A. F., & Preacher, K. J. 2010. Quantifying and testing indirect effects in simple mediation models when the constituent paths are nonlinear. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 45: 627–660. Google Scholar
  • He, Z.-L., & Wong, P.-K. 2004. Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15: 481–494. Google Scholar
  • Heavey, C., & Simsek, Z. 2017. Distributed cognition in top management teams and organizational ambidexterity: The influence of transactive memory systems. Journal of Management, 43: 919–945. Google Scholar
  • Heilman, M. E., & Okimoto, T. G. 2007. Why are women penalized for success at male tasks?: The implied communality deficit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 81–92. Google Scholar
  • Hirak, R., Peng, A. C., Carmeli, A., & Schaubroeck, J. M. 2012. Linking leader inclusiveness to work unit performance: The importance of psychological safety and learning from failures. Leadership Quarterly, 23: 107–117. Google Scholar
  • Hoobler, J. M., Masterson, C. R., Nkomo, S. M., & Michel, E. J. 2018. The business case for women leaders: Meta-analysis, research critique, and path forward. Journal of Management, 44: 2473–2499. Google Scholar
  • HouseR. J., HangesP. J., JavidanM., DorfmanP. W.Gupta, V. (Eds.). 2004. Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. London, U.K.: SAGE Publications. Google Scholar
  • Hyde, J. S. 2005. The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60: 581–592. Google Scholar
  • Hyde, J. S. 2014. Gender similarities and differences. Annual Review of Psychology, 65: 373–398. Google Scholar
  • International Labor Organization. 2015, January. Global report: Women in business and management. Retrieved from https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/---publ/documents/publication/wcms_316450.pdf. Google Scholar
  • Jackson, S. E., Joshi, A., & Erhardt, N. L. 2003. Recent research on team and organizational diversity: SWOT analysis and implications. Journal of Management, 29: 801–830. Google Scholar
  • Jansen, J. J., George, G., Van den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. 2008. Senior team attributes and organizational ambidexterity: The moderating role of transformational leadership. Journal of Management Studies, 45: 982–1007. Google Scholar
  • Jansen, J. J., Simsek, Z., & Cao, Q. 2012. Ambidexterity and performance in multiunit contexts: Cross-level moderating effects of structural and resource attributes. Strategic Management Journal, 33: 1286–1303. Google Scholar
  • Jansen, J. J., Tempelaar, M. P., Van den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. 2009. Structural differentiation and ambidexterity: The mediating role of integration mechanisms. Organization Science, 20: 797–811. Google Scholar
  • Jeong, S.-H., & Harrison, D. A. 2017. Glass breaking, strategy making, and value creating: Meta-analytic outcomes of women as CEOs and TMT members. Academy of Management Journal, 60: 1219–1252.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Joel, D., Berman, Z., Tavor, I., Wexler, N., Gaber, O., Stein, Y., Shefi, N., Pool, J., Urchs, S., Margulies, D. S., Liem, F., Hänggi, J., Jäncke, L., & Assaf, Y. 2015. Sex beyond the genitalia: The human brain mosaic. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112: 15468–15473. Google Scholar
  • Jonson, W. B., & Smith, D. G. 2018. How men can become better allies to women. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2018/10/how-men-can-become-better-allies-to-women. Oct 12. Google Scholar
  • Joshi, A., & Roh, H. 2009. The role of context in work team diversity research: A meta-analytic review. Academy of Management Journal, 52: 599–627.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Kahn, W. A. 1990. Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33: 692–724.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Kanter, R. M. 1977. Men and women of the corporation. New York, NY: Basic Books. Google Scholar
  • Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. 2003. Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110: 265–284. Google Scholar
  • Koopmann, J., Lanaj, K., Wang, M., Zhou, L., & Shi, J. 2016. Nonlinear effects of team tenure on team psychological safety climate and climate strength: Implications for average team member performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101: 940–957. Google Scholar
  • Kostopoulos, K. C., & Bozionelos, N. 2011. Team exploratory and exploitative learning: Psychological safety, task conflict, and team performance. Group & Organization Management, 36: 385–415. Google Scholar
  • Krishnan, H. A., & Park, D. 2005. A few good women—on top management teams. Journal of Business Research, 58: 1712–1720. Google Scholar
  • LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. 2008. Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11: 815–852. Google Scholar
  • Lee, H. W., Choi, J. N., & Kim, S. 2018. Does gender diversity help teams constructively manage status conflict? An evolutionary perspective of status conflict, team psychological safety, and team creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 144: 187–199. Google Scholar
  • LePine, J. A., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., Colquitt, J. A., & Ellis, A. 2002. Gender composition, situational strength, and team decision-making accuracy: A criterion decomposition approach. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88: 445–475. Google Scholar
  • LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. 1998. Predicting voice-behavior tendency in work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83: 853–868. Google Scholar
  • LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. 2001. Voice and cooperative behavior as contrasting forms of contextual performance: Evidence of differential relationships with big five personality characteristics and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 326–336. Google Scholar
  • Ling, Y., Wei, L. Q., Klimoski, R., & Wu, L. 2015. Benefiting from CEOs’ empowerment of TMTs: Does CEO-TMT dissimilarity matter. Leadership Quarterly, 26: 1066–1079. Google Scholar
  • Ling, Y. A. N., 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: 557–576.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Lubatkin, M. H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y., & Veiga, J. F. 2006. Ambidexterity and performance in small-to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. Journal of Management, 32: 646–672. Google Scholar
  • Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. 1996. Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21: 135–172.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Lyngsie, J., & Foss, N. J. 2017. The more, the merrier? Women in top-management teams and entrepreneurship in established firms. Strategic Management Journal, 38: 487–505. Google Scholar
  • MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. 2002. A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7: 83–104. Google Scholar
  • March, J. G. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2: 71–87. Google Scholar
  • McKinsey & Company. 2015. Why diversity matters. Retrieved from https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/why-diversity-matters. Google Scholar
  • McKinsey & Company. 2018. Delivering through diversity. Retrieved from https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/delivering-through-diversity. Google Scholar
  • Mihalache, O. R., Jansen, J. J., Van den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. 2014. Top management team shared leadership and organizational ambidexterity: A moderated mediation framework. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 8: 128–148. Google Scholar
  • Moskowitz, D. S., Suh, E. J., & Desaulniers, J. 1994. Situational influences on gender differences in agency and communion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66: 753–761. Google Scholar
  • Moss-Racusin, C. A., Phelan, J. E., & Rudman, L. A. 2010. When men break the gender rules: Status incongruity and backlash against modest men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 11: 140–151. Google Scholar
  • Nadkarni, S., & Herrmann, P. O. L. 2010. CEO personality, strategic flexibility, and firm performance: The case of the Indian business process outsourcing industry. Academy of Management Journal, 53: 1050–1073.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Nadkarni, S., & Narayanan, V. K. 2007. Strategic schemas, strategic flexibility, and firm performance: The moderating role of industry clockspeed. Strategic Management Journal, 28: 243–270. Google Scholar
  • Nembhard, I. M., & Edmondson, A. C. 2006. Making it safe: The effects of leader inclusiveness and professional status on psychological safety and improvement efforts in health care teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27: 941–966. Google Scholar
  • Ng, E. S., & Sears, G. J. 2012. CEO leadership styles and the implementation of organizational diversity practices: Moderating effects of social values and age. Journal of Business Ethics, 105: 41–52. Google Scholar
  • Oakley, A. 2000. Experiments in knowing: Gender and method in the social sciences. Cambridge, U.K.: Polity Press. Google Scholar
  • O’Brien, R. M. 2007. A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Quality & Quantity, 41: 673–690. Google Scholar
  • Orr, E., & Stevenson, J. 2017. What makes women CEOs different? Korn Ferry Institute Reports & Insights. Retrieved from https://www.kornferry.com/institute/women-ceo-insights. Nov 08. Google Scholar
  • Ou, A. Y., Waldman, D. A., & Peterson, S. J. 2018. Do humble CEOs matter? An examination of CEO humility and firm outcomes. Journal of Management, 44: 1147–1173. Google Scholar
  • Pelled, L. H. 1996. Demographic diversity, conflict, and work group outcomes: An intervening process theory. Organization Science, 7: 615–631. 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. Google Scholar
  • Post, C. 2015. When is female leadership an advantage? Coordination requirements, team cohesion, and team interaction norms. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36: 1153–1175. Google Scholar
  • Post, C., Latu, I. M., & Belkin, L. Y. 2019. A female leadership trust advantage in times of crisis: Under what conditions? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 43: 215–231. Google Scholar
  • Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. 2008. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40: 879–891. Google Scholar
  • Qian, C., Cao, Q., & Takeuchi, R. 2013. Top management team functional diversity and organizational innovation in China: The moderating effects of environment. Strategic Management Journal, 34: 110–120. Google Scholar
  • Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. 1999. Feminized management and backlash toward agentic women: The hidden costs to women of a kinder, gentler image of middle managers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77: 1004–1010. Google Scholar
  • Rudman, L. A., & Mescher, K. 2013. Penalizing men who request a family leave: Is flexibility stigma a femininity stigma? Journal of Social Issues, 69: 322–340. Google Scholar
  • Ruef, M., Aldrich, H. E., & Carter, N. M. 2003. The structure of founding teams: Homophily, strong ties, and isolation among US entrepreneurs. American Sociological Review, 68: 195–222. Google Scholar
  • Sawdye, C. 2017. Inside the mind of the male and female CEO: Should we mind the gap? The CEO agenda. PwC Global. Retrieved from https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/ceo-agenda/pwc-at-davos/blogs/2017/inside-the-mind-of-the-male-and-female-ceo-should-we-mind-the-gap.html. Dec 27. Google Scholar
  • Schulte, M., Cohen, N. A., & Klein, K. J. 2012. The coevolution of network ties and perceptions of team psychological safety. Organization Science, 23: 564–581. Google Scholar
  • Semadeni, M., Withers, M. C., & Certo, S. T. 2014. The perils of endogeneity and instrumental variables in strategy research: Understanding through simulations. Strategic Management Journal, 35: 1070–1079. Google Scholar
  • Simsek, Z., Veiga, J. F., & Lubatkin, M. H. 2007. The impact of managerial environmental perceptions on corporate entrepreneurship: Towards understanding discretionary slack’s pivotal role. Journal of Management Studies, 44: 1398–1424. Google Scholar
  • 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: 69–84.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Slater, S. F., Olson, E. M., & Hult, G. T. M. 2006. The moderating influence of strategic orientation on the strategy formation capability–performance relationship. Strategic Management Journal, 27: 1221–1231. Google Scholar
  • Smith, K. G., Smith, K. A., Olian, J. D., Sims Jr, H. P., O’Bannon, D. P., & Scully, J. A. 1994. Top management team demography and process: The role of social integration and communication. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39: 412–438. Google Scholar
  • Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. 2005. Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16: 522–536. Google Scholar
  • Stock, J. H., Wright, J. H., & Yogo, M. 2002. A survey of weak instruments and weak identification in generalized method of moments. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 20: 518–529. Google Scholar
  • Torchia, M., Calabrò, A., & Huse, M. 2011. Women directors on corporate boards: From tokenism to critical mass. Journal of Business Ethics, 102: 299–317. Google Scholar
  • Tucker, A. L., & Edmondson, A. C. 2003. Why hospitals don’t learn from failures: Organizational and psychological dynamics that inhibit system change. California Management Review, 45: 55–72. Google Scholar
  • Turturea, R., Jansen, J., & Verheul, I. 2015. TMT improvisation, resource management and SME performance: A mediated model. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 35: 218–223. Google Scholar
  • Tushman, M. L., & Nadler, D. A. 1978. Information processing as an integrating concept in organizational design. Academy of Management Review, 3: 613–624.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. 1998. Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41: 108–119.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Van Vianen, A. E. M., De Pater, I. E., Kristof-Brown, A. L., & Johnson, E. C. 2004. Fitting in: Surface- and deep-level cultural differences and expatriates’ adjustment. Academy of Management Journal, 47: 697–709.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Wall, T. D., Michie, J., Patterson, M., Wood, S. J., Sheehan, M., Clegg, C. W., & West, M. 2004. On the validity of subjective measures of company performance. Personnel Psychology, 57: 95–118. Google Scholar
  • Wegge, J., Roth, C., Neubach, B., Schmidt, K.-H., & Kanfer, R. 2008. Age and gender diversity as determinants of performance and health in a public organization: The role of task complexity and group size. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93: 1301–1313. Google Scholar
  • Weiss, M., Hoegl, M., & Gibbert, M. 2011. Making virtue of necessity: The role of team climate for innovation in resource-constrained innovation projects. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28: 196–207. Google Scholar
  • Wilhelm, H., Richter, A. W., & Semrau, T. 2019. Employee learning from failure: A team-as-resource perspective. Organization Science, 30: 694–714. Google Scholar
  • Williams, M., & Polman, E. 2015. Is it me or her? How gender composition evokes interpersonally sensitive behavior on collaborative cross-boundary projects. Organization Science, 26: 334–355. Google Scholar
  • Witt, M. G., & Wood, W. 2010. Self-regulation of gendered behavior in everyday life. Sex Roles, 62: 635–646. Google Scholar
  • Wood, W. 1987. Meta-analytic review of sex differences in group performance. Psychological Bulletin, 102: 53–71. Google Scholar
  • Wood, W., Christensen, P. N., Hebl, M. R., & Rothgerber, H. 1997. Conformity to sex-typed norms, affect, and the self-concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73: 523–535. Google Scholar
  • Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. 2002. A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men: Implications for the origins of sex differences. Psychological Bulletin, 128: 699–727. Google Scholar
  • Woolley, A. W., Chabris, C. F., Pentland, A., Hashmi, N., & Malone, T. W. 2010. Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science, 330: 686–688. Google Scholar
  • Zahra, S. A., Ireland, R. D., & Hitt, M. A. 2000. International expansion by new venture firms: International diversity, mode of market entry, technological learning, and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 925–950.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Zhu, L.-Q. 2017. Top 10 Chinese cities for entrepreneurship and innovation in 2017. Retrieved from http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/business/2017top10/2017-09/21/content_32275807_9.htm. Google Scholar
Academy of Management
  Academy of Management
  100 Summit Lake Drive, Suite 110
  Valhalla, NY 10595, USA
  Phone: +1 (914) 326-1800
  Fax: +1 (914) 326-1900