CEO tenure and organizational performance: An intervening model

Strategic Management Journal

Volumn 28, Issue 6, 2007, Pages 653-662

  Simsek, Zeki ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT   (United States)

Author keywords

CEO tenure; Entrepreneurial initiatives; Performance; TMT risk taking propensity

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SIMULATION; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; PROJECT MANAGEMENT; RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT; RISK MANAGEMENT; SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS; SUPERVISORY PERSONNEL;

ENTREPRENEURIAL INITIATIVES; TMT RISK-TAKING PROPENSITY;

INDUSTRIAL MANAGEMENT;

EID: 34248220534     PISSN: 01432095     EISSN: 10970266     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/smj.599     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Barker VL, Mueller GC. 2002. CEO characteristics and firm R&D spending. Management Science 48(6): 782-801.
2. Carpenter MA, Pollock T, Leary M. 2003. Testing a model of reasoned risk-taking: governance, the experience of principals and agents, and global strategy in high-technology IPO firms. Strategic Management Journal 24(9): 803-820.
3. Cyert RM, March JG. 1963. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
4. Finkelstein S, Hambrick DC. 1990. Top-management-team tenure and organizational outcomes: the moderating role of managerial discretion. Administrative Science Quarterly 35(Sept.): 484-504.
5. Gilley KM, Walters BA, Olson BJ. 2002. Top management team risk taking propensities and performance: direct and moderating effects. Journal of Business Strategies 19(Sept.): 95-114.
6. Gupta AK, Govindarajan V. 1986. Resource sharing among SBUs: strategic antecedents and administrative implications. Academy of Management Journal 29(4): 695-714.
7. Hambrick DC, Fukutomi GDS. 1991. The seasons of a CEO's tenure. Academy of Management Review 16(4): 719-742.
8. Hambrick DC, Mason PA. 1984. Upper echelon: the organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review 9(2): 193-206.
9. Hambrick DC, Geletkanycz MA, Fredrickson JW. 1993. Top executive commitment to the status quo: some tests of its determinants. Strategic Management Journal 14(6): 401-418.
10. Kahneman D, Tversky A. 1979. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2): 263-291.
11. Medsker GJ, Williams LJ, Holahan PJ. 1994. A review of current practices for evaluating causal models in organizational behavior and human resources management research. Journal of Management 20(2): 439-464.
12. Miller D, Friesen PH. 1983. Strategy-making and environment: the third link. Strategic Management Journal 4(3): 221-235.
13. Miller D, Shamsie J. 2001. Learning across the life cycle: experimentation and performance among the Hollywood studio heads. Strategic Management Journal 22(8): 725-745.
14. Popper KR. 1959. The Logic of Discovery. Hutchinson: London.
15. Priem RL, Lyon WD, Dess GG. 1999. Inherent limitations of demographic proxies in top management team heterogeneity research. Journal of Management 25(6): 935-954.
16. Sitkin SB, Pablo AL. 1992. Reconceptualizing the determinants of risk behavior. Academy of Management Review 17(1): 9-38.
17. Sturman MC. 2003. Searching for the inverted U-shaped relationship between time and performance: meta-analyses of the experience/performance, tenure/performance, and age/performance relationship. Journal of Management 29(5): 609-640.
18. Wu S, Levitas E, Priem RL. 2005. CEO tenure and company invention under differing levels of technological dynamism. Academy of Management Journal 48(5): 859-873.
19. Zahra SA. 1996. Governance, ownership, and corporate entrepreneurship: the moderating impact of technological opportunities. Academy of Management Journal 39(6): 1713-1735.