How Much Do Ceos and Top Managers Matter in Strategic Decision-Making?
British Journal of Management, Vol. 13, 83–95 (2002)
RESEARCH NOTE
How Much do CEOs and Top Managers Matter in Strategic Decision-Making?
V. M. Papadakis and P. Barwise*
Athens University of Economics and Business, 76 Patission Street, 10434 Athens, Greece and *London Business School, Regent’s Park, London NW1 4SA, UK email: vpap@aueb.gr [Papadakis]; pbarwise@london.edu [Barwise]
This research note explores the influence of both CEO and top-management team (TMT) characteristics on the process of making strategic decisions (SDs). Empirical testing is based on a sample of 70 SDs in industrial enterprises operating in Greece, using a combination of interviews, questionnaires and archival data. The results suggest that (a) the characteristics of both the TMT and the CEO influenced the strategic decision-making process, but the former had more influence, (b) the TMT and CEO influenced different dimensions of the process, and (c) the broader context of SDs is more influential than either the CEO or the TMT. Among the most important factors was the TMT’s ‘aggressiveness’ (commitment to beating the competition, attitude to innovation, willingness to take risks). The results lend support to the ‘upper echelons’ perspective, but suggest that in studying strategic decision-making processes both CEO and TMT characteristics should be considered, in conjunction with the broader context. Such an approach should provide a more reliable view of strategic processes and their evolving dynamics.
Introduction
Two important themes of strategy research over the last 20 years have been (a) the role of top management (Lewin and Stephens, 1994) and (b) the process of making strategic decisions (Rajagopalan, Rasheed and Datta, 1993; Papadakis and Barwise, 1998). Since Hambrick and Mason’s (1984) seminal paper on ‘upper echelons’, much emphasis has been placed on the influence of top management on corporate strategy, innovation, performance, organizational structure and planning
RESEARCH NOTE
How Much do CEOs and Top Managers Matter in Strategic Decision-Making?
V. M. Papadakis and P. Barwise*
Athens University of Economics and Business, 76 Patission Street, 10434 Athens, Greece and *London Business School, Regent’s Park, London NW1 4SA, UK email: vpap@aueb.gr [Papadakis]; pbarwise@london.edu [Barwise]
This research note explores the influence of both CEO and top-management team (TMT) characteristics on the process of making strategic decisions (SDs). Empirical testing is based on a sample of 70 SDs in industrial enterprises operating in Greece, using a combination of interviews, questionnaires and archival data. The results suggest that (a) the characteristics of both the TMT and the CEO influenced the strategic decision-making process, but the former had more influence, (b) the TMT and CEO influenced different dimensions of the process, and (c) the broader context of SDs is more influential than either the CEO or the TMT. Among the most important factors was the TMT’s ‘aggressiveness’ (commitment to beating the competition, attitude to innovation, willingness to take risks). The results lend support to the ‘upper echelons’ perspective, but suggest that in studying strategic decision-making processes both CEO and TMT characteristics should be considered, in conjunction with the broader context. Such an approach should provide a more reliable view of strategic processes and their evolving dynamics.
Introduction
Two important themes of strategy research over the last 20 years have been (a) the role of top management (Lewin and Stephens, 1994) and (b) the process of making strategic decisions (Rajagopalan, Rasheed and Datta, 1993; Papadakis and Barwise, 1998). Since Hambrick and Mason’s (1984) seminal paper on ‘upper echelons’, much emphasis has been placed on the influence of top management on corporate strategy, innovation, performance, organizational structure and planning
References: Measurement of TM characteristics CEO personality characteristics To measure nAch we used Steers and Braunstein’s (1976) instrument Measurement of context variables To measure environmental hostility we used Khandwalla’s (1977) three five-point scales: the