Dimitrios Georgakakis

Do female CEOs reduce gender-pay disparities in top management teams (TMTs)? Some scholars draw on social identity theory to argue that, as individuals tend to identify with and support their in-groups, appointing a female corporate leader (i.e., CEO) will mitigate the gender-pay gap among executives. Yet, others draw on the queen-bee syndrome to postulate that some female CEOs may rather strengthen gender-pay disparities in upper echelons – by favoring out-groups (male) more than their in-groups (female). We bring together these opposing theoretical arguments to develop a ‘beyond CEO gender’ perspective, arguing that the effects of CEO gender on TMT gender-pay disparities should be considered in conjunction with the corporate leaders' values – as reflected by their political ideology. Our research demonstrates that conservative-female CEOs compensate female (versus male) executives lower compared to all other CEO gender-ideology categories (i.e., female-liberal CEOs, male-liberal CEOs, and male-conservative CEOs). Overall, our work contributes to theory on the CEO-TMT interface by highlighting the role of the CEO as the ‘architect’ of executive remuneration.

Studies argue that generalist CEOs are more valued by the market for executive labor and receive higher initial compensation. Challenging this prevailing assumption, we acknowledge the drawbacks of extensive career mobility and predict an inverted U-shape relationship between CEO generalist career experience and CEO initial compensation. Integrating the generalism and specialization views of human capital, we postulate that at an initial level, the acquisition of experience-breadth from different firms and industries enables CEOs to broaden their knowledge-base, obtain a variety of skills, and thus increase their labor-market value and initial compensation. After a threshold, however, the accumulation of extensive levels of career generalism through frequent job-hopping across firm and industry contexts gradually causes a lack of experience-depth and insufficient career specialization – thereby triggering lower CEO market-value and initial pay. Data from 197 CEO appointments in large publicly traded firms support our predictions. Our results also show that the observed inverted U-shape relationship varies with factors nested at different layers of context – highlighting the contingent nature of this area of research.

Prior research indicates that the relationship between top management team (TMT) faultlines and firm performance is equivocal. We shed new light on this topic by highlighting the moderating role of the CEO–TMT interface. Analyzing data from large international firms over the period 2005–2009 (347 firm-year combinations), we find that the performance effect of knowledge-based TMT faultlines is significantly altered when the leader of the TMT (i.e., the CEO): (a) socio-demographically resembles incumbent executives, (b) possesses a diverse career background, and (c) shares common socialization experience with other TMT members. Overall, our research reveals that different dimensions of the CEO-TMT interface play a pivotal role in determining the performance effects of knowledge-based TMT subgroups. Implications for upper echelons theory, team diversity, and strategic leadership research are discussed.

There has been much controversy concerning the relationship between outside CEO succession origin and firm performance. Some scholars take the organizational-adaptation view to highlight the benefits of outside succession; yet others adopt the organizational-disruption view to pose the selection of an outsider CEO as a disruptive and disadvantageous event for organizations. In this study, we develop an integrated multilevel framework that reconciles these opposing perspectives and examines the conditions under which the benefits of outside CEO succession outweigh the costs. Data from 109 CEO succession events in large international firms show that the performance advantages of outside succession materialize when the new CEO: (a) socio-demographically resembles incumbent executives, (b) possesses variety of experience, and (c) is hired by a well-performing firm operating in a munificent industry. Overall, our research demonstrates that the performance implications of new CEO origin should not be considered in isolation, but in interaction with multilevel characteristics.

This study integrates the contradictory predictions of human-capital and social-network perspectives about the relationship between executives' international experience and speed of career advancement. We postulate that these perspectives are rather complementary, and that the relationship between international experience and time to the top follows a U-shaped form. Initially, the acquisition of international experience speeds-up executives' career progress until a threshold where the social-network costs of cross-country mobility outweigh the human-capital benefits. Our results support the U-shaped relationship. They also show that this relationship is influenced by factors at different layers of context-suggesting that contextual aspects play an important, contingent role.

We examine the relation between boards of directors’ knowledge heterogeneity and organizational ambidexterity (OA) (i.e. simultaneous exploration and exploitation) in knowledge-intensive firms (KIFs). Although the literature on OA has started to emphasize its antecedents, the role of the board remains unaddressed. This is an important omission, as boards have become increasingly involved in strategy-making. In turn, studies on boards have looked at their influence on either exploration- or exploitation-type strategies. Yet, KIFs particularly need to balance both exploration and exploitation to renew their knowledge base. We draw on knowledgebased perspectives to disentangle the benefits and costs of board knowledge heterogeneity for driving OA in KIFs. Our empirical analysis based on a longitudinal panel of UK pharmaceutical firms provides support for our hypothesized U-shaped relation. Our findings suggest that the benefits of knowledge heterogeneity only outweigh the costs beyond a particular threshold. Overall, our theoretical approach and allied findings advance the literature by introducing boundary conditions to the resource provision role of boards in KIFs. We discuss contributions for organizational learning, strategic leadership, and human resource management. We conclude with implications for theory and practice, as well as key opportunities for future research.

This paper contributes to the debate about the performance implications of adopting a regional as opposed to a global strategic posture. The aim of this paper is to argue that the performance effects of a regionalization strategy vary based on the characteristics of the industry in which the MNE operates and the composition of its top management team (TMT). This analysis is based on a cross-sectional dataset of 211 large European MNEs headquartered in four Western European economies at the end of 2005. Results show that firms adopting a regional orientation outperform MNEs with global strategic positioning. This positive relationship is less pronounced under conditions of industry dynamism and inter-regional TMT diversity. The study contributes to our understanding of whether and under what conditions MNEs benefit from adopting a regional as opposed to a global strategic posture.