Abstract
Cannella and Holcomb ((this volume). In: F. Dansereau & F. J. Yammarino (Eds), Research in multi-level issues (Vol. 4). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science) are unconvinced that top management teams (TMTs) are the appropriate level of analysis for upper echelons research and are, accordingly, unenthusiastic about the promise of multi-level analysis for research of this type. We agree and discuss (1) the fragility of agency theory as it pertains to TMT research, (2) various issues pertaining to TMT turnover (or lack thereof), (3) paradoxes in practice and theory regarding TMT homogeneity/heterogeneity, (4) the absence of boards of directors in the upper echelons perspective, and (5) the implications of these issues on the theory/conceptualization of TMTs and of the research dedicated to them. We question whether the variables, as currently configured, relied on in this literature are sufficiently developed to adequately test an upper echelons perspective, or to sensibly warrant a multi-level analytical approach.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
