A Multi-Level Analysis of the Upper-Echelons Model: Planting Seeds for Future Research

Albert A. Cannella, Tim R. Holcomb

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

We thank Carpenter and Dalton and Dalton for their insights on our earlier chapter, and on the promise (and perils) of upper-echelons research in general. We set out to closely examine the levels issues in Hambrick and Mason's ((1984). Academy of Management Review, 9, 193-206.) original upper-echelons model, and the research initiatives that have applied this theoretical framework. We are encouraged by the initial reception that we have received from these authors. We continue to believe that top management teams (TMTs) are an important level of analysis for strategic leadership research, though the original upper-echelons model proposed by Hambrick and Mason cannot be directly applied at the team level. Our reply highlights several joint and individual concerns raised by the articles. We close by reiterating our call for continued analysis of the upper-echelons model.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)263-273
Number of pages11
JournalResearch in Multi-Level Issues
Volume4
DOIs
StatePublished - 2005
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Multilevel analysis
Upper echelons
Top management teams
Levels of analysis
Strategic leadership
Theoretical framework

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Economics, Econometrics and Finance (miscellaneous)

Cite this

A Multi-Level Analysis of the Upper-Echelons Model : Planting Seeds for Future Research. / Cannella, Albert A.; Holcomb, Tim R.

In: Research in Multi-Level Issues, Vol. 4, 2005, p. 263-273.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{815bc8b668274eedafd1f3800e454040,
title = "A Multi-Level Analysis of the Upper-Echelons Model: Planting Seeds for Future Research",
abstract = "We thank Carpenter and Dalton and Dalton for their insights on our earlier chapter, and on the promise (and perils) of upper-echelons research in general. We set out to closely examine the levels issues in Hambrick and Mason's ((1984). Academy of Management Review, 9, 193-206.) original upper-echelons model, and the research initiatives that have applied this theoretical framework. We are encouraged by the initial reception that we have received from these authors. We continue to believe that top management teams (TMTs) are an important level of analysis for strategic leadership research, though the original upper-echelons model proposed by Hambrick and Mason cannot be directly applied at the team level. Our reply highlights several joint and individual concerns raised by the articles. We close by reiterating our call for continued analysis of the upper-echelons model.",
author = "Cannella, {Albert A.} and Holcomb, {Tim R.}",
year = "2005",
doi = "10.1016/S1475-9144(05)04012-9",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "4",
pages = "263--273",
journal = "Research in Multi-Level Issues",
issn = "1475-9144",
publisher = "JAI Press",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A Multi-Level Analysis of the Upper-Echelons Model

T2 - Planting Seeds for Future Research

AU - Cannella, Albert A.

AU - Holcomb, Tim R.

PY - 2005

Y1 - 2005

N2 - We thank Carpenter and Dalton and Dalton for their insights on our earlier chapter, and on the promise (and perils) of upper-echelons research in general. We set out to closely examine the levels issues in Hambrick and Mason's ((1984). Academy of Management Review, 9, 193-206.) original upper-echelons model, and the research initiatives that have applied this theoretical framework. We are encouraged by the initial reception that we have received from these authors. We continue to believe that top management teams (TMTs) are an important level of analysis for strategic leadership research, though the original upper-echelons model proposed by Hambrick and Mason cannot be directly applied at the team level. Our reply highlights several joint and individual concerns raised by the articles. We close by reiterating our call for continued analysis of the upper-echelons model.

AB - We thank Carpenter and Dalton and Dalton for their insights on our earlier chapter, and on the promise (and perils) of upper-echelons research in general. We set out to closely examine the levels issues in Hambrick and Mason's ((1984). Academy of Management Review, 9, 193-206.) original upper-echelons model, and the research initiatives that have applied this theoretical framework. We are encouraged by the initial reception that we have received from these authors. We continue to believe that top management teams (TMTs) are an important level of analysis for strategic leadership research, though the original upper-echelons model proposed by Hambrick and Mason cannot be directly applied at the team level. Our reply highlights several joint and individual concerns raised by the articles. We close by reiterating our call for continued analysis of the upper-echelons model.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33645840764&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33645840764&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S1475-9144(05)04012-9

DO - 10.1016/S1475-9144(05)04012-9

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:33645840764

VL - 4

SP - 263

EP - 273

JO - Research in Multi-Level Issues

JF - Research in Multi-Level Issues

SN - 1475-9144

ER -