While an extensive literature examines the diversification‐performance relationship, little agreement exists concerning the nature of this relationship. Both theoretical and empirical disagreements abound. This study synthesizes findings from three decades of research to address major theoretical issues that remain open to debate. We derive three competing models from the literature and empirically assess these using meta‐analytic data drawn from 55 previously published studies. The results of our tests indicate that moderate levels of diversification yield higher levels of performance than either limited or extensive diversification. Thus, we provide support for the curvilinear model; that is, performance increases as firms shift from single‐business strategies to related diversification, but performance decreases as firms change from related diversification to unrelated diversification. The results also indicate major effects from variation in diversification and performance operationalizations. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Diversity among executives is widely assumed to influence a firm's strategic decision processes, but empirical research on this linkage has been virtually nonexistent. To partially fill the void, we drew upon three separate studies to examine the impact of executive diversity on comprehensiveness of strategic decision‐making and extensiveness of strategic planning. Contrary to common assumptions of researchers and executives, our results suggest that executive diversity inhibits rather than promotes comprehensive examinations of current opportunities and threats, and inhibits rather than promotes extensive long‐range planning. In light of the cumulative research showing that firm performance is related to both comprehensiveness and extensiveness, our results provide evidence for an indirect connection between executive diversity and firm performance. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Background: Professionals who pursue a doctorate after significant post-baccalaureate work experience, a group we refer to as returners, represent an important but understudied group of engineering doctoral students. Returners are well situated to leverage their applied work experience in their advanced engineering training. Purpose/Hypothesis: We drew on results from the Graduate Student Experiences and Motivations Survey to explore the dimensionality of our scales measuring value and cost constructs. We used these scales, as well as measures of student expectancy of success, to compare returners with direct-pathway students. Design/ Method: We surveyed 179 returners and 297 direct-pathway domestic engineering doctoral students. We first conducted Exploratory Factor Analysis on our cost and value measures. We then used both Ordinary Least Squares and Ordinal Regression Model analyses to assess the relationships of various student characteristics and experiences (including returner status) with student expectancy of success and the emergent cost and values factors associated with doctoral study in engineering. Results: Factor analysis revealed three categories of values (interest, attainment, and career utility) that were largely consistent with those in Eccles' expectancy-value framework. A similar analysis identified three categories of costs (balance, financial, and academic) associated with pursuing a PhD. Returners felt significantly less confident in their ability to complete their degrees prior to enrolling and perceived higher levels of all cost types than direct-pathway students. Conclusions: Given the differences between returning and direct-pathway students, it is important to consider how universities might best recruit and retain returners. Tracking returner status could be critical in better supporting these students.

No abstract