Hambrick and Mason’s “Upper Echelons Theory”: evolution and open avenues

Abstract

Purpose How has upper echelons theory (UET) (Hambrick and Mason, 1984) been evolving over time? Through the historical discussion, this paper aims to provide an updated – and also innovative from some aspects – big picture on this famous approach to strategic management. In fact, after more than 30 years since its original conceptualization, the authors believe that the UE field is mature enough for a critical attempt to provide all those scholars and practitioners interested in strategic leadership with a comprehensive ground for future analyses, a ground which, to the authors’ knowledge, is still missing. Design/methodology/approach The authors mostly use a historical narrative to offer a critical account of the conceptual and methodological developments occurring under UE lenses over time. The authors believe that the historical approach can be particularly useful because it can help understand and explain why and how these developments have been conjectured and implemented. Findings Two mainly intertwined insights emerge from our analysis: on the one hand, the developments subsequent to the seminal 1984 UE model have gradually, although constantly, reduced its strongly voluntarist assumptions on strategic leadership toward more moderated co-evolutionary lenses; on the other hand, the emerging psychological and cognitive moderators of UE variables are presently reinforcing the centrality of dominant coalitions, in that they affect their decision-making processes and strategic choices. Originality/value From the critical discussion, a possible updated UE model based on co-evolutionary lenses finally emerges. Prospective research avenues in this management field are also provided.

Ingredients of Sustainable CEO Behaviour: Theory and Practice

“…On the issue above, the interrelationships among the most important variables considered by the UET stream of research have recently been reframed through a coevolutionary lens [4]. On this basis, corporate sustainability can also be viewed as contemporarily determined by CEO/board characteristics, environmental factors (i.e., organizational, industrial, and institutional context), and moderators (e.g., managerial discretion, distribution of power, and executive job demands).…”

“…This explained, in partial contrast to the seminal 1984 UET model, the study of CEOs rather than entire dominant coalitions as specific units of analysis has progressively emerged in parallel with others as a per se research stream within UET [3][4][5]. In particular, to date, research has specifically focused on a number of dimensions regarding CEOs' central roles in firms [6][7][8].…”

Integrated reporting quality and BoD characteristics: an empirical analysis

“…This effect depends on the limited capacity of humans to process information, implying that decisions are determined by personal characteristics and tendencies (Oppong, 2014). Thus, the executives' process of decision making is determined by their personal interpretation of reality, which, in turn, is influenced by their cognitive processes, beliefs, personality traits and ethical norms of conduct (Abatecola & Cristofaro, 2018;Hambrick & Mason, 1984;Hambrick, 2007).…”

Facing crisis periods: a proposal for an integrative model of environmental scanning and strategic issue diagnosis

“…This is because their personal characteristics (cognitive processes, beliefs, personality traits, and ethical norms) definitively condition a firm’s success. Therefore, higher responsibility is devolved to top managers (Abatecola and Cristofaro 2018 ). Although other managers may participate in such strategic processes (Raes et al 2011 ), not always attending to other managers’ inferences about strategic issues may lead to better results (Miller and Lin 2018 ).…”