Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice

2010, Vol. 14, No. 4, 318 331

2010 American Psychological Association

1089-2699/10/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0018254

Top Management Team Behavioral Integration in Small-Sized Firms:

A Social Identity Perspective
Abraham Carmeli and Anat Shteigman

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Bar-Ilan University
This study draws on social identity theory and examines perceived external prestige at
both the organization and team levels as well as collective team identification as
antecedents of top management team (TMT) behavioral integration. The results of data
collected from TMTs in 70 small-sized organizations indicate that compared with
perceived organizational external prestige, perceived TMT external prestige had a
greater effect on collective team identification, which, in turn, resulted in TMT
behavioral integration. The theoretical implications regarding the antecedents of TMT
behavioral integration in small-sized organizations are discussed.
Keywords: management team behavioral integration, collective team identification,
perceived external prestige

The top management team (TMT) plays a

significant role in any given organization. One
of the key issues in research on real work
groups is how and why certain team dynamics
develop and evolve. Organizational scholars
who have drawn attention to the upper echelon
of organizations have stressed the effect of the
top management team on organizational outcomes (Certo, Lester, Dalton, & Dalton, 2006;
Finkelstein & Hambrick, 1996; Hambrick &
Mason, 1984). Research on strategic leadership
has examined the influence of leaders at the
organizational apex on the evolution of the system and its strategic position in the market
(Boal & Hooijberg, 2000; Hunt, 1999; Selznick,
1957). Following Cyert and Marchs (1963)
view of strategic leadership as members of the
dominant coalition or TMT, researchers have
begun to devote considerable attention to studying the strategic role of TMTs (Finkelstein &
Hambrick, 1996; Hambrick & Mason, 1984;
Pettigrew, 1992), providing clear support for

Abraham Carmeli and Anat Shteigman, Graduate School

of Business Administration, Bar-Ilan University.
An earlier version of this article was presented at the
2008 Academy of Management Meeting in Anaheim, CA.
We are thankful to Rob Dvorak for his generous assistance
with the mediation analyses.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Abraham Carmeli, Graduate School of Business
Administration, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan 52900,
Israel. E-mail: carmelia@mail.biu.ac.il

the conclusion that the top team, rather than the

top person, has the greatest effects on organizational functioning (OReilly, Snyder, &
Boothe, 1993, p. 150). Recently, leadership
scholars have pointed out that the traditional
top-down, heroic model of leadership may not
be adequate in the context of team-based knowledge work, thus underscoring the impact of
shared leadership (Pearce & Manz, 2005).
Much research has linked TMT attributes
(size, age, tenure, education, and functional
background) to organizational outcomes (e.g.,
Hambrick, Cho, & Chen, 1996; Wiersema &
Bantel, 1992). Recently, however, researchers
have emphasized the need to go beyond
studying TMT demographic characteristics to
turn to TMT processes and dynamics as key
determinants of both team and organizational
functioning (Hambrick, 1994; Lawrence, 1997;
Pettigrew, 1992). This is because inconsistent
findings have raised questions regarding the implications of TMT characteristics for organizational outcomes. Research documenting the role
of TMT processes in improving organizational
outcomes has been slow to accumulate (Barrick, Bradley, & Colbert, 2007, p. 544), and to
date there is not a good understanding of the
nature of TMT process (Simsek, Veiga, Lubatkin, & Dino, 2005, p. 69).
Drawing on previous work (Finkelstein &
Hambrick, 1996; Hambrick & Mason, 1984),
Hambrick (1994) made the case that TMT processes may differ from those at other levels of

318

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

PRESTIGE, IDENTIFICATION, BEHAVIORAL INTEGRATION

management within an organization because organizational decision makers face trying interdependent strategic complexities and bear large
interreliant responsibilities for the organization
and its stakeholders. Constructs such as communication quality (OReilly et al., 1993), social interaction among TMT members (i.e., social integration; OReilly, Caldwell, & Barnett,
1989; Smith et al., 1994), cohesion (e.g., Ensley, Pearson, & Amason, 2002), debate and
decision comprehensiveness (Simons, Pelled, &
Smith, 1999), leadermember exchange
(Mooney & Sonnenfeld, 2001), interpersonal
conflict and agreement seeking (Knight, Pearce,
Smith, Olian, Sims, Smith, & Flood, 1999),
speed in decision-making processes (Eisenhardt, 1989), and political behavior within
TMTs (Eisenhardt & Bourgeois, 1988), which
have been investigated in previous studies, may
not capture the essence of TMT task- and social-related processes. According to Hambrick
(1994), constructs such as social integration
(OReilly et al., 1989), which refers to the psychological or affective linkage between the individual and the group, or cohesiveness, which
refers to the attraction among members, may
not represent aspects underlying effective teamwork among TMT members.
To address the need to develop a more inclusive construct that would capture the essence
and substance of TMT processes, Hambrick
(1994) developed the concept of behavioral integration, which is defined as the degree to
which the group engages in mutual and collaborative interaction (Hambrick, 1994, p. 188).
TMT behavioral integration is intended to reflect three key, interrelated, and reinforcing features of the TMT processes, namely, the teams
(a) quantity and quality (richness, timeliness,
accuracy) of information exchange, (b) level of
collaborative behavior, and (c) emphasis on
joint decision making (Hambrick, 1994).
Although some researchers have recently
explored Hambricks work, they have mainly
examined the implications of TMT behavioral
integration on the team and organizational functioning. For example, Li and Hambrick (2005)
found that behavioral (dis)integration (the inverse of behavioral integration) in joint venture
management groups is negatively related to
subsequent performance. Lubatkin, Simsek,
Ling, and Veiga (2006) documented the effect
of TMT behavioral integration on a firms

319

ambidextrous orientation and performance. Carmeli and Schaubroeck (2006) tested the implications of TMT behavioral integration on decision quality and organizational decline. Carmeli
(2008) documented the effect of TMT behavioral integration on various performance measures of service organizations.
However, two key issues have yet to receive
sufficient attention. First, only scant consideration has been given to the determinants of
TMT behavioral integration. A review of the
literature indicates that only Simsek et al.
(2005) have dealt empirically with the factors
that give rise to behavioral integration, and they
focused on salient CEO-level, team-level. and
firm-level determinants (size, age, and performance). Ling, Simsek, Lubatkin, and Veiga
(2008) examined more proximate intervening
mechanisms to explain the link between transformational leadership and corporate entrepreneurship, including the behavioral integration at
the interface of the CEO and the TMT. Carmeli
and Waldman (2010) focused on the role leaders normative expectations and supportive behaviors in facilitating a behavioral context characterized by information sharing, joint decision
making, and collaboration. Second, research on
TMTs has been conducted extensively on large
(often publically traded) firms. This has left us
with only limited knowledge about the applicability of TMT variables to small-firm settings
(Ensley et al., 2002; Weinzimmer, 1997), a research context that has been understudied despite growing acknowledgment of its crucial
role for economic growth and job creation in
both developing and developed economies
(Storey, 1994; Winborg & Landstromb, 2001).
Upper echelon researchers have shown that
small- to mid-size privately owned firms perhaps provide the most suitable setting for research on TMTs because empirical testing of
the determinants of behavioral integration are
likely to be more robust in this setting than in
larger public firms where more complex organizational systems and governance mechanisms
may influence behavioral integration (Simsek et
al., 2005).
Drawing on social identity theory, the present
study attempted to address the above issues by
examining how perceived external prestige at
both the organization and team levels and collective team identification give rise to TMT
behavioral integration among small, privately

320

CARMELI AND SHTEIGMAN

owned organizations. In so doing, we hope to

enrich our knowledge and understanding of the
determinants of behavioral integration in TMTs
in a relatively understudied setting.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Theoretical Background and Hypotheses

In what follows, we examine how perceived
external prestige of both the organization and
the TMT and collective team identification can
lead to a high level of behavioral integration in
the organizations TMT. First, we explore why
collective team identification is an important
facilitator of TMT behavioral integration. Second, we articulate why there is a need to examine perceived external prestige at both the organization and TMT levels, and how both types of
external prestige facilitate collective team identification. Finally, we discuss the mediating role
of collective team identification in the relationship between perceived external prestige and
TMT behavioral integration. The rationale for
these relationships is developed theoretically
below. Figure 1 provides an overview of our
theoretical framework.
Collective Team Identification and TMT
Behavioral Integration
Social identity theory suggests that the association of an individual with a social group
influences the way he or she defines himself or
herself (Abrams, 1992; Ellemers, Kortekaas, &
Ouwerkerk, 1999; Tajfel, 1982; Tajfel &
Turner, 1979; Turner, 1982). It further proposes
that ones self-definition is derived not only

from ones personal identity (encompassing salient unique personal characteristics) but also
from ones social identity (encompassing central, distinctive, and enduring group characteristics; Abrams, 1992; Ashforth & Mael, 1989;
Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Kramer, 1993; Tajfel,
1982; Turner, 1982). Social identity theory
(Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Tajfel & Turner, 1979)
and self-categorization theory (Turner, 1982;
Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell,
1987) suggest that individuals form a social
identity, conceptualized as that aspect of a persons self-concept based on their group membership (Turner, 1999).
Identification refers to a relatively enduring
state that reflects an individuals readiness to
define him or herself as a member of a particular
social group (Haslam, 2001, p. 383). By extension, social identification refers to the perception of oneness with or belongingness to
some human aggregation (Ashforth & Mael,
1989, p. 21). When a person sees the identity of
a particular social group or organization as salient, distinctive, central, and enduring, and he
or she incorporates it into his or her selfconcept, he or she is likely to develop a high
level of identification (Ashforth & Mael, 1989;
Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994; Pratt,
1998).
Scholars tend to view social identification as
an individual-level construct. For example, Dutton et al. (1994) define organizational identification as the cognitive connection between the
definition of an organization and the definition a
person applies to him or herself (p. 242). As
such, identification is characterized by individ-

Perceived
Organization
External Prestige

TMT Identification

TMT Behavioral
Integration

Perceived TMT
External Prestige

Figure 1. The hypothesized research model of how perceived external prestige of both the
organization and the top management team (TMT) and collective team identification can lead
to a high level of behavioral integration in the organizations TMT.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

PRESTIGE, IDENTIFICATION, BEHAVIORAL INTEGRATION

ual-level self-perceptions describing the perceived overlap between a persons identity and
a groups identity (Elsbach, 1999, p. 165), a
process occurring when one integrates beliefs
about ones organization into ones identity
(Pratt, 1998, p. 172). However, in this study, we
suggest that identification can also be viewed
and treated as a group-level phenomenon. That
is, we examine collective team identification,
which refers to members shared sense of identification with a work group (i.e., a sense of
collective team identification; Van der Vegt &
Bunderson, 2005). Collective team identification is referred to as the significance that members of a given group attach to their membership
in that group (Van der Vegt & Bunderson,
2005, p. 533). Consistent with the Van der Vegt
and Bunderson (2005) approach, in this study
collective team identification refers to a shared
sense of identification held by TMT members.
Why should collective team identification
facilitate mutual and collective interactions between TMT members (i.e., behavioral integration)? Social identity is the cognitive mechanism that makes group behavior possible
(Turner, 1999) because when people in a work
team develop strong identification, they redefine
the self as we rather than I and share common ground. Furthermore, information exchange, collaborative behavior, and joint decision making are likely to increase when team
members are more willing to engage in such
activities. What determines this willingness of
team members is to a large extent the strength of
their identification with the team because identification is the basis for motivation to engage in
a given task (Foote, 1951). When team members develop strong identification toward the
group to which they belong and become closely
identified with what the group represents, they
are likely to make individual efforts on behalf of
the whole. These efforts include information
sharing, collaborative behaviors, and joint decision-making activities. Members are likely to
value and work for a collective purpose rather
than their individual interests when a strong
collective identification emerges.
Research has demonstrated that ones attachment to a social group is related to cooperative
behaviors (Dukerich, Golden, & Shortell, 2002)
and citizenship behaviors (e.g., Carmeli, 2005).
Consistent with this line of research, we reason
that when a strong sense of collective team

321

identification exists, the group is not merely a

collection of individuals but rather a behaviorally integrated entity that acts together and displays helping and joint activities (see also
Hogg, 1992). Hence, the following hypothesis
is suggested:
Hypothesis 1: There is a positive relationship between collective team identification
and TMT behavioral integration.
Perceived External Prestige and Collective
Team Identification
Before turning to the relationship of perceived external prestige to collective team identification, and consistent with Smidts, Pruyn,
and Van Riel,s (2001) study, we first distinguish perceived external prestige from related
constructs, including construed external image,
perceived organizational identity, and organizational reputation. Construed external image refers to an employees own beliefs about what
other people outside the organization think
about the organization (Dutton et al., 1994).
Perceived external prestige (Smidts et al.,
2001), or organizational prestige (Bergami &
Bagozzi, 2000; Mael & Ashforth, 1992), is a
construct that implies a judgment or evaluation
of the organizations status according to some
kind of evaluative criteria and refers to the
employees own beliefs about how other people
outside of the organization evaluate or judge its
status and prestige (Carmeli, 2005). Organizational identity reflects the core, distinctive, and
enduring qualities (e.g., values, norms, goals) it
stands for (Albert & Whetten, 1985) as collectively perceived by the organizations members.
Perceived organizational identity refers to the
beliefs of a particular individual organizational
member (Dutton et al., 1994, p. 243). Organizational reputation is reflected in the external
constituents beliefs and views about these criteria (Fombrun, 1996; Fombrun & Shanley,
1990) or the reputation of the organization as it
is perceived by its members (Carmeli & Tishler,
2004a, 2004b, 2005). In short, organizational
reputation represents constituents evaluative
beliefs about the organization, perceived organizational identity represents the individual organizational members beliefs about the core
qualities the organization stands for, and
perceived external prestige represents the indi-

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

322

CARMELI AND SHTEIGMAN

vidual organizational members beliefs about

outsiders evaluative perceptions of the organization.
People have a need for positive social identity, expressed through a desire to create, maintain or enhance the positively valued distinctiveness of in-groups compared to out-groups
on relevant dimensions, and aroused under conditions where people defined and evaluated
themselves in terms of their group memberships (Turner, 1999, p. 8). Individuals engage
in a process of social comparison between social groups that helps them shape their social
identity (Tajfel, 1978; Turner, 1999). Part of
their self-definition stems from the status that
they believe people outside the social category
(e.g., organization, work group) attribute to the
social category with which they are affiliated.
Consistent with theory and research evidence,
we hypothesized that the greater the prestige of
the social category to which individuals belong,
the more positive their social identity will be
(Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000; Carmeli, 2005;
Dukerich et al., 2002; Dutton & Dukerich,
1991; Mael & Ashforth, 1992; Smidts et al.,
2001). Individuals attempt to enhance their positive social identity by being part of a highly
regarded social system and wish to bask in its
reflected glory (Cialdini et al., 1976). For example, Branscombe, Spears, Ellemers, and
Doosje (2002) documented the role of perceived external group prestige in facilitating
engagement in group activities (as assessed by
willingness to donate time to a group activity).
Studies thus far have tended to focus on perceived external prestige at the organizational
level and its impact on member identification.
However, researchers have pointed to the importance of considering different layers, including both organization and group. Ashforth and
Johnson (2001) and Kramer (1991) suggested
that the primary group of individuals is the
lower order social category and is the one that
has the most influence on their perceptions and
behaviors. Work groups are seen as a primary
social category in which members acquire powerful experiences and through which their perceptions and behaviors are mostly influenced
(Ashforth & Johnson). Consistent with Ashforth
and Johnson, we hypothesized that there would
be a positive association between perceived external prestige at both the organization and team
levels and collective team identification. How-

ever, because the organization is seen as a

higher order social category, and the TMT is
perceived as a lower order social category, we
expected that compared with perceived organization external prestige, perceived TMT external prestige may have the most influence on
collective team identification. That said, overall
we expected that
Hypothesis 2a: There is a positive relationship between perceived organization external prestige and collective team identification.
Hypothesis 2b: There is a positive relationship between perceived TMT external
prestige and collective team identification.
The Mediating Role of Collective Team
Identification
In an identification model of organizational
(member) identification, Dutton et al. (1994)
reasoned that when a construed external image
is positive, it strengthens organizational identification that, in turn, results in increased interpersonal behaviors such as organizational citizenship behaviors and cooperative behaviors
(see also Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000; Dukerich
et al., 2002). It is suggested that when members
think that outsiders attribute favorable prestige
to their organization and team, they are likely to
develop a strong identification to social aggregations they are affiliated with because of their
desire to be part of a valued team. Identification,
in turn, is likely to result in behaviors such as
information sharing, collaboration, and joint decision making. Similarly, we reasoned that
strong collective team identification is an intervening variable with respect to the relationship
between perceived external prestige and collaborative behaviors within the team. Hence, the
following general hypotheses were suggested:
Hypothesis 3a: Collective team identification mediates the relationship between perceived organization external prestige and
TMT behavioral integration.
Hypothesis 3b: Collective team identification mediates the relationship between perceived TMT external prestige and TMT
behavioral integration.

PRESTIGE, IDENTIFICATION, BEHAVIORAL INTEGRATION

Method

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Sample and Procedure

The research population of this study involved TMTs from 250 small-sized firms with
between 20 and 120 employees. These firms
were chosen at random from the Dun and Bradstreet guide.
Prior to contacting the participants, we conducted a pilot study in which we asked 10 senior
executives to carefully read our structured questionnaire for clarity and the extent to which the
items fully reflected their corresponding constructs. This procedure yielded minor revisions
in the survey, which were mainly related to the
clarity of some questions. We followed previous research (Hambrick & Mason, 1984) in
defining TMT membership and considered
TMT members as direct reports (namely senior executives with whom the CEO shares the
strategic decision-making process). Using 250
organizations listed in the Dun and Bradstreet
guide, we contacted each firms CEO and asked
whether she or he would be willing to participate in the study. We also asked the firms CEO
to identify one or more executives with whom
she or he consults on a regular basis about
strategic choices and decisions (direct reports).
These senior executives held various positions
such as chief financial officer, director of human
resource management, and chief operational officer. On agreement, we sent surveys to the
CEO and her or his TMT members.
In a cover letter, we guaranteed respondents
complete anonymity and promised to share the
results and conclusions of the study on request.
In addition, we provided a short description of
the study goals and asked the respondents to fill
out the questionnaire and return it directly to us.
We received data from 70 TMTs (at least 50%
of the members of each organizations TMT
completed the survey), for a response rate of
28%. Participant organizations and TMTs did
not differ from nonparticipants in terms of
number of employees and TMT members
( p .10). The average number of employees
in the participating organizations was 68.07,
with a standard deviation of 30.76. The average TMT size was 3.84, with a standard deviation of 1.24.

323

Measures
Perceived TMT external prestige. This
measure refers to how the TMT members think
outsiders (i.e., focal competitors) view and assess their team. Following Smidts et al. (2001),
we constructed three items to reflect perceived
external prestige at the team level. Responses
were assessed on a 5-point scale (ranging from
1 strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree).
The items were Our competitors accredit our
TMT with a favorable reputation, Our competitors view our TMT as a prestigious group,
and Our competitors think highly of our
TMT. The Cronbachs alpha for this measure
was .77.
Perceived organization external prestige.
This measure refers to how the TMT members
think outsiders (i.e., focal competitors) view
and assess their organization. We drew on the
Smidts et al. (2001) scale and constructed three
items measuring perceived organization external prestige. Responses were assessed on a
5-point scale (ranging from 1 strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree). The items were
Competitors accredit our organization with a
favorable reputation, Competitors view our
organization as a prestigious system, and
Competitors think highly of our organization.
The Cronbachs alpha for this measure was .78.
Collective team identification. This measure was constructed by adapting the five-item
scale developed by Smidts et al. (2001). The
participants were asked to assess on a 5-point
scale (ranging from 1 strongly disagree to
5 strongly agree) the extent to which members identify with the team at both the cognitive
and affective levels. Items were Members feel
strong ties with this TMT, Members experience a strong sense of belonging to this TMT,
Members feel proud to work for this TMT,
Members are sufficiently acknowledged in this
TMT, and We are glad to be a member of this
TMT. The Cronbachs alpha for this measure
was .81.
TMT behavioral integration. To measure
TMT behavioral integration, we used the nineitem scale developed and validated by Simsek,
Lubatkin, Veiga, and Dino (2002) and Simsek
et al. (2005), who followed previous attempts to
operationalize this construct (Mooney & Sonnenfeld, 2001; Hambrick, 1998) or related concepts such as social integration (Smith et.,

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

324

CARMELI AND SHTEIGMAN

1994). Simsek et al.s (2005) measure captures

the three dimensions (information exchange,
collaborative behavior, and joint decision making) of TMT behavioral integration discussed
by Hambrick (1994). This measure consists of
nine items, three for each dimension. The respondents were asked to indicate on a 5-point
scale (ranging from 1 strongly disagree to
5 strongly agree) the extent to which they
agreed with such items as The ideas that our
TMT members exchange are of high quality
(information exchange), When a team member
is busy, other team members often volunteer to
help her/him to manage her/his workload (collaborative behavior), and The TMT members
usually let each other know when their actions
affect another team members work (joint decision making). The Cronbachs alpha for this
measure was .77.
Level of Analysis
Having multiple informants required an assessment of the consistency of responses within
a team. Following previous research (cf. James,
1982), we performed a one-way analysis of
variance on all of the research variables. For all
the research variables, the results showed that
there was greater variability in the ratings between teams than within teams ( p .01). We
also calculated intraclass correlations (ICCs) to
assess the extent of agreement of group members. ICC(1) indicates the extent of agreement
among ratings from members of the same
group. ICC(2) indicates whether groups can be
differentiated on the variables of interest. The
ICC(1) and ICC(2) values for perceived TMT
external prestige were .35 and .77; for perceived
TMT external prestige, .37 and .78; for collective team identification, .41 and .88; and for

TMT behavioral integration, .15 and .76. These

results generally support the aggregation of an
individual questionnaire response to a teamlevel variable.
Results
The means, standard deviations, reliabilities,
and correlations among the variables are presented in Table 1. Consistent with our hypotheses, the bivariate correlations indicate that both
perceived organization external prestige and
perceived TMT external prestige are positively
related to collective team identification (r .46,
p .01; r .69, p .01, respectively). The
results also show that collective team identification is positively associated with TMT behavioral integration (r .50, p .01).
To test the hypotheses, we followed the
guidelines for testing mediation as outlined by
Baron and Kenny (1986) and more recently
modified and stipulated in Kenny, Kashy, and
Bolger (1998). To establish a mediation model,
three basic conditions should be met: (a) establishing a significant relationship between the
dependent variables and the independent variables, (b) establishing a significant relationship
between the mediator and independent variables, and (c) showing that the significant relationship between the dependent variables and
the independent variables becomes nonsignificant when the mediator is specified in the
model. According to Kenny et al., a variable
(M) mediates the relationship between an antecedent variable (X) and an outcome variable (Y)
if (a) X is significantly related to Y; (b) X is
significantly related to M; (c) after X is controlled for, M remains significantly related to Y;
and (d) after M is controlled for, the XY relationship is zero. Kenny et al. described these

Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations
Variable
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Sector (1 manufacturing, 0 service)

TMT size
Perceived organization external prestige
Perceived TMT external prestige
Collective team identification
TMT behavioral integration

Note. N 70. TMT top management team.

p .10. p .01.

SD

3.84
4.51
4.35
4.40
5.74

1.25
0.37
0.43
0.51
0.62

.21
.01
.11
.01
.19

.04
.12
.02
.11

.43
.46
.20

.69
.37

.50

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

PRESTIGE, IDENTIFICATION, BEHAVIORAL INTEGRATION

steps as the essential steps in establishing mediation (p. 260). The first step is not required,
but a path from the initial variable to the outcome is implied if [the two middle steps] are
met (Kenny et al., p. 260). Furthermore, the
last step is necessary only to show a complete
mediation effect. Accordingly, we tested successive segments of our model by evaluating
whether these steps were met.
To test full mediation, we performed various
regression equation analyses, which are shown
in Table 2 and illustrated in Figure 2. Although
only Hypotheses 3a and 3b concerned mediation, each of the hypotheses was evaluated using the procedures for testing mediation outlined by Baron and Kenny (1986) and Kenny et
al. (1998). Model 2 in Table 2 presents the
results of the second regression, in which collective team identification was regressed on perceived organization external prestige and per-

325

ceived TMT external prestige and the control

variables. The test of Model 3 showed a significant relationship between collective team identification and TMT behavioral integration (
.50, p .01), in support of Hypothesis 1. Consistent with Hypotheses 2a and 2b, there was a
positive relationship between both perceived organization external prestige and perceived TMT
external prestige and collective team identification ( .21, p .05; .62, p .01,
respectively). Model 4, which regressed TMT
behavioral integration on both the independent
variables (perceived organization external prestige and perceived TMT external prestige) and
the mediator collective team identification, supported the mediation hypotheses (Hypotheses 3a and 3b). The effect of the mediator,
collective team identification on TMT behavioral integration, remained significant ( .50,
p .01), but (a) the effect of perceived orga-

Table 2
Hierarchical Regression Results for the Mediating Effect of Collective Team Identification in the
Relationship Between Both Perceived Organization External Prestige and Perceived TMT External
Prestige and TMT Behavioral Integration
Model (t)

Variable

1
TMT behavioral
integration

2
Collective team
identification

3
TMT behavioral
integration

4
TMT behavioral
integration

3.26

4.39

3.20

3.37

.19 (1.83)
.01 (.07)
.03
.01
1.24
.62
.50 (4.76)
.25
22.66
.28
.25
.53

.19 (1.76)
.01 (0.04)
.03
.01
1.24
.62
.50 (3.27)
.25
22.66
.28
.25
.53

Constanta
Sector (1 manufacturing,
0 service)
TMT size
R2
Adjusted R2
F for R2
SE of the estimate
Collective team identification
R2
F for R2
R2
Adjusted R2
SE of the estimate
Perceived organization external
prestige
Perceived TMT external prestige
R2
F for R2
R2
Adjusted R2
SE of the estimate
Note. TMT top management team.
a
Unstandardized coefficients.

p .05. p .01.

.16 (1.35)
.03 (0.29)
.03
.01
1.24
.62

.06 (0.45)
.33 (2.62)
.13
4.98
.16
.11
.58

.07 (0.79)
.06 (0.66)
.00
.00
.01
.52

.21 (2.15)
.62 (6.43)
.52
35.49
.52
.49
.36

.05 (0.38)
.02 (0.16)
.00
.07
.28
.23
.54

326

CARMELI AND SHTEIGMAN

Perceived
Organizations
External Prestige

.06 (-.05)
.21**
TMT Identification

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Perceived TMTs
External Prestige

.50** (.50** )

TMT Behavioral
Integration

.62***
.33* (.02)

Beta coefficients in parentheses are based on regression equations including the connectedness mediator.
*

p < .05, ** p < .01

Figure 2. The relationship between perceived top management team (TMT) external
prestige, TMT identification, and TMT behavioral integration.

nization external prestige on TMT behavioral

integration remained nonsignificant ( .05,
p .10), and (b) the effect of perceived TMT
external prestige on TMT behavioral integration
became nonsignificant ( .02, p .10). Figure 2 presents the results of the mediation
model.
As in Dvorak and Simons (2009) study, we
also applied the procedure recommended by
MacKinnon, Fritz, Williams, and Lockwood
(2007), who developed a program (PRODCLIN)
that uses nonnormal distributions of coefficient
products to calculate unbiased confidence intervals for mediated effects. The results are consistent with our earlier findings. The association
between perceived organization external prestige and TMT behavioral integration was fully
mediated by collective team identification.
Evaluation of the product confidence limits
of this mediated effect via the PRODCLIN
program (MacKinnon et al.) revealed that the
mediated effect was significant at p .05
(ab 0.173, SE 0.096, 95% CI
[0.016221, 0.389142]). In addition, the association between perceived TMT external prestige
and TMT behavioral integration was partially
mediated by collective team identification.
Evaluation of the product confidence limits of
this mediated effect via PRODCLIN showed
that the mediated effect was significant at p
.01 (ab 0.445, SE 0.153, 99% CI
[0.093904, 0.887620]).
We also tested alternative models. First, we
tested whether collective team identification

played a moderating role in the relationship

between perceived external prestige at both the
organization and TMT levels and TMT behavioral integration. Following Aiken and West
(1991), we mean centered the theoretical independent variables before interaction terms were
calculated for all regressions. The results indicate that the interactive effect of perceived organization external prestige and collective identification on TMT behavioral integration was
not significant ( .06, p .10). It is interesting, however, that the results indicate a positive and significant interactive effect of perceived TMT external prestige and collective
identification on TMT behavioral integration
( .25, p .05). That is, when there was a
low level of collective identification, there was
little effect of perceived TMT external prestige
on TMT behavioral integration, whereas for
TMTs where members report high collective
team identification, the slope was positive and
acute.
In addition, we tested a reversed mediation
model. We examined whether collective team
identification affects perceptions of perceived
external prestige, which in turn would be associated with perceptions of TMT behavioral integration. The results did not support this reversed mediation model. Although the effect of
perceived organizational external prestige on
TMT behavioral integration was not significant
( .06, p .10), there was a significant
relationship between perceived TMT external
prestige and TMT behavioral integration (

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

PRESTIGE, IDENTIFICATION, BEHAVIORAL INTEGRATION

.33, p .05). However, when we entered the

independent variable into the equation together
with the mediators, the results indicated that
there were no significant relationships between
either perceived organizational external prestige
and TMT external prestige or TMT behavioral
integration ( .05, p .10; .02, p
.10, respectively), whereas the relationship between the independent variable (in this case,
collective team identification) and TMT behavioral integration was significant ( .50, p
.01).
Discussion
This study explored the application of social
identity theory to TMTs, which is a unique
group context, given the role of TMTs within
organizations (Barrick et al., 2007; Cohen &
Bailey, 1997; Hambrick, 1994; Hambrick &
Mason, 1984). First, we documented the relationships between prestige, identification, and
behavioral integration among TMTs, thus extending findings beyond previously studied research populations (e.g., nonexecutive employees). Second, we showed the importance of
considering different layers (Ashforth & Johnson, 2001) and their association with identification. Our findings indicate that compared with
perceived organization external prestige, perceived TMT external prestige has more influence on collective team identification. This further substantiates the theoretical claim that
individuals primary group is the lower order
social category but has the most influence on
their views, attitudes, and behaviors (Ashforth
& Johnson, 2001; Kramer, 1991).
In addition, we expanded research on identification by considering this construct as a
group-level phenomenon (Van der Vegt &
Bunderson, 2005), referring to a sense of collective team identification within a TMT. Our
findings support the hypothesis that collective
team identification facilitates behavioral integration in TMTs. Thus, we provide insights into
social identity mechanisms that facilitate TMT
behavioral integration. By so doing, we (a) address the important question of the antecedents
that give rise to behavioral integrations in TMTs
(Simsek et al., 2005), and (b) contribute to the
literature by examining the implications of
identification, a key issue that has thus far re-

327

ceived only limited research attention (Riketta,

2005; Van Dick, 2004).
Our study suggests why collective team identification may be an important facilitator of behavioral integration in TMTs. Our research supports the theory that social identity is a key
cognitive mechanism through which people in
work groups develop a high level of identification and come to redefine the self as we rather
than I, thus building common ground and
making group collaborative behavior possible
(Turner, 1999). Furthermore, we documented
that TMT members are likely to engage in interrelated activities such information exchange,
collaborative behavior, and joint decision making when they develop strong collective team
identification, thus further supporting the idea
that identification forms the basis for motivation
to engage in a given task (Foote, 1951).
Finally, in this study, we expanded research
on in-group cooperation (e.g., Kessler & Cohrs,
2008) at other levels, and contributed to a better
understanding of TMT processes through
which diverse members wrestle together with
difficult issues to make decisions and build
commitment to implementing them, giving rise
to strategic leadership effectiveness (Edmondson, Roberto, & Watkins, 2003, p. 298). By
integrating social identity theory in organizations, our study enhances our understanding of
the underlying mechanisms that give rise to
TMT dynamics. Consistent with Albert, Ashforth, and Dutton (2000, p. 13), identification is
considered as a root construct that is behind
important organizational phenomena. Our study
indicates that collective team identification is an
important underlying mechanism for understanding what gives rise to TMT behavioral
integration and by implication how effective
leadership may be enhanced in organizations.
Our research has several managerial implications. Managers need to be aware of how beliefs
they hold about perceptions of outsiders (e.g.,
competitors, suppliers) affect dynamics within
the TMT. Prestige is not likely to be changed
overnight, but CEOs may cultivate an open discussion about the ways the beliefs held by TMT
members influence their attitudes, behaviors,
and actions. In addition, such a discussion may
open new opportunities to understand cues
TMT members attend to and how they can
better shape perceptions of key external stakeholders. Finally, in times of difficulty, it is

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

328

CARMELI AND SHTEIGMAN

likely that TMT members will sense negative

cues and develop beliefs that outsiders look
down on the organization and team. However,
CEOs may mitigate such effects by articulating
a strong vision that can enable members to
maintain collective identification, thus facilitating a high level of behavioral integration, dynamics that research has shown to have positive
impact on organizational processes and outcomes.
Limitations and Future Research
Our research is not without limitations. Research on the applicability of TMTs in smallsized organizations is rare, and further research
is clearly needed to provide both constructive
replication and expand traditional research frontiers. However, we acknowledge the limitation
of this unique research setting and the need for
future studies to generalize our findings. Although we provide theoretical reasoning for our
research model, given the survey-based, selfreport nature of the data, the findings need to be
interpreted with caution, especially with regard
to causality. However, studies indicate that using multiple sources is a more reliable method
(Bowman & Ambrosini, 1997). Furthermore, to
assess whether common method bias was severe, we ran the same set of regression equations using CEO reports on perceived external
prestige about both the organization and TMT
and members reports on collective team identification and behavioral integration. The results
yielded similar results and support the hypothesized mediation model. Specifically, the effect
of the mediator (collective team identification)
on TMT behavioral integration remained significant ( .54, p .01, vs. .51, p .01),
whereas the effect of both perceived organizational external prestige and perceived TMT external prestige on TMT behavioral integration
was not significant ( .04, p .10, vs.
.08, p .10, respectively). In addition, we
examined whether there was a difference between reports of the CEO and other members in
terms of age and tenure and found no significant
differences ( p .10). This suggests that although one cannot rule out potential common
method bias, it may not be severe in this study.
In addition, it is important to note that collecting data on TMTs is both a resource- and a
time-consuming endeavor. Thus, to be able to

more carefully examine causal relationships, future research might benefit from research collaboration pursuing a longitudinal or multisource study across cultures. This type of effort
would allow researchers to generalize findings
and confirm or challenge current theories on
upper echelons in general and TMTs in particular.
Although our study contributes to the literature by examining two levels of perceived external prestige, future research efforts should
also be directed toward examining other multiple levels and, most important, why and how
identification with different foci may influence
members willingness to engage in behavioral
integration activities. Finally, future work could
explore the potential moderators between prestige and identification as well as between identification and behavioral integration. In other
words, research should attempt to define the
conditions in which external prestige does or
does not give rise to identification, and under
which conditions identification does or does not
augment behavioral integration in TMTs.
Conclusion
TMTs play a key strategic role in directing
and managing a firm. Although researchers
have noted the need to go beyond studying
TMT demographic characteristics and enrich
our understanding of TMT processes (Hambrick, 1994; Lawrence, 1997), little is known
about the ways TMT behavioral integration
evolves, especially in the setting of small firms,
which have a critical impact on both developing
and developed economies. Our study addressed
this fundamental question by examining how
social identity theory informs us about why
perceived external prestige at both the organization and TMT levels and collective team identification facilitate behavioral integration in
TMTs. Although both are important, we found
that perceived TMT external prestige has a
greater effect than perceived organization external prestige on collective team identification,
and that collective team identification mediates
the relationship between both types of external
prestige and TMT behavioral integration. Our
study thus sheds new light on the determinants
of TMT behavioral integration, reaffirms and
extends social identity theory to the context of

PRESTIGE, IDENTIFICATION, BEHAVIORAL INTEGRATION

TMTs, and contributes to the study of TMT

applications in small-firm settings.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

References
Abrams, D. (1992). Processes of social identification.
In G. M. Breakwell (Ed.), Social psychology of
identity and the self-concept (pp. 5799). London:
Surrey University Press.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Albert, S., Ashforth, B. E., & Dutton, J. E. (2000).
Organizational identity and identification: Charting new waters and building new bridges. Academy of Management Review, 25, 1317.
Albert, S., & Whetten, D. A. (1985). Organizational
identity. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.),
Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 7, pp.
263295). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Ashforth, B. E., & Johnson, S. A. (2001). Which hat
to wear? The relative salience of multiple identities
in organizational contexts. In M. E. Hogg & D. J.
Terry (Eds.), Social identity processes in organizational contexts (pp. 31 48). Ann Arbor, MI:
Sheridan Books.
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. A. (1989). Social identity
theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14, 20 39.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderatormediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical
considerations. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 51, 11731182.
Barrick, M. R., Bradley, B. H., & Colbert, A. E.
(2007). The moderating role of top management
team interdependence: Implications for real teams
and working groups. Academy of Management
Journal, 50, 544 557.
Bergami, M., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). Selfcategorization, affective commitment and group
self-esteem as distinct aspects of social identity in
the organization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 555577.
Boal, K. B., & Hooijberg, R. (2000). Strategic leadership research: Moving on. The Leadership Quarterly, 11, 515549.
Bowman, C., & Ambrosini, V. (1997). Using single
respondents in strategy research. British Journal of
Management, 8, 119 131.
Branscombe, N. R., Spears, R., Ellemers, N., &
Doosje, B. (2002). Intragroup and intergroup evaluation effects on group behavior. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 744 753.
Carmeli, A. (2005). Perceived external prestige, affective commitment, and citizenship behaviors.
Organization Studies, 26, 443 464.

329

Carmeli, A. (2008). Top management team behavioral integration and the performance of service
organizations. Group & Organization Management, 33, 712735.
Carmeli, A., & Schaubroeck, J. (2006). Top management team behavioral integration, decision quality,
and organizational decline. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 441 453.
Carmeli, A., & Tishler, A. (2004a). The relationships
between intangible organizational elements and organizational performance. Strategic Management
Journal, 25, 12571278.
Carmeli, A., & Tishler, A. (2004b). Resources, capabilities, and the performance of industrial firms: A
multivariate analysis. Managerial and Decision
Economics, 25, 299 315.
Carmeli, A., & Tishler, A. (2005). Perceived organizational reputation and organizational performance: An
empirical investigation of industrial enterprises. Corporate Reputation Review, 8, 1330.
Carmeli, A., & Waldman, D. A. (2010). Leadership,
behavioral context and the performance of work
groups in a knowledge-intensive setting. Journal
of Technology Transfer. doi:10.1007/s10961-0099125-3
Certo, S. T., Lester, R. H., Dalton, C. M., & Dalton,
D. R. (2006). Top management teams, strategy and
financial performance: A meta-analytic examination.
Journal of Management Studies, 43, 813 839.
Cialdini, R. B., Borden, R. J., Avril, T., Walker,
M. R., Freeman, S., & Sloan, L. R. (1976). Basking in reflected glory: Three (football) field studies.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34,
366 375.
Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997).) What makes
teams work: Group effectiveness research from the
shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23, 239 290.
Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral
theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Dukerich, J. M., Golden, B. R., & Shortell, S. M.
(2002). Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: The
impact of organizational identification, identity and
image on the cooperative behaviors of physicians,
Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 507533.
Dutton, J. E., & Dukerich, J. M. (1991). Keeping an
eye on the mirror: The role of image and identity in
organizational adaptation. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 517554.
Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V.
(1994). Organizational images and member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39,
239 263.
Dvorak, R. D., & Simons, J. S. (2009). Moderation of
resource depletion in the self-control strength
model: Differing effects of two modes of self-

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

330

CARMELI AND SHTEIGMAN

control. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 572583.

Edmondson, A. C., Roberto, M. A., & Watkins, M. D.
(2003). A dynamic model of top management team
effectiveness: Managing unstructured task streams.
The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 297325.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Making fast strategic decisions in high-velocity environments. Academy of
Management Journal, 32, 543576.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Bourgeois, L. J. (1988). Politics
of strategic decision making in high-velocity environments: Toward a midrange theory. Academy
of Management Journal, 31, 737770.
Ellemers, N., Kortekaas, P., & Ouwerkerk, J. W.
(1999). Self-categorisation, commitment to the
group and group self-esteem as related but distinct
aspects of social identity. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 29, 371389.
Elsbach, K. D. (1999). An expanded model of organizational identification. In B. M. Staw & R. I.
Sutton (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior
(Vol. 21, pp. 163200). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Ensley, M. D., Pearson, A. W., & Amason, A. C.
(2002). Understanding the dynamics of new venture top management teams: Cohesion, conflict,
and new venture performance. Journal of Business
Venturing, 17, 365386.
Finkelstein, S., & Hambrick, D. C. (1996). Strategic
leadership: Top executives and their effects on
organizations. Minneapolis/St. Paul: West.
Fombrun, C. J. (1996). Reputation: Realizing value
from the corporate image. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Fombrun, C. J., & Shanley, M. (1990). Whats in a
name? Reputation building and corporate strategy.
Academy of Management Journal, 33, 233258.
Foote, N. N. (1951). Identification as the basis for a
theory of motivation. American Sociological Review, 16, 14 21.
Hambrick, D. C. (1994). Top management groups: A
conceptual integration and reconsideration of the
team label. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings
(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior
(Vol. 16, pp. 171213). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Hambrick, D. C. (1998). Corporate coherence and the
top management team. In D. C. Hambrick, D. A.
Nadler, & M. L. Tushman (Eds.), Navigating
change (pp. 123140). Boston: Harvard Business
School Press.
Hambrick, D. C., Cho, T. S., & Chen, M.-J. (1996).
The influence of top management team on firms
competitive moves. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 659 684.
Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper
echelon: The organization as a reflection of its top
managers. Academy of Management Review, 9,
193206.

Haslam, S. A. (2001). Psychology in organizations:

The social identity approach. London: Sage.
Hogg, M. A. (1992). The social psychology of group
cohesiveness: From attraction to social identity.
London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identifications: A social psychology of intergroup relations and group processes. London: Routledge.
Hunt, J. G. (1999). Transformational/charismatic leaderships transformation of the field: An historical
essay. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 129 144.
James, L. R. (1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of
perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 219 229.
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D., & Bolger, N. (1998). Data
analysis in social psychology. In D. Gilbert, S.
Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social
psychology (pp. 233265). New York: McGrawHill.
Kessler, T., & Cohrs, J. C. (2008). The evolution of
authoritarian processes: Fostering cooperation in
large-scale groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 12, 73 84.
Knight, D., Pearce, C. L., Smith, K. G., Olian, J. D.,
Sims, H. P., Smith, K. A., & Flood, P. (1999). Top
management team diversity, group process, and
strategic consensus. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 445 465.
Kramer, R. M. (1991). Intergroup relations and organizational dilemmas: The role of categorization
processes. Research in Organizational Behavior, 13, 191228.
Kramer, R. M. (1993). Cooperation and organizational identification. In J. K. Muminghan (Ed.),
Social psychology in organizations: Advances in
theory and research (pp. 244 268). Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Lawrence, B. S. (1997). The black box of organizational demography. Organization Science, 8, 121.
Li, J. T., & Hambrick, D. C. (2005). Factional
groups: A new vantage on demographic faultiness,
conflict and disintegration in work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 794 813.
Ling, Y., Simsek, Z., Lubatkin, M. H., & Veiga, J. F.
(2008). Transformational leaderships role in promoting corporate entrepreneurship: Examining the
CEOTMT interface. Academy of Management
Journal, 51, 742776.
Lubatkin, M. H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y., & Veiga, J. F.
(2006). Ambidexterity and performance in smallto medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of TMT
behavioral integration. Journal of Management, 32, 646 672.
MacKinnon, D. P., Fritz, M. S., Williams, J., &
Lockwood, C. M. (2007). Distribution of the product confidence limits for the indirect effect: Program PRODLIN. Behavior Research Methods, 39,
384 389.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

PRESTIGE, IDENTIFICATION, BEHAVIORAL INTEGRATION

Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their

alma: A partial test of the reformulated model of
organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 103123.
Mooney, A. C., & Sonnenfeld, J. (2001, August).
Exploring antecedents to top management team
conflict: The importance of behavioral integration.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Washington, DC.
OReilly, C. A., Caldwell, D. F., & Barnett, W. P.
(1989). Work group demography, social integration, and turnover. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 2137.
OReilly, C. A., Snyder, R. C., & Boothe, J. N.
(1993). Executive team demography and organizational change. In G. P. Huber & W. H. Glick
(Eds.), Organizational change and redesign: Ideas
and insights for improving performance (pp. 147
175). New York: Oxford University Press.
Pearce, C. L., & Manz, C. C. (2005). The new silver
bullets of leadership: The importance of self- and
shared leadership in knowledge work. Organizational Dynamics, 34, 130 140.
Pettigrew, A. M. (1992). On studying managerial
elites. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 163
182.
Pratt, M. G. (1998). To be or not to be? Central
questions in organizational identification. In D.
Whetten & P. Godfrey (Eds.), Identity in organizations: Developing theory through conversations
(pp. 171207). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Riketta, M. (2005). Organizational identification: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66,
358 384.
Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in administration: A
sociological interpretation. Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Simons, T., Pelled, L. H., & Smith, K. A. (1999).
Making use of difference: Diversity, debate, and
decision comprehensiveness in top management
teams. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 662
673.
Simsek, Z., Lubatkin, M. H., Veiga, J. F., & Dino,
R. N. (2002, August). The behavioral integration,
diversity, and size: Implication for firm performance. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the Academy of Management, New Haven, CT.
Simsek, Z., Veiga, J. F., Lubatkin, M. H., & Dino, R. N.
(2005). Modeling the multilevel determinants of top
management team behavioral integration. Academy
of Management Journal, 48, 69 84.
Smidts, A., Pruyn, Ad. Th. H., & Van Riel, C. B. M.
(2001). The impact of employee communication
and perceived external prestige on organizational
identification. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 10511062.

331

Smith, K. G., Smith, K. A., Olian, J. D., Sims, H. P.,

OBannon, D. P., & Scully, J. A. (1994). Top
management team demography and process: The
role of social integration and communication. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 412 438.
Storey, D. (1994). Understanding the small business
sector. New York: Routledge.
Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between social
groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. London: Academic Press.
Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup
relations. In M. R. Rosenzweig & L. W. Porter
(Eds.), Annual review of psychology (Vol. 33, pp.
139). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). The social identity
theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel &
W. G. Austin (Eds.), The psychology of intergroup
relations (pp. 724). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Turner, J. C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition
of the social group. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social
identity and intergroup relations (pp. 15 40).
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Turner, J. C. (1999). Some current issues in research
on social identity and self-categorization theories.
In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Doosje (Eds.),
Social identity: Context, commitment, content (pp.
6 34). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher,
S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering
the social group: A self-categorization theory.
New York: Blackwell Publishers.
Van der Vegt, G. S., & Bunderson, J. S. (2005).
Learning and performance in multi-functional
teams: The importance of collective team identification. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 532
547.
Van Dick, R. (2004). My job is my castle: Identification in organizational contexts. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 19, 171203.
Weinzimmer, L. G. (1997). Top management team
correlates of organizational growth in a small business context. Journal of Small Business Management, 35, 19.
Wiersema, M. F., & Bantel, K. (1992). Top management team demography and corporate strategic
change. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 91
121.
Winborg, J., & Landstromb, H. (2001). Financial
bootstrapping in small businesses: Examining
small business managers resource acquisition behaviors. Journal of Business Venturing, 16, 235
254.
Received March 2, 2009
Revision received September 3, 2009
Accepted October 23, 2009