Upper echelons theory is one of the dominant perspectives applied to study top executives. Despite significant advances in theoretical and empirical investigations and an explosion of inquiry into this topic over the last decade, knowledge consolidation across different measures, constructs, or levels of analysis is lacking. This article outlines the challenges faced by researchers studying top executives that we believe have contributed to this issue and suggests opportunities for advancement. First, we review upper echelons theory and summarize some of the difficulties in creating and testing theory in this domain. Second, we suggest three key areas for investigation that may help advance the field. Third, we provide practical suggestions for consolidating theoretical knowledge. The aim of this editorial is to encourage contributions to upper echelons theory that develop new testable theory and empirically test its propositions and the robustness of established relationships.
Abdel-MeguidA.JenningsJ. N.OlsenK. J.SolimanM. T. (2021). The impact of the CEO's personal narcissism on non-GAAP earnings. The Accounting Review, 96(3), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.2308/tar-2017-0612
2.
AktasN.De BodtE.BollaertH.RollR. (2016). CEO narcissism and the takeover process: From private initiation to deal completion. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 51(1), 113–137. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022109016000065
3.
BacharachS. B. (1989). Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 496–515. https://doi.org/10.2307/258555
BascleG. (2008). Controlling for endogeneity with instrumental variables in strategic management research. Strategic Organization, 6(3), 285–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127008094339
6.
BerghD. D. (2001). Executive retention and acquisition outcomes: A test of opposing views on the influence of organizational tenure. Journal of Management, 27(5), 603–622. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630102700506
7.
BerghD. D.PowellR.ZhaoY. (2024). Another look at the managerial entrenchment hypothesis of acquisitions: A replication of Humphery-Jenner (2014). Journal of Management Scientific Reports, 2(1), 62–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/27550311231222555
8.
BermissS.GreenJ.HandJ. R. (2023). A reinvestigation of the stock price reactions to announcements of black top executive appointments. Journal of Management Scientific Reports, 1(3-4), 229–259. https://doi.org/10.1177/27550311231213341
9.
BettisR. A. (2012). The search for asterisks: Compromised statistical tests and flawed theories. Strategic Management Journal, 33(1), 108–113. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.975
10.
BettisR. A.HelfatC. E.ShaverJ. M. (2016). The necessity, logic, and forms of replication. Strategic Management Journal, 37(11), 2193–2203. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2580
BudescuD. V.AzenR. (2004). Beyond global measures of relative importance: Some insights from dominance analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 7(3), 341–350. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428104267049
13.
CampbellD. T.FiskeD. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046016
14.
CarpenterM. A.GeletkanyczM. A.SandersW. G. (2004). Upper echelons research revisited: Antecedents, elements, and consequences of top management team composition. Journal of Management, 30(6), 749–778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jm.2004.06.001
15.
CertoS. T.RaneyK.AlbaderL.BusenbarkJ. R. (2024). Out of shape: The implications of (extremely) nonnormal dependent variables. Organizational Research Methods, 27(2), 195–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/10944281231167839
16.
ChatterjeeA.HambrickD. C. (2007). It's all about me: Narcissistic chief executive officers and their effects on company strategy and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(3), 351–386. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.52.3.351
17.
ChatterjeeA.HambrickD. C. (2011). Executive personality, capability cues, and risk taking: How narcissistic CEOs react to their successes and stumbles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56(2), 202–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839211427534
18.
ChawlaN.GabrielA. S.RosenC. C.EvansJ. B.KoopmanJ.HochwarterW. A.PalmerJ. C.JordanS. L. (2021). A person-centered view of impression management, inauthenticity, and employee behavior. Personnel Psychology, 74(4), 657–691. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12437
19.
ChawlaN.MacGowanR. L.GabrielA. S.PodsakoffN. P. (2020). Unplugging or staying connected? Examining the nature, antecedents, and consequences of profiles of daily recovery experiences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(1), 19. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000423
ChinM. K.HambrickD. C.TreviñoL. K. (2013). Political ideologies of CEOs. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(2), 197–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839213486984
22.
ColbertA. E.BarrickM. R.BradleyB. H. (2014). Personality and leadership composition in top management teams: Implications for organizational effectiveness. Personnel Psychology, 67(2), 351–387. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12036
23.
CragunO. R.OlsenK. J.WrightP. M. (2020). Making CEO narcissism research great: A review and meta-analysis of CEO narcissism. Journal of Management, 46(6), 908–936. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206319892678
24.
CroninM. A.StoutenJ.Van KnippenbergD. (2021). The theory crisis in management research: Solving the right problem. Academy of Management Review, 46(4), 667–683. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2019.0294
CuypersI. R.MartinX. (2010). What makes and what does not make a real option? A study of equity shares in international joint ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(1), 47–69. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2009.17
DarouichiA.KunischS.MenzM.CannellaA. A.Jr (2021). CEO tenure: An integrative review and pathways for future research. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 29(6), 661–683. https://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12396
30.
DavidsonW. N.WorrellD. L.ChengL. (1990). Key executive succession and stockholder wealth: The influence of successorys origin, position, and age. Journal of Management, 16(3), 647–664. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639001600309
31.
DesJardineM. R.ShiW. (2020). CEO temporal focus and behavioral agency theory: Evidence from mergers and acquisitions. Academy of Management Journal, 64(1), 265–292. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2018.1470
32.
EthirajS. K.GambardellaA.HelfatC. E. (2016). Replication in strategic management. In (Vol. 37, pp. 2191-2192): Wiley Online Library.
33.
FengG.GiglioS.XiuD. (2020). Taming the factor zoo: A test of new factors. The Journal of Finance, 75(3), 1327–1370. https://doi.org/10.1111/jofi.12883
34.
FinkelsteinS.HambrickD. C. (1990). Top-management-team tenure and organizational outcomes: The moderating role of managerial discretion. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(3), 484–503. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393314
35.
FinkelsteinS.HambrickD. C.CannellaA. A. (2009). Strategic leadership: Theory and research on executives, top management teams, and boards. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. http://www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/fy0903/2008016591.html.
ForsythD. R. (2014). Group dynamics (6th edn). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
38.
FrakeJ.HagemannA.UribeJ. (2024). Collider bias in strategy and management research: An illustration using women CEO's effect on other women's career outcomes. Strategic Management Journal, 45(7), 1393–1419. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2581
39.
FunderD. C.OzerD. J. (2019). Evaluating effect size in psychological research: Sense and nonsense. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2(2), 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245919847202
40.
GamacheD. L.McNamaraG.MannorM. J.JohnsonR. E. (2015). Motivated to acquire? The impact of CEO regulatory focus on firm acquisitions. Academy of Management Journal, 58(4), 1261–1282. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0377
41.
GamacheD. L.NevilleF.BundyJ.ShortC. E. (2020). Serving differently: CEO regulatory focus and firm stakeholder strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 41(7), 1305–1335. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3134
42.
GerstnerW.-C.KönigA.EndersA.HambrickD. C. (2013). CEO narcissism, audience engagement, and organizational adoption of technological discontinuities. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(2), 257–291. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839213488773
43.
González-RomáV.HernándezA. (2017). Multilevel modeling: Research-based lessons for substantive researchers. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4(1), 183–210. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-041015-062407
44.
GoodingR. Z.WagnerJ. A.III (1985). A meta-analytic review of the relationship between size and performance: The productivity and efficiency of organizations and their subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30(4), 462–481. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392692
45.
GötzM.CarnesC. M.HillA. D.O’BoyleE. H. (2025). Multiverse analysis to advance theory and practice: Illustrating and investigating variability in CEO gender pay inequality. Academy of Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2024.0355
46.
GovindarajanV.KopalleP. K. (2006). Disruptiveness of innovations: Measurement and an assessment of reliability and validity. Strategic Management Journal, 27(2), 189–199. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.511
47.
GuptaA.FungA.MurphyC. (2020). Out of character: CEO political ideology, peer influence, and adoption of CSR executive position by fortune 500 firms. Strategic Management Journal, 42(3), 529–557. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3240
48.
GuptaA.MisangyiV. F. (2018). Follow the leader (or not): The influence of peer CEOs’ characteristics on interorganizational imitation. Strategic Management Journal, 39(5), 1437–1472. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2765
49.
GuptaA.NadkarniS.MariamM. (2019). Dispositional sources of managerial discretion: CEO ideology, CEO personality, and firm strategies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 64(4), 855–893. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839218793128
50.
HamC.SeybertN.WangS. (2018). Narcissism is a bad sign: CEO signature size, investment, and performance. Review of Accounting Studies, 23(1), 234–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-017-9427-x
51.
HambrickD. C. (2004). The disintegration of strategic management: It's time to consolidate our gains. Strategic Organization, 2(1), 91–98.
HambrickD. C.FinkelsteinS. (1987). Managerial discretion—A bridge between polar views of organizational outcomes. Research in Organizational Behavior, 9, 369–406.
54.
HambrickD. C.FinkelsteinS.MooneyA. C. (2005). Executive job demands: New insights for explaining strategic decisions and leader behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 30(3), 472–491. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2005.17293355
55.
HambrickD. C.FukutomiG. D. (1991). The seasons of a CEO's tenure. Academy of Management Review, 16(4), 719–742. https://doi.org/10.2307/258978
56.
HambrickD. C.MasonP. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193–206. https://doi.org/10.2307/258434
57.
HambrickD. C.MisangyiV. F.ParkC. A. (2015). The quad model for identifying a corporate director’s potential for effective monitoring: Toward a new theory of board sufficiency. Academy of Management Review, 40(3), 323–344. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2014.0066
58.
HambrickD. C.WowakA. J. (2021). Strategic leadership. In DuhaimeI. M.HittM. A.LylesM. A. (Eds.), Strategic Management: State of the Field and Its Future (pp. 337–353). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190090883.003.0019
59.
HamiltonB. H.NickersonJ. A. (2003). Correcting for endogeneity in strategic management research. Strategic Organization, 1(1), 51–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127003001001218
60.
HarrisonJ. S.BoivieS.HubbardT. D.PetrenkoO. V. (2024). Executive Personality Assessment With Large Language Models: Updating an Existing Tool and Advancing Similar Measures in Strategy and Management Research. In Delving Deep: Techniques We Wished We Had Known as Emerging Scholars (pp. 95-122). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/s1479-838720240000015006
61.
HarrisonJ. S.ThurgoodG. R.BoivieS.PfarrerM. D. (2019). Measuring CEO personality: Developing, validating, and testing a linguistic tool. Strategic Management Journal, 40(8), 1316–1330. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3023
62.
HarveyC. R.LiuY.ZhuH. (2016). … and the cross-section of expected returns. The Review of Financial Studies, 29(1), 5–68. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhv059
63.
HillA. D.JohnsonS. G.GrecoL. M.O’BoyleE. H.WalterS. L. (2021). Endogeneity: A review and agenda for the methodology-practice divide affecting micro and macro research. Journal of Management, 47(1), 105–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320960533
64.
HillerN. J.HambrickD. C. (2005). Conceptualizing executive hubris: The role of (hyper-) core self-evaluations in strategic decision-making. Strategic Management Journal, 26(4), 297–319. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.455
65.
HollenbeckJ. R.WrightP. M. (2017). Harking, sharking, and tharking: Making the case for post hoc analysis of scientific data. Journal of Management, 43(1), 5–18.
66.
HooblerJ. M.MastersonC. R.NkomoS. M.MichelE. J. (2018). The business case for women leaders: Meta-analysis, research critique, and path forward. Journal of Management, 44(6), 2473–2499. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316628643
67.
HowardM. D.WithersM. C.CarnesC. M.HillmanA. J. (2016). Friends or strangers? It all depends on context: A replication and extension of Beckman, Haunschild, and Phillips (2004). Strategic Management Journal, 37(11), 2222–2234. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2573
HunterJ. E.SchmidtF. L. (1991). Meta-analysis. In R. K. Hambleton & J. N. Zaal (Eds.), Advances in educational and psychological testing: Theory and applications. Evaluation in Education and Human Services Series (Vol. 28, pp. 157–183). Chestnut Hill, MA: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2195-5_6
70.
JeongS.-H.HarrisonD. A. (2017). Glass breaking, strategy making, and value creating: Meta-analytic outcomes of women as CEOs and TMT members. Academy of Management Journal, 60(4), 1219–1252. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0716
KetchenD. J.IrelandR. D.BakerL. T. (2012). The use of archival proxies in strategic management studies. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 32–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112459911
KöhlerT.LandisR. S.CortinaJ. M. (2017). From the editors: Establishing methodological rigor in quantitative management learning and education research: The role of design, statistical methods, and reporting standards. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 16(2), 173–192. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2017.0079
75.
KraimerM. L.MartinX.SchulzeW.SeibertS. E. (2023). What does it mean to test theory?Journal of Management Scientific Reports, 1(1), 8–17. https://doi.org./10.117/27550311231153484
76.
LeavittK.MitchellT. R.PetersonJ. (2010). Theory pruning: Strategies to reduce our dense theoretical landscape. Organizational Research Methods, 13(4), 644–667. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428109345156
77.
LeeP. M.JamesE. H. (2007). She'-e-os: Gender effects and investor reactions to the announcements of top executive appointments. Strategic Management Journal, 28(3), 227–241. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.575
78.
LiM. (2021). Uses and abuses of statistical control variables: Ruling out or creating alternative explanations?Journal of Business Research, 126, 472–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.12.037
79.
LittleR. J. (2004). To model or not to model? Competing modes of inference for finite population sampling. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 99(466), 546–556. https://doi.org/10.1198/016214504000000467
80.
LucianoM. M.NahrgangJ. D.ShropshireC. (2020). Strategic leadership systems: Viewing top management teams and boards of directors from a multiteam systems perspective. Academy of Management Review, 45(3), 675–701. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2017.0485
McCarthyP. J.SnowdenC. B. (1985). The bootstrap and finite population sampling.
83.
MillerB. K.KonopaskeR.ByrneZ. S. (2012). Dominance analysis of two measures of organizational justice. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 27(3), 264–282. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683941211205817
84.
MillerD. (1991). Stale in the saddle: CEO tenure and the match between organization and environment. Management Science, 37(1), 34–52. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.37.1.34
85.
MisangyiV. F.ElmsH.GreckhamerT.LepineJ. A. (2006). A new perspective on a fundamental debate: A multilevel approach to industry, corporate, and business unit effects. Strategic Management Journal, 27(6), 571–590. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.530
86.
MountM. P.BaerM. (2022). CEOs’ regulatory focus and risk-taking when firms perform below and above the bar. Journal of Management, 48(7), 1980–2008. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063211016029
87.
MurphyK. R.AguinisH. (2019). HARKing: How badly can cherry-picking and question trolling produce bias in published results?Journal of Business and Psychology, 34, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-017-9524-7
88.
NeelyB. H.JrLovelaceJ. B.CowenA. P.HillerN. J. (2020). Metacritiques of upper echelons theory: Verdicts and recommendations for future research. Journal of Management, 46(6), 1029–1062. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320908640
89.
NielsenS. (2010). Top management team diversity: A review of theories and methodologies. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(3), 301–316. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00263.x
90.
PetersonR. S.OwensP. D.TetlockP. E.FanE. T.MartoranaP. (1998). Group dynamics in top management teams: Groupthink, vigilance, and alternative models of organizational failure and success. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73(2-3), 272–305. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1998.2763
91.
PetrenkoO. V.AimeF.RidgeJ.HillA. (2016). Corporate social responsibility or CEO narcissism? CSR motivations and organizational performance. Strategic Management Journal, 37(2), 262–279. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2348
92.
PettyM. M.McGeeG. W.CavenderJ. W. (1984). A meta-analysis of the relationships between individual job satisfaction and individual performance. Academy of Management Review, 9(4), 712–721. https://doi.org/10.2307/258493
93.
PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. B.LeeJ.-Y.PodsakoffN. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
94.
PriemR. L.LyonD. W.DessG. G. (1999). Inherent limitations of demographic proxies in top management team heterogeneity research. Journal of Management, 25(6), 935–953. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639902500607
95.
RidgeJ. W.IngramA. (2017). Modesty in the top management team: Investor reaction and performance implications. Journal of Management, 43(4), 1283–1306. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314551796
96.
RomanoJ. P.ShaikhA. M.WolfM. (2008). Formalized data snooping based on generalized error rates. Econometric Theory, 24(2), 404–447. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266466608080171
97.
RoyallR. M.CumberlandW. G. (1978). Variance estimation in finite population sampling. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 73(362), 351–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1978.10481581
ShafferJ. A.DeGeestD.LiA. (2016). Tackling the problem of construct proliferation: A guide to assessing the discriminant validity of conceptually related constructs. Organizational Research Methods, 19(1), 80–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428115598239
100.
SharapovD.KattumanP.RodriguezD.VelazquezF. J. (2021). Using the SHAPLEY value approach to variance decomposition in strategy research: Diversification, internationalization, and corporate group effects on affiliate profitability. Strategic Management Journal, 42(3), 608–623. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3236
SimsekZ.VeigaJ. F.LubatkinM. H.DinoR. N. (2005). Modeling the multilevel determinants of top management team behavioral integration. Academy of Management Journal, 48(1), 69–84. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2005.15993139
103.
SpurkD.HirschiA.WangM.ValeroD.KauffeldS. (2020). Latent profile analysis: A review and “how to” guide of its application within vocational behavior research. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 120, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103445
104.
TangY.QianC.ChenG.ShenR. (2015). How CEO hubris affects corporate social (ir)responsibility. Strategic Management Journal, 36(9), 1338–1357. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2286
105.
TettR. P.BurnettD. D. (2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 500. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.500
106.
TettR. P.GutermanH. A. (2000). Situation trait relevance, trait expression, and cross-situational consistency: Testing a principle of trait activation. Journal of Research in Personality, 34(4), 397–423. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.2000.2292
107.
TsangE. W. (2022). That's interesting! A flawed article has influenced generations of management researchers. Journal of Management Inquiry, 31(2), 150–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/10564926211048708
108.
TsangE. W.KwanK.-M. (1999). Replication and theory development in organizational science: A critical realist perspective. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 759–780. https://doi.org/10.2307/259353
109.
van KnippenbergD.LeeD. (2023). Supervisor's organizational embodiment is leader group prototypicality: Addressing construct redundancy through replication. Journal of Management Scientific Reports, 1(1), 42–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/27550311231152901
110.
WangG.HolmesR. M.JrOhI. S.ZhuW. (2016). Do CEOs matter to firm strategic actions and firm performance? A meta-analytic investigation based on upper echelons theory. Personnel Psychology, 69(4), 775–862. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12140
111.
WhiteJ. V.BorgholthausC. J. (2022). Who’s in charge here? A bibliometric analysis of upper echelons research. Journal of Business Research, 139, 1012–1025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.10.028
112.
WowakA. J.BusenbarkJ. R. (2024). Why do some conservative CEOs publicly support liberal causes? Organizational ideology, managerial discretion, and CEO sociopolitical activism. Organization Science, 35(4), 1388–1408. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2022.17160
113.
WowakA. J.MannorM. J.ArrfeltM.McNamaraG. (2016). Earthquake or glacier? How CEO charisma manifests in firm strategy over time. Strategic Management Journal, 37(3), 586–603. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2346
114.
YammarinoF. J.DionneS. D.SchriesheimC. A.DansereauF. (2008). Authentic leadership and positive organizational behavior: A meso, multi-level perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(6), 693–707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.09.004
115.
ZhuD. H.ChenG. (2015). CEO narcissism and the impact of prior board experience on corporate strategy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 60(1), 31–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839214554989
