Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Knowledge Combination Capability and Innovation: The Effects of Gender Diversity on Top Management Teams in Technology-Based Firms

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Ethical debate exists on the effect of gender diversity of the top management teams (TMTs) on organizations. This study aims to contribute to this debate by analyzing the effects of gender diversity of TMTs on the relationship between knowledge combination capability and organizations’ innovative performance. We use a sample of 205 small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) belonging to the sector of Spanish technology-based firms (TBFs). Our results indicate that gender diversity positively moderates the relationship between knowledge combination capability and innovation performance. Implications for theory and practice are discussed—among them, ways to contribute to more equal gender distribution and to the benefits of gender diversity in top management positions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This database is similar to the Amadeus database.

  2. Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) is a telephone survey technique in which the interviewer follows a text provided by a software application. The software can customize the flow of the questionnaire based on the answers provided, as well as information already collected about the interviewee.

References

  • Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexiev, A. S., Jansen, J. P., Van den Bosch, A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2010). Top management team advice seeking and exploratory innovation: The moderating role of TMT heterogeneity. Journal of Management Studies, 47, 1343–1364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ali, M., Lu Y., & Kulik, C. (2013). Board age and gender diversity: A test of competing linear and curvilinear predictions. Journal of Business Ethics, doi:10.1007/s10551-014-2343-0.

  • Balkin, D., & Swift, M. (2006). Top management team compensation in high-growth technology ventures. Human Resource Management Review, 16, 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bantel, K. A., & Jackson, S. E. (1989). Top management and innovations in banking: Does the composition of the top team make a difference? Strategic Management Journal, 10, 107–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R., & Kenny, D. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. (2003). Process management and technological innovation: A longitudinal study of the photography and paint industries. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 676–706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cabrera, A., & Cabrera, E. (2002). Knowledge-sharing dilemmas. Organization Studies, 23, 687–710.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camelo-Ordaz, O. C., García-Cruz, C. J., Sousa-Ginel, G. E., & Valle-Cabrera, C. R. (2011). The influence of human resource management on knowledge sharing and innovation in Spain: The mediating role of affective commitment. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22, 1442–1463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camisón, C., & Forés, B. (2010). Knowledge absorptive capacity: New insights for its conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Business Research, 63, 707–715.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carmeli, A., & Azeroual, B. (2009). How relational capital and knowledge combination capability enhance the performance of work units in a high technology. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 3, 85–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, M., Geletkanycz, M., & Sanders, W. (2004). Upper echelons research revisited: Antecedents, elements and consequences of top management team composition. Journal of Management, 30, 749–778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective in learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 178–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, C., & Smith, K. (2006). Knowledge exchange and combination: The role of human resource practices in the performance of high technology firms. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 544–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 555–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, J. F. (2013). Moderation in management research: What, why, when and how. Journal of Business and Psychology, 7, 1–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, J. F., & Richter, A. W. (2006). Probing three-way interactions in moderated multiple regression: Development and application of a slope difference test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 917–926.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deshpande, R., Farley, J. U., & Websterjr, F. E. (1993). Corporate culture, customer orientation and innovativeness in Japanese firms: A quadrad analysis. Journal of Marketing, 57, 23–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dezso, C. L., & Gaddis, R. D. (2012). Does female representation in top management improve firm performance? A panel data investigation. Strategic Management Journal, 33, 1072–1089.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Díaz-García, C., González-Moreno, A., & Sáez-Martínez, F. (2013). Gender diversity within R&D teams: Its impact on radicalness of innovation. Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice, 15, 149–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutton, J. E., & Jackson, S. E. (1987). Categorizing strategic issues: Links to organizational action. Academy of Management Review, 12, 76–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H. (2005). Achieving relational authenticity in leadership: Does gender matter? Leadership Quarterly, 16, 459–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ensley, M. D., Pearson, A., & Pearce, C. L. (2003). Top management team process, shared leadership, and new venture performance: A theoretical model and research agenda. Human Resource Management Review, 13, 329–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Escribá-Esteve, A., Sánchez-Peinado, L., & Sánchez-Peinado, E. (2009). The influence of top management teams in the strategic orientation and performance of small and medium-sized enterprises. British Journal of Management, 20, 581–597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finkelstein, S., & Hambrick, D. C. (1996). Strategic Leadership. Minneapolis/St Paul, MN: West Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 109–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, P. G., Hart, M. M., Gatewood, E. J., Brush, C. G., & Carter, N. M. (2003). Women entrepreneurs: Moving front and center an overview of research and theory. Coleman White Paper Series, 3, 1–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greve, H. (2003). A behavioral theory of R&D expenditures and innovations: Evidence from shipbuilding. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 685–702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (2004). Análisis Multivariante (4th ed.). Madrid: Pearson Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick, D. C. (2007). Upper echelons theory an update. Academy of Management Review, 32, 334–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9, 193–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harjoto, M., Laksmana, I., & Lee, R. (2014). Board diversity and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics. DOI 10.1007/s10551-014-2343-0.

  • Harrison, D., & Klein, K. (2007). What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32, 1199–1228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, R., & Cockburn, I. (1994). Measuring competence? Exploring firm effects in pharmaceutical research. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 63–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrera, L., & Sánchez-González, G. (2012). Firm size and innovation policy. International Small Business Journal, 31, 137–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoaglin, D. C., & Iglewicz, B. (1987). Fine tuning some resistant rules for outlier labeling. Journal of American Statistical Association, 82, 1147–1149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homan, A. C., Hollenbeck, J. R., Humphrey, S. E., Van Knippenberg, D., Ilgen, D. R., & Van Kleef, G. A. (2008). Facing differences with an open mind: Openness to experience, salience of intragroup differences, and performance of diverse work groups. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 1204–1222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoobler, J., Lemmon, G., & Wayne, S. (2011). Women’s underrepresentation in upper management: New insights on a persistent problem. Organizational Dynamics, 40, 151–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huse, M. (2007). Boards, governance and value creation: The human side of corporate governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Joecks, J., Pull, K., & Vetter, K. (2013). Gender diversity in the boardroom and firm performance: What exactly constitutes a “critical mass?”. Journal of Business Ethics, 118, 61–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, P. (1976). Women and power: Toward a theory of effectiveness. Journal of Social Issues, 32, 99–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katila, R. (2002). New product search over time: Past ideas in their prime? Academy of Management Journal, 45, 995–1010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katila, R., & Ahuja, G. (2002). Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1183–1194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kearney, E., Gebert, D., & Voelpel, S. C. (2009). When and how diversity benefits teams: The importance of team members need for cognition. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 581–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight, D., Pearce, C., Smith, K., Olian, J., Sims, H., Smith, K., & Flood, P. (1999). Top management team diversity, group process, and strategic consensus. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 445–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combination capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3, 383–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kor, Y. Y. (2006). Direct and interaction affects of top management team and board compositions on R&D investment strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 27, 1081–1099.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • KPMG (2000). Knowledge Management Research Report. KPMG Consulting Reports.

  • Krishnan, H. A., & Park, D. (2005). A few good women-on top management teams. Journal of Business Research, 58, 1712–1720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, N., Scheer, L., & Kotler, P. (2000). From market-driven to market-driving. European Management Journal, 18, 129–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubatkin, M. H., Ling, Y., & Veiga, J. (2006). Ambidexterity and performance in small- to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. Journal of Management, 32, 646–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Makri, M., & Terri, A. (2010). Exploring the effects of creative CEO leadership on innovation in high-technology firms. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 75–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manolova, T. S., Carter, N. M., Manev, I. M., & Gyoshev, B. S. (2007). The differential effect of men and women entrepreneurs: Human capital and networking on growth expectancies in Bulgaria. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31, 407–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, T., & Triana, M. C. (2009). Demographic diversity in the boardroom: Mediators of the board diversity-firm performance relationship. Journal of Management Studies, 46, 755–786.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, S., & Huse, M. (2010). Women directors’ contribution to board decision-making and strategic involvement: The role of equality perception. European Management Review, 7, 16–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oakley, J. (2000). Gender-based barriers to senior management positions: Understanding the scarcity of female CEOs. Journal of Business Ethics, 27, 321–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oli, R. M., Justin, J. J. P., Jansen, F. A., Van Den, B., & Henk, W. V. (2012). Offshoring and firm innovation: The moderating role of top management team attributes. Strategic Management Journal, 33, 1480–1498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Østergaard, C., Timmermans, B., & Kristinsson, K. (2011). Does a different view create something new? The effect of employee diversity on innovation. Research Policy, 40, 500–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patzelt, H., Knyphausen-Aufseß, D., & Nikol, P. (2008). Top management teams, business models, and performance of biotechnology ventures: An upper echelon perspective. British Journal of Management, 19, 205–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, C. A., & Philpot, J. (2007). Women’s roles on U.S. Fortune 500 boards: Director expertise and committee memberships. Journal of Business Ethics, 72, 177–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioural research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 8, 879–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Post, C., Rahman, N., & McQuillen, C. (2014). From board composition to corporate environmental performance through sustainability-themed alliances. Journal of Business Ethics, doi: 10.1007/s10551-014-2231-7.

  • Prajogo, D. I., & Ahmed, P. K. (2006). Relationships between innovation stimulus, innovation capacity and innovation performance. R&D Management, 36, 499–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhee, J., Taekyung, P., & Do Hyung, L. (2010). Drivers of innovativeness and performance for innovative SMEs in South Korea: Mediation of learning orientation. Technovation, 30, 65–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosener, J. B. (1995). America’s competitive secret: Utilizing women as a management strategy. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruigrok, W., Peck, S., & Tacheva, S. (2007). Nationality and gender diversity on Swiss corporate boards. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15, 546–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandberg, K. W. (2003). An exploratory study of women in micro enterprises: Gender-related differences. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 10, 408–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sen, S., & Cowley, J. (2013). The relevance of stakeholder theory and social capital theory in the context of CSR in SMEs: An Australian perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 118, 413–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shu, C., Page, A. L., Gao, S., & Jiang, X. (2012). Managerial ties and firm innovation: Is knowledge creation a missing link? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29, 125–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simard, C., Henderson, A. D., Gilmartin, S. K., Shiebinger, L., & Whitney, T. (2008). Climbing the technical ladder: Obstacles and solutions for mid-level women in technology. Anita Borg Institute for Women and Technology.

  • 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, 662–674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K., Collins, C., & Clark, K. (2005). Existing knowledge, knowledge creation capability and the rate of new product introduction in high technology firms. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 346–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, N., Smith, V., & Verner, M. (2006). Do women in top management affect firm performance? A panel study of 2,500 Danish firms’. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 55, 569–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Subramanian, A., & Nilakanta, S. (1996). Organizational innovativeness: Exploring the relationship between organizational determinants of innovation, types of innovations and measures of organizational performance. Omega, 24, 631–647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Talke, K., Salomo, S., & Rost, K. (2010). How top management team diversity affects innovativeness and performance via the strategic choice to focus on innovation fields. Research Policy, 39, 907–918.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, A., & Greve, H. (2006). Superman or the fantastic four? Knowledge combination and experience in innovative teams. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 723–740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tolstoy, D. (2009). Knowledge combination and knowledge creation in a foreign-market network. Journal of Small Business Management, 47, 202–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torchia, M., Calabrò, A., & Huse, M. (2011). Women directors on corporate boards: From tokenism to critical mass. Journal of Business Ethics, 102, 299–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Vegt, G., & Janssen, O. (2003). Joint impact of interdependence and group diversity on innovation. Journal of Management, 29, 729–751.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodman, R., Sawyer, J., & Griffin, R. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18, 293–321.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27, 185–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S., & Stanton, W. (1988). The implications of board of directors, composition for corporate strategy and performance. International Journal of Management, 5, 261–272.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Business Administration, School of Economics and Management, University of Granada in Spain, Campus de Cartuja, s/n, 18071, Granada, Spain

    Jenny María Ruiz-Jiménez, María del Mar Fuentes-Fuentes & Matilde Ruiz-Arroyo

Authors
  1. Jenny María Ruiz-Jiménez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. María del Mar Fuentes-Fuentes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Matilde Ruiz-Arroyo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jenny María Ruiz-Jiménez.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ruiz-Jiménez, J.M., Fuentes-Fuentes, M.d.M. & Ruiz-Arroyo, M. Knowledge Combination Capability and Innovation: The Effects of Gender Diversity on Top Management Teams in Technology-Based Firms. J Bus Ethics 135, 503–515 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2462-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2462-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation