The Corporate Opportunity Structure for Shareholder Activism: How Activist Hedge Funds Exploit Board Demographic Diversity

References

• Acharya AG, Pollock TG (2021) Too many peas in a pod? How overlaps in directors’ local and global status characteristics influence board turnover in newly public firms. Acad. Management J. 64(5):1472–1496.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Activist Insight (2018) Frequently Asked Questions & Help Guide (Activist Insight, London).Google Scholar
• Aguilera RV, Desender K, Bednar MK, Lee JH (2015) Connecting the dots: Bringing external corporate governance into the corporate governance puzzle. Acad. Management Ann. 9(1):483–573.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ahn AM, Wiersema MF (2021) Activist hedge funds: Beware the new titans. Acad. Management Perspect. 35(1):96–122.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Amason AC (1996) Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Acad. Management J. 39(1):123–148.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Andrevski G, Richard OC, Shaw JD, Ferrier WJ (2014) Racial diversity and firm performance: The mediating role of competitive intensity. J. Management 40(3):820–844.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Appel IR, Gormley TA, Keim DB (2019) Standing on the shoulders of giants: The effect of passive investors on activism. Rev. Financial Stud. 32(7):2720–2774.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baron RA (2006) Opportunity recognition as pattern recognition: How entrepreneurs “Connect the dots” to identify new business opportunities. Acad. Management Perspect. 20(1):104–119.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baron RA, Ensley MD (2006) Opportunity recognition as the detection of meaningful patterns: Evidence from comparisons of novice and experienced entrepreneurs. Management Sci. 52(9):1331–1344.Link, Google Scholar
• Barrios JM, Bianchi PA, Isidro H, Nanda D (2022) Boards of a feather: Homophily in foreign director appointments around the world. J. Accounting Res. 60(4):1293–1335.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bartley T, Child C (2014) Shaming the corporation: The social production of targets and the anti-sweatshop movement. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 79(4):653–679.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bear S, Rahman N, Post C (2010) The impact of board diversity and gender composition on corporate social responsibility and firm reputation. J. Bus. Ethics 97(2):207–221.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bebchuk LA, Brav A, Jiang W, Keusch T (2020) Dancing with activists. J. Financial Econom. 137(1):1–41.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Benton RA (2017) The decline of social entrenchment: Social network cohesion and board responsiveness to shareholder activism. Organ. Sci. 28(2):262–282.Link, Google Scholar
• Bermeo N (1997) Myths of moderation: Confrontation and conflict during democratic transitions. Comparative Politics 29(3):305–322.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bernstein E, Bunch J, Canner N, Lee M (2016) Beyond the holacracy hype. Harvard Bus. Rev. 94(7):38–49.Google Scholar
• Blau PM (1977) Inequality and Heterogeneity: A Primitive Theory of Social Structure (Free Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Boyson NM, Mooradian RM (2011) Corporate governance and hedge fund activism. Rev. Derivatives Res. 14(2):169–204.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Boyson NM, Pichler P (2019) Hostile resistance to hedge fund activism. Rev. Financial Stud. 32(2):771–817.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Boyson NM, Gantchev N, Shivdasani A (2017) Activism mergers. J. Financial Econom. 126(1):54–73.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brav A, Jiang W, Kim H (2015) Recent advances in research on hedge fund activism: Value creation and identification. Annual Rev. Financial Econom. 7(1):579–595.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brav A, Jiang W, Partnoy F, Thomas R (2008) Hedge fund activism, corporate governance, and firm performance. J. Finance 63(4):1729–1775.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Briscoe F, Chin MK, Hambrick DC (2014) CEO ideology as an element of the corporate opportunity structure for social activists. Acad. Management J. 57(6):1786–1809.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bromiley P (1991) Testing a causal model of corporate risk taking and performance. Acad. Management J. 34(1):37–59.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brown JE, Dunn PK (2011) Comparisons of tobit, linear, and poisson-gamma regression models: An application of time use data. Sociol. Methods Res. 40(3):511–535.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bushee BJ (1998) The influence of institutional investors on myopic R&D investment behavior. Accounting Rev. 73(3):305–333.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bushee BJ (2001) Do institutional investors prefer near-term earnings over long-run value? Contemporary Accounting Res. 18(2):207–246.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Canals J (2022) Boards of directors and corporate strategy: Some reflections on Pankaj Ghemawat’s contributions. Strategy Sci. 7(2):143–147.Link, Google Scholar
• Castañón Moats M, DeNicola P, Malone L (2021) The Director’s Guide to Shareholder Activism (Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Chatman JA, Flynn FJ (2001) The influence of demographic heterogeneity on the emergence and consequences of cooperative norms in work teams. Acad. Management J. 44(5):956–974.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chen W-R (2008) Determinants of firms’ backward- and forward-looking R&D search behavior. Organ. Sci. 19(4):609–622.Link, Google Scholar
• Chen S, Feldman ER (2018) Activist-impelled divestitures and shareholder value. Strategic Management J. 39(10):2726–2744.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cheng CSA, Huang HH, Li Y (2015) Hedge fund intervention and accounting conservatism. Contemporary Accounting Res. 32(1):392–421.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Clifford CP (2008) Value creation or destruction? Hedge funds as shareholder activists. J. Corporate Finance 14(4):323–336.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Coles JL, Daniel ND, Naveen L (2014) Co-opted boards. Rev. Financial Stud. 27(6):1751–1796.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Connelly BL, Shi W, Hoskisson RE, Koka BR (2019) Shareholder influence on joint venture exploration. J. Management 45(8):3178–3203.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Creary S, McDonnell M-H, Ghai S, Scruggs J (2019) When and why diversity improves your board’s performance. Harvard Bus. Rev. (March 27), https://hbr.org/2019/03/when-and-why-diversity-improves-your-boards-performance.Google Scholar
• Croson R, Gneezy U (2009) Gender differences in preferences. J. Econom. Literature 47(2):448–474.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dahlin KB, Weingart LR, Hinds PJ (2005) Team diversity and information use. Acad. Management J. 48(6):1107–1123.Crossref, Google Scholar
• de Figueiredo RJP Jr, Feldman ER, Rawley E (2019) The costs of refocusing: Evidence from hedge fund closures during the financial crisis. Strategic Management J. 40(8):1268–1290.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Denes MR, Karpoff JM, McWilliams VB (2017) Thirty years of shareholder activism: A survey of empirical research. J. Corporate Finance 44:405–424.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Deng X, Kang J-k, Low BS (2013) Corporate social responsibility and stakeholder value maximization: Evidence from mergers. J. Financial Econom. 110(1):87–109.Crossref, Google Scholar
• DesJardine MR, Bansal P (2021) Engine No. 1’s big win over Exxon shows activist hedge funds joining fight against climate change. The Conversation (May 26), https://theconversation.com/engine-no-1s-big-win-over-exxon-shows-activist-hedge-funds-joining-fight-against-climate-change-159983.Google Scholar
• DesJardine MR, Durand R (2020) Disentangling the effects of hedge fund activism on firm financial and social performance. Strategic Management J. 41(6):1054–1082.Crossref, Google Scholar
• DesJardine MR, Shi W (2022) The downside of displaying agentic values: Evidence from shareholder activism. Organ. Sci., ePub ahead of print November 2, https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2022.1637.Link, Google Scholar
• DesJardine MR, Grewal J, Viswanathan K (2022a) A rising tide lifts all boats: The effects of common ownership on corporate social responsibility. Organ. Sci., ePub ahead of print October 21, https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2022.1620.Link, Google Scholar
• DesJardine MR, Marti E, Durand R (2021a) Why activist hedge funds target socially responsible firms: The reaction costs of signaling corporate social responsibility. Acad. Management J. 64(3):851–872.Crossref, Google Scholar
• DesJardine MR, Shi W, Sun Z (2021b) Different horizons: The effects of hedge fund activism vs. corporate shareholder activism on strategic actions. J. Management 48(7):1858–1887.Google Scholar
• DesJardine MR, Zhang M, Shi W (2022b) How shareholders impact stakeholder interests: A review and map for future research. J. Management 49(1):400–429.Google Scholar
• Dinesen PT, Schaeffer M, Sønderskov KM (2020) Ethnic diversity and social trust: A narrative and meta-analytical review. Annual Rev. Polital Sci. 23(1):441–465.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Emmerich AO, Norwitz TS, Savitt W (2021) The SEC Should Address the Risk of Activist “Lightning Strikes” (Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Ertimur Y, Ferri F, Muslu V (2011) Shareholder activism and CEO pay. Rev. Financial Stud. 24(2):535–592.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Estélyi KS, Nisar TM (2016) Diverse boards: Why do firms get foreign nationals on their boards? J. Corporate Finance 39:174–192.Crossref, Google Scholar
• EY (2021) What Boards Need to Know About Shareholder Activism (EY, London).Google Scholar
• Fama EF, Jensen MC (1983) Separation of ownership and control. J. Law Econom. 26(2):301–325.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ferris SP, Jagannathan M, Pritchard AC (2003) Too busy to mind the business? Monitoring by directors with multiple board appointments. J. Finance 58(3):1087–1111.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fich EM, Shivdasani A (2006) Are busy boards effective monitors? J. Finance 61(2):689–724.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Field L, Lowry M, Mkrtchyan A (2013) Are busy boards detrimental? J. Financial Econom. 109(1):63–82.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Finkelstein S (1992) Power in top management teams: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Acad. Management J. 35(3):505–538.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fiske ST, Neuberg SL (1990) A continuum of impression formation, from category-based to individuating processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. Zanna MP, ed. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Academic Press, Cambridge, MA), 1–74.Google Scholar
• Fos V (2017) The disciplinary effects of proxy contests. Management Sci. 63(3):655–671.Link, Google Scholar
• Freedman A, Fein M, Robertson I (2019) Fall of the Ivory Tower: Controlled Companies and Shareholder Activism (Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Frisch B (2008) When teams can’t decide. Harvard Bus. Rev. 86(11):121–126.Google Scholar
• Fuhrmans V (2018) How to get more women in the boardroom? Some try blunt force. Wall Street Journal (April 25), https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-to-get-more-women-in-the-boardroom-some-try-blunt-force-1524648602.Google Scholar
• Gantchev N, Gredil OR, Jotikasthira C (2019) Governance under the gun: Spillover effects of hedge fund activism. Rev. Finance 23(6):1031–1068.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gibson CB (1997) Do you hear what I hear? A framework for reconciling intercultural communication difficulties arising from cognitive styles and cultural values. Erez M, Earley PC, eds. New Perspectives on International Industrial/Organizational Psychology (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco), 335–362.Google Scholar
• Gibson CB, Zellmer-Bruhn ME (2001) Metaphors and meaning: An intercultural analysis of the concept of teamwork. Admin. Sci. Quart. 46(2):274–303.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Glass C, Cook A (2020) Pathways to the glass cliff: A risk tax for women and minority leaders? Soc. Problems 67(4):637–653.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Goodman PS, Ravlin E, Schminke M (1987) Understanding groups in organizations. Cummings LL, Staw BM, eds. Leadership, Participation, and Group Behavior (JAI Press, Greenwich, CT), 323–385.Google Scholar
• Goodstein J, Gautam K, Boeker W (1994) The effects of board size and diversity on strategic change. Strategic Management J. 15(3):241–250.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Goranova M, Ryan LV (2014) Shareholder activism: A multidisciplinary review. J. Management 40(5):1230–1268.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Greenwood R, Schor M (2009) Investor activism and takeovers. J. Financial Econom. 92(3):362–375.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grégoire DA, Barr PS, Shepherd DA (2010) Cognitive processes of opportunity recognition: The role of structural alignment. Organ. Sci. 21(2):413–431.Link, Google Scholar
• Gupta VK, Han S, Mortal SC, Silveri S, Turban DB (2018) Do women CEOs face greater threat of shareholder activism compared with male CEOs? A role congruity perspective. J. Appl. Psych. 103(2):228–236.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harrison DA, Klein KJ (2007) What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Acad. Management Rev. 32(4):1199–1228.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harrison DA, Sin H (2006) What is diversity and how should it be measured. Konrad AM, Prasad P, Pringle J, eds. Handbook of Workplace Diversity (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA), 191–216.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harrison DA, Price KH, Bell MP (1998) Beyond relational demography: Time and the effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Acad. Management J. 41(1):96–107.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harrison DA, Price KH, Gavin JH, Florey AT (2002) Time, teams, and task performance: Changing effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on group functioning. Acad. Management J. 45(5):1029–1045.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heckman JJ (1979) Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica 47(1):153–161.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heckman JJ, Robb R (1985) Alternative methods for evaluating the impact of interventions: An overview. J. Econometrics 30(1):239–267.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hewstone M, Hantzi A, Johnston L (1991) Social categorization and person memory: The pervasiveness of race as an organizing principle. Eur. J. Soc. Psych. 21(6):517–528.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hirsch L (2021) The business case for boardroom diversity. New York Times (January 23), https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/23/business/dealbook/diversity-board-directors.html.Google Scholar
• Hoetker G (2007) The use of logit and probit models in strategic management research: Critical issues. Strategic Management J. 28(4):331–343.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hofstede G (1984) Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA).Google Scholar
• Hogg MA, Terry DJ (2000) Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Acad. Management Rev. 25(1):121–140.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Horwitz SK, Horwitz IB (2007) The effects of team diversity on team outcomes: A meta-analytic review of team demography. J. Management 33(6):987–1015.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hoskisson RE, Hitt MA, Johnson RA, Moesel DD (1993) Construct validity of an objective (entropy) categorical measure of diversification strategy. Strategic Management J. 14(3):215–235.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Huang S, Hilary G (2018) Zombie board: Board tenure and firm performance. J. Accounting Res. 56(4):1285–1329.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Insightia (2023) Shareholder Activism in 2022: The Definitive Statistical Analysis of Shareholder Activism with Data Compiled, Analyzed, and Published by Insightia (Insightia, New York).Google Scholar
• Judge WQ, Miller A (1991) Antecedents and outcomes of decision speed in different environmental contexts. Acad. Management J. 34(2):449–463.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jung H, Lee YG, Park SH (2023) Just diverse among themselves: How does negative performance feedback affect boards’ expertise vs. ascriptive diversity? Organ. Sci. 34(2):657–679.Link, Google Scholar
• Katz DA, McIntosh LA (2020) Corporate Governance Update: Raising the Stakes for Board Diversity (Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• King B (2008) A social movement perspective of stakeholder collective action and influence. Bus. Soc. 47(1):21–49.Crossref, Google Scholar
• King BG, Soule SA (2007) Social movements as extra-institutional entrepreneurs: The effect of protests on stock price returns. Admin. Sci. Quart. 52(3):413–442.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Klein A, Zur E (2009) Entrepreneurial shareholder activism: Hedge funds and other private investors. J. Finance 64(1):187–229.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Klein A, Zur E (2011) The impact of hedge fund activism on the target firm’s existing bondholders. Rev. Financial Stud. 24(5):1735–1771.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Krause R, Semadeni M, Cannella AA (2014) CEO duality: A review and research agenda. J. Management 40(1):256–286.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Latham & Watkins (2015) Anticipating Activism: Implications for Your 2016 Annual Meeting of Stockholders (Latham & Watkins, Los Angeles).Google Scholar
• Lenox MJ, Eesley CE (2009) Private environmental activism and the selection and response of firm targets. J. Econom. 18(1):45–73.Google Scholar
• Lipton M (2019) Dealing with Activist Hedge Funds and Other Activist Investors (Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Loyd DL, Wang CS, Phillips KW, Robert B, Lount J (2013) Social category diversity promotes premeeting elaboration: The role of relationship focus. Organ. Sci. 24(3):757–772.Link, Google Scholar
• Loyens & Loeff (2021) Statutory Cooling-Off Period Will Enter into Force on May 1, 2021 (Loyens & Loeff, Amsterdam).Google Scholar
• Marquis C, Battilana J (2009) Acting globally but thinking locally? The enduring influence of local communities on organizations. Res. Organ. Behav. 29:283–302.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McAdam D (1996) Conceptual origins, current problems, future direction. McAdam D, McCarthy JD, Zald MN, eds. Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK), 23–40.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McDonnell M-H, King BG, Soule SA (2015) A dynamic process model of private politics: Activist targeting and corporate receptivity to social challenges. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 80(3):654–678.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Messick DM, Mackie DM (1989) Intergroup relations. Annual Rev. Psych. 40(1):45–81.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Miller T, Triana MDC (2009) Demographic diversity in the boardroom: Mediators of the board diversity–firm performance relationship. J. Management Stud. 46(5):755–786.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mize TD (2019) Best practices for estimating, interpreting, and presenting nonlinear interaction effects. Sociol. Sci. 6:81–117.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Perrault E (2015) Why does board gender diversity matter and how do we get there? The role of shareholder activism in deinstitutionalizing old boys’ networks. J. Bus. Ethics 128(1):149–165.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Petersen MA (2009) Estimating standard errors in finance panel data sets: Comparing approaches. Rev. Financial Stud. 22(1):435–480.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Post C, Byron K (2015) Women on boards and firm financial performance: A meta-analysis. Acad. Management J. 58(5):1546–1571.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pugh SD, Dietz J, Brief AP, Wiley JW (2008) Looking inside and out: The impact of employee and community demographic composition on organizational diversity climate. J. Appl. Psych. 93(6):1422–1428.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rupasingha A, Goetz SJ, Freshwater D (2006) The production of social capital in US counties. J. Socio-Economics 35(1):83–101.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shane S, Venkataraman S (2000) The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Acad. Management Rev. 25(1):217–226.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shi W, Hoskisson RE (2021) Understanding and Managing Strategic Governance (Wiley, Hoboken, NJ)Google Scholar
• Shi W, Connelly BL, Hoskisson RE (2017) External corporate governance and financial fraud: Cognitive evaluation theory insights on agency theory prescriptions. Strategic Management J. 38(6):1268–1286.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shi W, Wajda D, Aguilera RV (2022) Interorganizational spillover: A review and a proposal for future research. J. Management 48(1):185–210.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shi W, Connelly BL, Hoskisson RE, David J, Ketchen J (2020) Portfolio spillover of institutional investor activism: An awareness–motivation–capability perspective. Acad. Management J. 63(6):1865–1892.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stangor C, Lynch L, Duan C, Glas B (1992) Categorization of individuals on the basis of multiple social features. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 62(2):207–218.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Starboard Value (2018) Capitalize for Kids (Starboard Value, New York).Google Scholar
• Stock JH, Yogo M (2005) Testing for weak instruments in linear IV regression. Andrews DWK, Stock JH, eds. Identification and Inference for Econometric Models: A Festschrift in Honor of Thomas Rothenberg (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK), 80–108.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tarrow S (2022) Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics, 4th ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Triana MDC, Miller TL, Trzebiatowski TM (2014) The double-edged nature of board gender diversity: Diversity, firm performance, and the power of women directors as predictors of strategic change. Organ. Sci. 25(2):609–632.Link, Google Scholar
• Tsui AS, Egan TD, O’Reilly CA (1992) Being different: Relational demography and organizational attachment. Admin. Sci. Quart. 37(4):549–579.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tyler BB, Caner T (2016) New product introductions below aspirations, slack and R&D alliances: A behavioral perspective. Strategic Management J. 37(5):896–910.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Vandor P, Franke N (2016) See Paris and … found a business? The impact of cross-cultural experience on opportunity recognition capabilities. J. Bus. Venturing 31(4):388–407.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wang CS, Whitson JA, King BG, Ramirez RL (2021) Social movements, collective identity, and workplace allies: The labeling of gender equity policy changes. Organ. Sci., ePub ahead of print October 21, https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2021.1492.Link, Google Scholar
• Watson WE, Kumar K, Michaelsen LK (1993) Cultural diversity’s impact on interaction process and performance: Comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups. Acad. Management J. 36(3):590–602.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Westphal JD (1999) Collaboration in the boardroom: Behavioral and performance consequences of CEO-board social ties. Acad. Management J. 42(1):7–24.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wiersema M, Ahn A, Zhang Y (2020) Activist hedge fund success: The role of reputation. Strategic Management J. 41(13):2493–2517.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wiesenfeld BM, Wurthmann KA, Hambrick DC (2008) The stigmatization and devaluation of elites associated with corporate failures: A process model. Acad. Management Rev. 33(1):231–251.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Woolcock M (2001) The place of social capital in understanding social and economic outcomes. Canadian J. Public Policy 2:11–17.Google Scholar
• Wooldridge JM (2010) Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Young MN, Peng MW, Ahlstrom D, Bruton GD, Jiang Y (2008) Corporate governance in emerging economies: A review of the principal–principal perspective. J. Management Stud. 45(1):196–220.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zellmer-Bruhn ME, Maloney MM, Bhappu AD, Salvador R (2008) When and how do differences matter? An exploration of perceived similarity in teams. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 107(1):41–59.Crossref, Google Scholar