pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.21328 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-23 · 💻 cs.MA · physics.soc-ph

Role of diversity in team performance: the case of missing expertise, an agent based simulation

Tam\'as Kiss This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 13:29 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.MA physics.soc-ph
keywords agent-based simulationfunctional diversityteam performancemanagement teamsintrapersonal diversitydominant function diversityaggregate expertisemissing expertise
0
0 comments X

The pith

Agent-based simulations show that functional diversity in teams can improve or impair performance depending on communication rules and aggregate expertise.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper builds an agent-based model of management teams to examine how different aspects of functional diversity affect communication and performance when some expertise is missing. It tests intrapersonal functional diversity, which looks at the spread of skills within each person, and dominant function diversity, which measures the variety of main roles across the team. Results indicate these diversity types can raise or lower outcomes based on how agents interact and the team's overall composition. The simulations also reveal that a measure of total team expertise must be included alongside the diversity metrics to match patterns seen in real data. This modeling approach lets researchers probe effects of capability distributions that are hard to isolate in traditional studies.

Core claim

Using an agent-based model of teams with varying functional capabilities, the simulations demonstrate that intrapersonal functional diversity (IFD) and dominant function diversity (DFD) can either enhance or reduce team performance and communication, with the direction of the effect depending on the communication scheme among agents and their functional composition. The results further indicate that these two diversity measures are insufficient on their own, and a third measure capturing the aggregate expertise of the team is required to comprehensively account for empirical findings on team outcomes.

What carries the argument

Agent-based simulation of interacting agents representing managers, parameterized by intrapersonal functional diversity (IFD), dominant function diversity (DFD), and aggregate expertise, run under different communication schemes and functional compositions to track performance and communication metrics.

If this is right

  • Diversity effects on team performance are not fixed but reverse sign depending on the communication scheme used by agents.
  • Teams missing certain expertise need an aggregate expertise measure in addition to diversity metrics to predict outcomes accurately.
  • Functional composition of the team modulates how IFD and DFD influence communication patterns.
  • Agent-based models can reveal impacts of hidden skill distributions that empirical studies often overlook due to data limitations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Management practices could adjust diversity profiles to fit the expected interaction patterns within a team.
  • Future data collection on real teams might routinely include aggregate expertise to test the simulation predictions.
  • The modeling approach could be extended to examine how missing expertise interacts with time pressure or decision deadlines.

Load-bearing premise

The chosen rules for how agents interact, share information, and apply their expertise accurately reflect the dynamics and results of real management teams.

What would settle it

Empirical measurement of IFD, DFD, and aggregate expertise in actual management teams, followed by comparison of their observed performance and communication levels against the simulation outputs for the same context parameters.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.21328 by Tam\'as Kiss.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Representation of tasks (A) and agents (B) in the model. rkj denotes the amount of work needed to complete component j of task k and is drawn from a uniform random distribution. pij denotes strength of skill j of agent i. NF is the number of functional components, NT and NA are the number of tasks and agents, respectively. C: Approaches to generate groups of agents using different individual functional div… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Model Dynamics. The steps shown in the figure are iterated view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Communication Schemes. Communication in this ABM is represented by task passing. view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: System behavior of teams of independently working specialists and generalists. view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Simulation results of teams of communicating specialists and generalists. Figure panels are set up as in Figure view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Simulation results of a system of generalists and specialists repeatedly seeking the best collaborator. view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Simulation of generalists and specialists without communication constraints between agents. The first view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Simulation results of a team of diverse agents. Skills of agents are distributed according to a Gaussian view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Performance as a function of communication density. When agents repeatedly seek to find the best collaborator view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Simulation results of a team of agents seeking the best solver only when they cannot proceed with solving view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Teams of agents exemplifying missing expertise. Two teams of agents with identical diversity measures view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Simulation results for a team of agents that do not fully cover the range of required expertise. Performance view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Difference of skill coverage for teams of equal IFD and DFD. Skill diversity indices were calculated for view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Theory and empirical research on management teams' influence on firm performance have witnessed continuous development, and by now incorporate numerous details. Classic, experiment-based studies examining social systems collect vast amount of data, but often times investigate only the first one or two modes of the distribution of measured variables, and experience difficulty in analyzing the effect of context. For example, in functional diversity research, management teams are described by measures incorporating complex distributions of capabilities of individual managers and teams of managers. To investigate the effect of hidden distributions, and the effect of functional diversity composition on team communication and performance, we developed an agent-based model, and conducted a series of simulation experiments. Modeling results show that depending on the context, such as communication scheme among interacting agents, or their functional composition, intrapersonal functional diversity (IFD), and dominant function diversity (DFD) might enhance or reduce performance and communication among agents. Furthermore, simulation results also suggest that a third measure is required alongside IFD and DFD capturing the aggregate expertise of the team to comprehensively account for empirical findings.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops an agent-based simulation model of management teams to examine the effects of intrapersonal functional diversity (IFD) and dominant function diversity (DFD) on team communication and performance, with a focus on scenarios involving missing expertise. Through experiments that vary communication schemes among agents and team functional compositions, the authors report that IFD and DFD can either enhance or reduce performance and communication depending on context. They further conclude that a third measure capturing aggregate team expertise is needed alongside IFD and DFD to account for empirical patterns.

Significance. If the model rules prove robust, the work would usefully demonstrate the context-sensitivity of diversity effects and the potential inadequacy of two-metric approaches, encouraging more nuanced empirical designs that account for hidden capability distributions. The agent-based framework is well-suited to this exploration. However, the absence of calibration or sensitivity checks means the reported patterns remain internal to the chosen parameterization rather than explanatory of observed team outcomes.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3 and §4] §3 (Model Description) and §4 (Simulation Experiments): The agent interaction rules, expertise application logic, communication protocols, and performance metrics are defined without any calibration or validation against empirical data on real management-team behaviors. This is load-bearing for the central claim, as the reported context-dependent enhancement/reduction effects of IFD and DFD (and the call for a third aggregate-expertise metric) could be artifacts of the untested free parameters for communication and skill distributions.
  2. [§4] §4 (Results): No sensitivity analysis, robustness checks, or alternative parameterizations are reported. Without demonstrating that the qualitative patterns survive plausible changes to communication schemes or skill distributions, the claim that IFD/DFD effects depend on context cannot be distinguished from model-specific behavior.
  3. [Abstract and §4] Abstract and §4: Performance and communication outcomes are asserted to support the necessity of a third metric, yet the manuscript provides no details on how these metrics are quantified, the number of simulation runs, or any statistical analysis. This prevents verification that the simulation results reliably match or extend empirical findings.
minor comments (2)
  1. [§3] The notation and precise formulas for IFD and DFD should be stated explicitly in the methods section rather than relying on descriptive text, to allow replication.
  2. [§4] Figure legends and axis labels in the results plots could be clarified to indicate exactly which diversity measures and communication conditions are being compared.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments, which highlight important aspects of model transparency and robustness. We respond to each major comment below and indicate planned revisions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3 and §4] §3 (Model Description) and §4 (Simulation Experiments): The agent interaction rules, expertise application logic, communication protocols, and performance metrics are defined without any calibration or validation against empirical data on real management-team behaviors. This is load-bearing for the central claim, as the reported context-dependent enhancement/reduction effects of IFD and DFD (and the call for a third aggregate-expertise metric) could be artifacts of the untested free parameters for communication and skill distributions.

    Authors: The simulation is intentionally exploratory, aimed at revealing possible mechanisms by which IFD and DFD interact with missing expertise under different communication schemes, rather than at reproducing specific empirical datasets. Parameter values draw from theoretical constructs in the management literature on functional diversity and team processes. In revision we will add to §3 an explicit justification subsection that cites relevant empirical ranges for communication frequency and expertise distributions, and we will add a limitations paragraph noting the absence of direct calibration while clarifying that the results illustrate context sensitivity within the modeled space. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [§4] §4 (Results): No sensitivity analysis, robustness checks, or alternative parameterizations are reported. Without demonstrating that the qualitative patterns survive plausible changes to communication schemes or skill distributions, the claim that IFD/DFD effects depend on context cannot be distinguished from model-specific behavior.

    Authors: We agree that robustness checks are necessary to support the context-dependency claim. In the revised manuscript we will include new simulation runs that systematically vary communication probability, team size, and the shape of the expertise distribution. We will report whether the qualitative patterns (enhancement or reduction of performance and communication by IFD and DFD) persist or change, thereby distinguishing model-specific artifacts from more general behaviors. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Abstract and §4] Abstract and §4: Performance and communication outcomes are asserted to support the necessity of a third metric, yet the manuscript provides no details on how these metrics are quantified, the number of simulation runs, or any statistical analysis. This prevents verification that the simulation results reliably match or extend empirical findings.

    Authors: We will revise both the abstract and §4 to specify the exact formulas used for the performance and communication metrics, state the number of independent replications per condition, and add summary statistics (means, standard deviations, and simple significance tests across conditions). These additions will make the quantitative support for the third-metric recommendation fully transparent and reproducible. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity in simulation outputs or definitions

full rationale

The paper presents an agent-based simulation study that defines agent rules for expertise, communication, and performance computation, then varies inputs (IFD, DFD, communication schemes, functional composition) across experiments to observe resulting team outcomes. No derivations, equations, or first-principles results are claimed; all reported effects are direct model outputs rather than predictions that reduce to the inputs by construction. The abstract and description contain no self-citations, no fitted parameters renamed as predictions, and no uniqueness theorems. The model is self-contained: diversity measures are independent experimental factors, and performance metrics are computed from the stated interaction rules without circular redefinition. This is a standard simulation exploration with no load-bearing circular steps.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract provides no specific parameters or axioms; relies on standard ABM assumptions in social science.

free parameters (1)
  • Communication and skill distribution parameters
    Not specified in abstract but required for ABM experiments.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Agent-based rules can model team communication and performance
    Basis for linking sim results to empirical findings.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 11139 in / 1004 out tokens · 130649 ms · 2026-05-08T13:29:31.367756+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    doi:10.5465/amr.1984.4277628

    ISSN 0363-7425. doi:10.5465/amr.1984.4277628. URLhttps://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1984.4277628. Publisher: Academy of Management. Karen A. Jehn, Gregory B. Northcraft, and Margaret A. Neale. Why Differences Make a Difference: A Field Study of Diversity, Conflict and Performance in Workgroups.Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4):741–763, December

    work page doi:10.5465/amr.1984.4277628 1984

  2. [2]

    doi:10.2307/2667054

    ISSN 0001-8392. doi:10.2307/2667054. URL https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2307/ 2667054. Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc. Daan van Knippenberg, Carsten K. W. De Dreu, and Astrid C. Homan. Work Group Diversity and Group Performance: An Integrative Model and Research Agenda.Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6):1008–1022, December

    work page doi:10.2307/2667054

  3. [3]

    doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.1008

    ISSN 1939-1854, 0021-9010. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.1008. URL http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi= 10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.1008. Mohammed Aboramadan. Top management teams characteristics and firms performance: literature review and avenues for future research.International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 29(3):603–628, May

    work page doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.1008 1939

  4. [4]

    doi:10.1108/IJOA-02-2020-2046

    ISSN 1934-8835, 1934-8835. doi:10.1108/IJOA-02-2020-2046. URL https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10. 1108/IJOA-02-2020-2046/full/html. Katherine Y Williams and Charles A O’Reilly III. Demography and Diversity in Organizations: A Review of 40 Years of Research.Research in organizational behavior, 20:77–140, January

    work page doi:10.1108/ijoa-02-2020-2046 1934

  5. [5]

    URL http://www.jstor.org/stable/20159538

    ISSN 00014273. URL http://www.jstor.org/stable/20159538. Publisher: Academy of Management. Ken G. Smith, Ken A. Smith, Judy D. Olian, Henry P. Sims, Douglas P. O’Bannon, and Judith A. Scully. Top Management Team Demography and Process: The Role of Social Integration and Communication.Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(3):412, September

    work page arXiv

  6. [6]

    doi:10.2307/2393297

    ISSN 00018392. doi:10.2307/2393297. URL https://www.jstor. org/stable/2393297?origin=crossref. Donna Marie De Carolis, Barrie E. Litzky, and Kimberly A. Eddleston. Why Networks Enhance the Progress of New Venture Creation: The Influence of Social Capital and Cognition.Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(2): 17 Role of Diversity in Team PerformanceA P...

    work page doi:10.2307/2393297

  7. [7]

    doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00302.x

    ISSN 1042-2587. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00302.x. URL https://doi.org/10. 1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00302.x. Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc. Susan E Jackson. The Consequences of Diversity in Multidisciplinary Work Teams. InHandbook of work group psychology, page

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00302.x 2009

  8. [8]

    doi:10.1177/1059601113493925

    ISSN 1059-6011, 1552-3993. doi:10.1177/1059601113493925. URL http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1059601113493925. Lulu Zhou, Haiyan Huang, Xiaolin Chen, and Feng Tian. Functional diversity of top management teams and firm performance in SMEs: a social network perspective.Review of Managerial Science, 17:259–286, January

    work page doi:10.1177/1059601113493925

  9. [9]

    doi:10.1007/s11846-022-00524-w

    ISSN 1863-6683, 1863-6691. doi:10.1007/s11846-022-00524-w. URL https://link.springer.com/10.1007/ s11846-022-00524-w. Lu Hong and Scott E. Page. Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem solvers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(46):16385–16389, November

    work page doi:10.1007/s11846-022-00524-w

  10. [10]

    Jean-Pierre Eckmann and David Ruelle

    ISSN 0027-8424, 1091-6490. doi:10.1073/pnas.0403723101. URLhttps://pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.0403723101. Wan-Jing Chang. Differential effects of knowledge diversity on team innovation: An agent-based model- ing. In2012 International Conference on Innovation Management and Technology Research, pages 179– 182, Malacca, Malaysia, May

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.0403723101

  11. [11]

    ISBN 978-1-4673-0654-6 978-1-4673-0655-3 978-1-4673-0653-9

    IEEE. ISBN 978-1-4673-0654-6 978-1-4673-0655-3 978-1-4673-0653-9. doi:10.1109/ICIMTR.2012.6236384. URLhttp://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6236384/. Farnaz Motamediyan Dehkordi, Anthony Thompson, and Tobias Larsson. Impacts of project-overload on innovation inside organizations: agent-based modeling.International Journal of Social, Behavioral, Educational,...

    work page doi:10.1109/icimtr.2012.6236384 2012

  12. [12]

    ISBN 978-0-7918- 5705-2

    American Society of Mechanical Engineers. ISBN 978-0-7918- 5705-2. doi:10.1115/DETC2015-47778. URL https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/IDETC-CIE/ proceedings/IDETC-CIE2015/57052/Boston,%20Massachusetts,%20USA/256959. João Ventura Fernandes, Elsa Henriques, Arlindo Silva, and César Pimentel. Modelling the dynamics of complex early design processes: an a...

    work page doi:10.1115/detc2015-47778

  13. [13]

    doi:10.1017/dsj.2017.17

    ISSN 2053-4701. doi:10.1017/dsj.2017.17. URL https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/ S2053470117000178/type/journal_article. S. Taylor.Agent-based Modeling and Simulation. OR Essentials. Palgrave Macmillan UK,

    work page doi:10.1017/dsj.2017.17 2053

  14. [14]

    doi:10.1007/BF00127273

    ISSN 1381-298X, 1572-9346. doi:10.1007/BF00127273. URLhttp://link.springer.com/10.1007/BF00127273. Jose A Rojas-Villafane.An Agent-based Model of Team Coordination and Performance. Doctoral Dissertation, Florida International University, May

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00127273

  15. [15]

    doi:10.1016/0004-3702(94)00020-2

    ISSN 00043702. doi:10.1016/0004-3702(94)00020-2. URL https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/0004370294000202. M. Tambe. Towards Flexible Teamwork.Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 7:83–124, September

    work page doi:10.1016/0004-3702(94)00020-2

  16. [16]

    doi:10.1613/jair.433

    ISSN 1076-9757. doi:10.1613/jair.433. URLhttps://jair.org/index.php/jair/article/view/10193. John Yen, Jianwen Yin, Thomas R Ioerger, Michael S Miller, Dianxiang Xu, and Richard A V olz. CAST: Collaborative agents for simulating teamwork. InInternational Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 17, pages 1135–1144. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates LTD,

    work page doi:10.1613/jair.433

  17. [17]

    Agent-based simulation framework to support management of teams performing development activities

    Marija Majda Periši´c, Tomislav Martinec, Mario Štorga, Tadej Kanduˇc, et al. Agent-based simulation framework to support management of teams performing development activities. InDS 84: Proceedings of the DESIGN 2016 14th International Design Conference, volume Sociotechnical Issues In Design ofDesign, pages 1925–1936, Dubrovnik, Hrvatska,

    2016

  18. [18]

    Agent-based modeling: Methods and techniques for simulating human systems

    ISSN 0027-8424, 1091-6490. doi:10.1073/pnas.082080899. URLhttps://pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.082080899. Xiaocong Fan and John Yen. Modeling and simulating human teamwork behaviors using intelligent agents.Physics of Life Reviews, 1(3):173–201, December

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.082080899

  19. [19]

    doi:10.1016/j.plrev.2004.10.001

    ISSN 1571-0645. doi:10.1016/j.plrev.2004.10.001. URL http: //www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=10844262719&partnerID=8YFLogxK. Stella M. Nkomo, Myrtle P. Bell, Laura Morgan Roberts, Aparna Joshi, and Sherry M. B. Thatcher. Diversity at a Critical Juncture: New Theories for a Complex Phenomenon.Academy of Management Review, 44(3):498–517, July

    work page doi:10.1016/j.plrev.2004.10.001 2004

  20. [20]

    doi:10.5465/amr.2019.0103

    ISSN 0363-7425, 1930-3807. doi:10.5465/amr.2019.0103. URL http://journals.aom.org/doi/10. 5465/amr.2019.0103. J. P. Walsh. Selectivity and selective perception: An investigation of managers’ belief structure and information processing.Academy of Management Journal, 31(4):873–896, December

    work page doi:10.5465/amr.2019.0103 1930

  21. [21]

    doi:10.2307/256343

    ISSN 0001-4273, 1948-0989. doi:10.2307/256343. URLhttp://amj.aom.org/cgi/doi/10.2307/256343. Albert O. Hirschman. The Paternity of an Index.The American Economic Review, 54(5):761,

    work page doi:10.2307/256343 1948

  22. [22]

    Warren Boeker and Robert Wiltbank

    URL http: //www.jstor.org/stable/1818582. Warren Boeker and Robert Wiltbank. New Venture Evolution and Managerial Capabilities.Organization Science, 16 (2):123–133, April

    work page arXiv

  23. [23]

    doi:10.1287/orsc.1050.0115

    ISSN 1047-7039, 1526-5455. doi:10.1287/orsc.1050.0115. URL https://pubsonline. informs.org/doi/10.1287/orsc.1050.0115. Changlong Ma, Yuhui Ge, and Jingwei Wang. Top Management Team Intrapersonal Functional Diversity and Adaptive Firm Performance: The Moderating Roles of the CEO–TMT Power Gap and Severity of Threat.Frontiers in Psychology, 12:772739, December

    work page doi:10.1287/orsc.1050.0115

  24. [24]

    doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.772739

    ISSN 1664-1078. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.772739. URL https: //www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.772739/full. Frances J. Milliken and Luis L. Martins. Searching for Common Threads: Understanding the Multiple Effects of Diversity in Organizational Groups.The Academy of Management Review, 21(2):402–433,

    work page doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.772739 2021

  25. [25]

    doi:10.2307/258667

    ISSN 03637425. doi:10.2307/258667. URLhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/258667. Publisher: Academy of Management. Anne Smith, Susan M. Houghton, Jacqueline N. Hood, and Joel A. Ryman. Power relationships among top managers: Does top management team power distribution matter for organizational performance?Journal of Business Research, 59(5):622–629, May

    work page doi:10.2307/258667

  26. [26]

    doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2005.10.012

    ISSN 01482963. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2005.10.012. URL https://linkinghub. elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0148296305001670. Pier Vittorio Mannucci and Kevyn Yong. The Differential Impact of Knowledge Depth and Knowledge Breadth on Creativity over Individual Careers.Academy of Management Journal, 61(5):1741–1763, October

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2005.10.012 2005

  27. [27]

    doi:10.5465/amj.2016.0529

    ISSN 0001- 4273, 1948-0989. doi:10.5465/amj.2016.0529. URL http://journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/amj.2016

    work page doi:10.5465/amj.2016.0529 1948

  28. [28]

    doi:10.1037/a0013773

    ISSN 1939-1854, 0021-9010. doi:10.1037/a0013773. URL http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/a0013773. Yazhen Xiao, Haisu Zhang, and Timothy M. Basadur. Does information sharing always improve team decision making? An examination of the hidden profile condition in new product development.Journal of Business Research, 69(2):587–595, February

    work page doi:10.1037/a0013773 1939

  29. [29]

    doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.05.014

    ISSN 01482963. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.05.014. URL https: //linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0148296315002258. Karen A. Bantel and Susan E. Jackson. Top management and innovations in banking: Does the composition of the top team make a difference?Strategic Management Journal, 10(S1):107–124,

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.05.014 2015

  30. [30]

    doi:10.1002/smj.4250100709

    ISSN 01432095, 10970266. doi:10.1002/smj.4250100709. URLhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/smj.4250100709. Don Knight, Craig L. Pearce, Ken G. Smith, Judy D. Olian, Henry P. Sims, Ken A. Smith, and Patrick Flood. Top management team diversity, group process, and strategic consensus.Strategic Management Journal, 20 (5):445–465, May

    work page doi:10.1002/smj.4250100709

  31. [31]

    doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199905)20:5<445::AID- SMJ27>3.0.CO;2-V

    ISSN 0143-2095, 1097-0266. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199905)20:5<445::AID- SMJ27>3.0.CO;2-V. URL https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199905) 20:5<445::AID-SMJ27>3.0.CO;2-V. Donald C. Hambrick, Theresa Seung Cho, and Ming-Jer Chen. The Influence of Top Management Team Heterogeneity on Firms’ Competitive Moves.Administrative Scienc...

    work page doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0266(199905)20:5 2095

  32. [32]

    doi:10.2307/2393871

    ISSN 00018392. doi:10.2307/2393871. URLhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/2393871?origin=crossref. Alan I. Murray. Top Management Group Heterogeneity and Firm Performance.Strategic Management Journal, 10: 125–141,

    work page doi:10.2307/2393871

  33. [33]

    19 Role of Diversity in Team PerformanceA PREPRINT Charles A

    URLhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2486586. 19 Role of Diversity in Team PerformanceA PREPRINT Charles A. O’Reilly III, David F. Caldwell, and William P. Barnett. Work Group Demography, Social Integration, and Turnover.Administrative Science Quarterly, 34(1):21, March

    work page arXiv

  34. [34]

    doi:10.2307/2392984

    ISSN 00018392. doi:10.2307/2392984. URL https://www.jstor.org/stable/2392984?origin=crossref. Greg L. Stewart. A Meta-Analytic Review of Relationships Between Team Design Features and Team Performance. Journal of Management, 32(1):29–55, February

    work page doi:10.2307/2392984

  35. [35]

    doi:10.1177/0149206305277792

    ISSN 0149-2063, 1557-1211. doi:10.1177/0149206305277792. URLhttp://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0149206305277792. 20

    work page doi:10.1177/0149206305277792 2063