You are not currently logged in.
Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Managerial Succession and Organizational Performance: A Recalcitrant Problem Revisited
Michael Patrick Allen, Sharon K. Panian and Roy E. Lotz
Administrative Science Quarterly
Vol. 24, No. 2 (Jun., 1979), pp. 167-180
Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. on behalf of the Johnson Graduate School of Management, Cornell University
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2392492
Page Count: 14
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
This study employs a multivariate analysis of time series data on all major league baseball teams between 1920 and 1973 to assess the relative adequacy of three alternative theories concerning managerial succession and organizational performance. A path model of the relationships among past team performance, the frequency of managerial succession, the rate of personnel turnover, and current team performance indicates that the frequency of succession is negatively related to team performance. However, the frequency of succession explains only a very small proportion of the variance in team performance. An analysis of covariance employed to assess the effects of the type of succession on current team performance, while controlling for past team performance, indicates that managerial succession between seasons is associated with an improvement in team performance and that outside succession is associated with a deterioration in team performance. Although there are significant differences in the effects of different types of managerial succession on team performance, the type of succession explains only a small proportion of the variance in team performance.
Administrative Science Quarterly © 1979 Johnson Graduate School of Management, Cornell University