Abstract
Purpose
This paper aims to study the formation and preservation of behavioral integration (BI) in the top management team (TMT) of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from 1844 to the present.
Design/methodology/approach
An analytically structured history approach within a case exemplar framework is adopted. Theoretical insights are extrapolated from the case study to form a process model of BI formation and preservation in TMTs.
Findings
The findings reveal that three factors primarily influence BI creation (induction, education and cementation) and that BI is preserved via an iterative process that is driven by CEO conservatorship, intentional mentoring and social modeling.
Originality/value
This study investigates an unexplored area in upper echelons theory: the process by which BI is formed and preserved in TMTs and presents a process model of BI formation and preservation that shifts attention in the literature from analyses of the effect of BI on various organizational outcomes to how it can be formed in the first place and then preserved.
Keywords
Citation
Mendenhall, M.E., Butler, F.C., Roundy, P.T. and Ehat, A.F. (2023), "The formation and preservation of behavioral integration in the top management team of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", Journal of Management History, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 369-398. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMH-05-2022-0013
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2022, Emerald Publishing Limited
Introduction
Behavioral integration (BI) is the degree to which a top management team (TMT) “engages in mutual and collective interaction” (Hambrick, 1994: 188; Simsek et al., 2005). The importance of BI to TMT performance has made it the focus of a vibrant body of research since its inclusion in upper echelons theory over 20 years ago (Hambrick, 2007; Du et al., 2022). To date, studies have primarily focused on the relationship between existing (i.e. already-established) levels of BI and chief executive officer (CEO) characteristics, TMT demographics and various processes that impact firm performance (Kisfalvi et al., 2016), but the literature is bereft of research that investigates the early- and ongoing dynamics of BI in TMTs. Specifically, the BI literature leaves unexplained the question of how high levels of BI are formed in TMTs and then historically preserved as a TMT’s “dominant orientation” (Liu et al., 2021, p. 16). In short, while research explains how BI relates to firm performance, it does not adequately explain how BI is created and sustained.
To learn more about the dynamics of these processes, we analyze BI formation and preservation using the analytically structured history approach (Rowlinson et al., 2014) and a case exemplar: the TMT of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (hereafter “the Church”), a global, religious organization with just over 16.5 million members (Newsroom, 2022). The Church’s current TMT oversees organizational assets and companies in the agriculture, hospitality, insurance, media, publishing, real estate and securities industries that employ over 10,000 full-time employees (Forbes, 2007; Winter, 2012). In addition to Church members’ tithes and offerings, revenues from the companies are used to support the Church’s global operations that include but are not limited to the operation of four universities, the management of over 54,000 full-time missionaries, global humanitarian relief efforts, worldwide building construction and maintenance for 30,940 congregations and genealogical research and support at 5,198 Family History Centers in 145 countries (Newsroom, 2022).
We study the Church as a case exemplar (Ozcan et al., 2017; Siggelkow, 2007) because from its origins in the 1820 s to the present, the Church’s TMT has maintained adherence to collaborative processes that produced and sustained BI in its strategic leadership and decision-making. In our analysis, we found that BI was created in the Church’s TMTs via the adoption of a shared collaborative leadership framework based on induction, education and cementation processes. And, once established, BI was preserved as a dominant orientation in the team through an iterative process mediated by CEO conservatorship, intentional mentoring and social modeling. This recursive process resulted in BI enduring in the Church’s TMT across decades despite inevitable turnover and the admittance of new members into the TMT with diverse backgrounds, expertise and talents.
We contribute to the BI literature in several ways. First, we shed light on additional variables that are at play in the dynamics of the BI formation and preservation process in TMTs. In contrast to existing research, which primarily focuses on the characteristics of CEOs or the demography of TMT members, we unearth variables such as induction and social modeling that have been studied in other domains in management, suggesting a need for cross-disciplinary fertilization in the future study of BI processes. Second, we contribute to the upper echelons literature by studying BI preservation as a dominant TMT orientation (Simsek et al., 2018, p. 303) and find “processual patterns” (Liu et al., 2021, p. 16) of preservation over time. Based on those findings, we develop a process model of BI formation and preservation. And third, our study answers consistent calls in the literature for the increased study of organizational processes in religious institutions (Chan-Serafin et al., 2013; Tracey, 2012; Tracey, 2016).
Literature review
Behavioral integration in upper echelons theory
The efficacy of top management team (TMT) processes is critical to firm performance (Samimi et al., 2020). Prior research has emphasized TMT composition, TMT processes and moderators of the TMT–organizational outcomes relationship (Kisfalvi et al., 2016). However, Hambrick noted that “many TMTs seemed to have few ‘team’ properties” because members are often “unable or disinclined to engage in the internal exchange, collaboration and mutual adjustments required to formulate and execute organizational action” (1994, p. 188). Thus, the use of the “team” metaphor may be misguided. To address the “teamness” of top management groups, Hambrick (1994, 1995) refined upper echelons theory by adding to it the construct of BI: the degree to which a TMT is integrative in its social and task-related processes (Simsek et al., 2005). He argued that when TMT members engage in collaborative behavior, intra-team communication and shared decision making of BI, firm performance is enhanced. Conversely, when TMTs are populated with leaders who enact their roles independently, shy away from exchanging information and discount shared decision making, they operate as “semiautonomous ‘barons,’ each engaging in bilateral relations with the CEO but [having] little to do with each other,” and firm performance suffers (Hambrick, 2007: 336). Empirical research on BI has steadily progressed since its inception, but is not vast, which is unsurprising given it is a nascent sub-field in the broader upper echelons literature (Bromiley and Rau, 2016; Kisfalvi et al., 2016). To date, scholars have studied BI in TMTs from a variety of perspectives and their research can be categorized into one of three domains, which we review next: 1) performance outcomes; 2) CEO characteristics; and 3) TMT-related variables.
The relationship between BI and performance outcomes. BI has consistently been found to have positive effects on various types of performance in firms (Araujo-Cabrera et al., 2017; Carmeli, 2008; Carmeli et al., 2011; Hambrick, 1998; Li and Hambrick, 2005; Li and Zhang, 2002; Lubatkin et al., 2006; On et al., 2013; Simsek et al., 2005; Tran, 2013), such as new product innovation performance (Liu et al., 2015) and productive organizational energy – which in turn influences the job satisfaction and turnover intention of employees (Raes et al., 2013). BI also positively influences strategic decision-making (Friedman et al., 2016; Gu et al., 2012; Hambrick, 1998; Mooney, 2000; Shepherd et al., 2020), organizational ambidexterity (Carmeli and Halevi, 2009; Halevi et al., 2015; Heavey and Simsek, 2017; Jansen et al., 2008; Ji et al., 2015; Lubatkin et al., 2006; Tran, 2013; Venugopal et al., 2020) and plays a mediating role between aggregated transformational leadership in TMTs and subsequent organizational ambidexterity (Ji et al., 2015). BI is also significantly related to top manager ambidexterity (Li et al., 2015; Luo et al., 2018).
The relationship between BI and CEO characteristics. CEO personality traits and value orientations influence BI (Peterson et al., 2003). For example, extraversion and openness to experience positively influence BI in TMTs (Araujo-Cabrera et al., 2017). CEOs with collectivistic value orientations have higher levels of BI in their TMTs than those who are more prone to individualism (Simsek et al., 2005). Also, CEO humility predicts TMT integration directly (Ou et al., 2018) and relates positively to empowering leadership behaviors that foster BI in TMTs, which then creates perceptions among middle managers of an empowering work climate (Ou et al., 2014). There is also initial evidence that grandiose narcissism in CEOs is positively related to BI when CEOs identify with their organizations, but under conditions of weak identification there is a negative relationship between CEO grandiose narcissism and BI (Reina et al., 2014). There is some evidence that a transformational leadership style in CEOs positively affects BI (Friedman et al., 2016; Li et al., 2015; Ling et al., 2008). Gu et al. (2012) found that both transformational and transactional leadership are positively related to BI, with transformational leadership having a stronger comparative effect. And CEO empowering leadership, a construct similar to transformational leadership, has been found to be positively related to BI (Carmeli et al., 2011).
The relationship between TMT-related variables and BI. Few studies have explored the relationship between TMT characteristics, TMT processes and BI (Buyl et al., 2011; Simons et al., 1999). Simsek et al. (2005), for instance, found that educational and goal preference diversity were negatively associated with BI, TMT size was marginally (negatively) associated with BI and tenure and functional diversity had no association with BI. Studies have also found that BI can positively influence TMT-level characteristics, such as team potency, affective conflict reduction and intragroup trust (Camelo-Ordaz et al., 2014; Carmeli et al., 2011; Gully et al., 2002; Edmondson et al., 2003; Mooney et al., 2007; Mooney and Sonnenfeld, 2001; On et al., 2013). In an exploratory study of TMT member interactions during decision-making, Kisfalvi et al. (2016, p. 443) identified microdynamics that influenced BI and argued that BI “manifested itself not so much as a state but a process.”
Key omissions in the BI literature. The lack of attention to how BI is formed and preserved creates theoretical, empirical and practical problems. First, as reviewed, scholars have focused on identifying connections between BI and CEO characteristics, TMT demographics and various processes that impact firm performance (Simsek et al., 2005; Lin and Rababah, 2014; Reina et al., 2014; Carmeli and Halevi, 2009). Although the conceptual arguments supporting these studies provide some insight into the functioning of a TMT’s extant BI, they do not represent a clearly specified theory about BI formation or preservation, which is problematic because the temporal dynamics of BI and the mechanisms facilitating BI creation and maintenance remain unidentified. Compounding this issue, studies use distal proxies of key variables and often refer to latent processes that are not directly examined (a common meta-criticism of upper echelons research; cf. Neely et al., 2020). For example, to investigate the connection between leadership and BI in TMTs, scholars often rely on leadership theories (e.g. transformational leadership) operationalized using measures of leader behaviors (Ou et al., 2014; Ou et al., 2018; Carmeli et al., 2011; Ling et al., 2008). These studies provide initial evidence that leadership styles are associated with a TMT’s existing BI, but their static and episodic designs do not provide adequate theoretical explanations of how BI is formed and maintained in iterative interactions as an ongoing process over long time horizons. The dominant empirical design of BI studies – non-longitudinal, survey research – has also contributed to these problems. Most studies measure BI as a snapshot, at a single point in time, and after BI has been established. As a result, BI is implicitly treated as a state, rather than a longitudinal dynamic process (Liu et al., 2021), leaving the specific mechanisms that influence BI emergence and preservation unexplored.
The problems in the literature suggest that much of the terrain of BI remains to be mapped. There have been specific calls for process-based studies (Menz, 2012; Talaulicar, 2017) to longitudinally study BI as members enter and exit TMTs in an ongoing context of organizational and environmental flux (Hambrick, 2007; Kisfalvi et al., 2016; Simsek et al., 2005). Hambrick (2007, p. 337) termed the undertaking of this type of research as metaphorically “opening the black box” of TMT processes and that doing so “is not just a matter of scholarly curiosity; it is essential for […] exploring the actual information-processing behaviors of managers, [to] improve both our theories and our practical insights.”
To address the identified opportunities in the BI literature, we study the underlying processes of BI formation and maintenance in TMTs within an exemplar organization with a rich history of preserving BI in its TMT. In doing so, we examine two questions:
How is BI initially created and solidified? And, once established,
How is BI preserved?
Methods
Examining behavioral integration using a case exemplar
Whenever theoretical and empirical knowledge of a phenomenon is limited, the use of context-rich data to develop theoretical models is appropriate and can drive a field’s progress (Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007; Siggelkow, 2007; Yin, 2014). Siggelkow (2007) argues that “it is often desirable to choose a particular organization [a case exemplar] precisely because it is very special in the sense of allowing one to gain certain insights that other organizations would not be able to provide” (p. 20). The use of case exemplars allows for the examination of “a phenomenon at a fine-grained level of detail that cannot be achieved through multiple cases or other methods such as large sample statistical studies” (Ozcan et al., 2017, p. 93) and focuses on “questions examining how and why things emerge, develop, grow, or terminate over time” (Langley et al., 2013, p. 1). The case exemplar approach is also particularly appropriate when there is a large amount of archival and historical material available, which allows researchers to gain an immersive understanding of the processes involved in a phenomenon (Rojas, 2010). Studies that have used this methodology include Weick’s (1993) analysis of the Mann Gulch fire, the study on the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey by Dutton and Dukerich (1991), Siggelkow’s analyses of Liz Claiborne and Vanguard (Siggelkow, 2001, 2002) and the study of Polaroid by Tripsas and Gavetti (2000). Religious organizations have also been studied as case exemplars revealing insights into such processes as radical organizational change (Plowman et al., 2007), the internalization of institutional logics (Tracey, 2016) and organizational loyalty under conditions of betrayal (Gutierrez et al., 2010).
As we will explain in the descriptions of our research setting, methodology and findings, the Church’s TMT, as a source of insights into processes associated with BI formation and preservation, meets the above criteria. The organization has exhibited strong social and task-related collaborative leadership behavior associated with BI in its original TMT formed in 1844 and has proactively maintained this orientation to the present. Next, we provide context to the founding and core organizational framework of the Church, describe our methodological strategy for analyzing its TMT across time and delineate our data collection and analysis.
Research setting: evolution of processes preceding behavioral integration formation in the church’s top management team
The origins of the organizational structure of American Protestant denominations in the 19th century lay in the philosophical revolt against English church establishment and the disavowal of Catholic priesthood authority by the early colonists of British North America (Flake, 2016). In the early 1800s, based upon these anti-authoritarian and radical populism principles, Protestant denominations in the USA were commonly organized into single congregations where the congregants held decision-making authority over their ministers. Each congregation was only loosely associated with wider denominational associations (Flake, 2016). Within this context, the religious fervor of the Second Great Awakening (1800–1840) in the USA burgeoned the membership of Protestant churches, but it also produced a variety of new ideas that in turn produced new religious denominations (Cummins, 2018).
One such new religious organization was led by Joseph Smith (Bushman, 2005). Smith did not attempt to eradicate the populist impulses of his followers but rather sought to integrate populism with authoritative hierarchy in the organizational design of the Church. He operated as president of the Church and organized a top-down priesthood hierarchy, but to balance the inevitable tension between hierarchy and populism, he created organizational leadership structures called “councils” (as we explain in our findings, today, they would be referred to as “teams”) to ensure that leadership and decision making was both inclusive and bounded within a hierarchy of authority. In the Church, a “council” is a leadership team that meets to discuss, analyze and decide upon the course of action that should be taken to benefit the church members for whom it has responsibility (Bushman, 2005). Initially, in 1831–1832 these councils were formed on an ad hoc basis to address concerns or challenges that arose and were disbanded once a solution had been found (Bushman, 2005). Later, as Church membership increased, Smith formed permanent local councils with each council limited to a geographical jurisdiction. Darowski (2010, p. 27) noted that:
[…] the first years of the Church’s existence as an institution reveals not a narrow hierarchical leadership, but a shared, even symbiotic collaboration. This relationship remained the essence of the genius of Church organization and structure.
As the Church evolved in size and scope, the council framework was retained as the fulcrum around which all organizational redesign efforts took place. Presently, the Church is structurally similar to that of a multinational corporation to manage both its global religious operations and its for-profit and not-for-profit holding companies, with each node in the Church’s organizational structure being that of a council. The Church’s TMT consists of a 15-member council whose members engage in all roles associated with traditional TMT behavior, such as strategic leadership (Hambrick, 1989), boundary-spanning (O’Reilly et al., 1993), ensuring functional integration between strategy, structure and process (Miller, 1991) and organizational adaptation (Keck and Tushman,1993).
Methodological strategy
We studied the Church’s TMT using an analytically structured history approach within a partially inductive, case exemplar method (Dacin et al., 2010; MacKay and Chia, 2013; Ozcan et al., 2017; Rowlinson et al., 2014). With this method, pre-determined analytic constructs, or sensitizing constructs, are used to search primary and secondary archival data, which enables “the construction of a narrative of structures and events that may not even have been perceived as such by actors at the time” (Rowlinson et al., 2014, p. 264). Sensitizing constructs are interpretive devices that serve as starting points for study and draw attention to general features of social interactions that can point to more nuanced themes and concepts (cf. Bowen, 2006; Rowlinson et al., 2014). In the analytically structured history approach, findings are reported with a focus on determining causation in social processes (Rowlinson et al., 2014). This method aids in identifying patterns within the data which in turn allows scholars to theorize about the dynamics of the phenomenon studied. A classic example of the analytically structured history approach is the seminal work of Alfred Chandler on the emergence and evolution of the M-Form organizational structure from his analysis of the archival data of General Motors with the sensitizing constructs of “structure” and “strategy” (Chandler, 1962; Rowlinson et al., 2014).
In selecting our sensitizing constructs, we used two constructs, “collaboration” and “structure.” We conceptualized “collaboration” in terms of Hambrick’s definition of BI, namely, “the degree to which [a] group engages in mutual and collective interaction” (1994, p. 188). Our aim was to also identify the structural processes that influenced and sustained collaboration. We conceptualized “structure” as the recurring social patterns (e.g. group norms, routines, roles, formal and informal rules) that generate and maintain collaboration. We chose collaboration and structure to guide our analysis for two primary reasons:
they were sufficiently inclusive to subsume the social and task-related processes inherent in Hambrick’s construct while giving us the flexibility to explore other BI dynamics, processes and mechanisms; and
they directly corresponded to the two aspects of BI we sought to understand: BI formation (i.e. the processes involved in the emergence of TMT integration) and BI preservation (i.e. the structures that maintained TMT integration).
Data collection
There is a large repository of primary and secondary archival sources, as well as historical analyses related to the Church’s TMT operations, which form the empirical basis of our study and support our case study approach (Ozcan et al., 2017; Rojas, 2010). Fortuitous to our study, in 2016 the Church published the minutes of the meetings from the TMT’s founding in 1844 and through 1846 giving us access to the inner workings of the TMT at the infancy of the Church. This research initiative was overseen by professional historians and adheres to the rigorous standards of documentary editing of the National Archive’s National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC) and was officially endorsed by them [National Archives’ National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC), 2020; The Joseph Smith Papers Project, 2020]. Additionally, we were able to obtain access to the minutes of the Church’s TMT meetings from 1880–1884, and from these sources, we analyzed 432 pages of primary data on the Church’s pre-20th century TMT deliberations. While primary sources are preferable and account for our main form of data, Rowlinson et al. (2014, p. 264) state that the use of secondary sources, which includes narrative texts, is appropriate in analytically structured history as well (cf., Cole and Chandler, 2019; Hampel and Tracey, 2017). For example, in his study of General Motors, Chandler relied on primary sources when analyzing processes associated with his sensitizing construct of “structure” and secondary sources when analyzing processes associated with his sensitizing construct of “strategy” (Rowlinson et al., 2014, p. 261). In addition to TMT minutes, we sourced reports and analyses of the Church’s TMT deliberations from the diaries of TMT members from the 19th and 20th centuries, biographies of leaders who were or are currently TMT members, sermons given by TMT members, publications of the Church’s leadership training manuals and scholarly historical analyses of the Church’s TMT. Taken together, the primary and secondary sources form our study’s empirical basis.
Data analysis
We analyzed our data in several steps. First, to delineate the nature of BI formation in the Church’s TMT, we explored any manifestation of collaborative processes in the Church’s original TMT and evaluated the data from this analytic perspective. We were particularly interested in the sensitizing constructs of collaboration and structure used in the Church’s TMT. We were interested in identifying the forms collaboration took, its manifestations and its undergirding philosophies and in the structures that produced and facilitated BI. After coding the data for instances of collaboration and structure, we analyzed how these concepts manifested in the original and subsequent TMTs of the Church. We followed Rowlinson et al. (2014, p. 263) and Whipp and Clark (1986, p. 19) wherein:
[…] periodization [of a case history] is derived from the sources, rather than imposed from an external historical context, [where] events in an organization constitute the turning points between one period and the next.
Specifically, we created a detailed event-history timeline to chart the chronology of critical occurrences, novel elements and important milestones associated with the creation and evolution of the Church’s TMT (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2014). Finally, we identified the main themes (described in the next section and Table 1) within the sensitizing constructs of collaboration and structure. Our analysis of how the concepts and themes appeared in the natural temporal periods associated with the Church’s TMTs eventually produced our process model of BI formation and preservation.
Findings
Table 1 contains the themes that emerged within each analytical construct along with representative quotes from the data from which the themes emerged. Our findings revealed that the themes associated with the processes of BI formation in the 1,844 TMT of the Church and its subsequent preservation were manifested in sequential phases. To calibrate the themes within each analytical construct with their manifestation in time, we discuss our findings by placing them in a narrative that describes the processes of development of BI in the Church's TMT and its preservation over time. This narrative is illustrated in Figure 1.
Creation of the top management team
By 1844, the Church had grown to 26,146 members with congregations throughout the United States and Great Britain. At this time, approximately half of the Church’s total membership lived in the city of Nauvoo, Illinois and its environs (Black, 1995). The combination of rapid membership growth and external threat, prompted Smith in March of 1844 to form a new leadership council. The purpose of this new council was to be a “body that would handle secular and political affairs” of the Church (Allen, 1987, p. 125), such as organizing and spearheading Smith’s campaign for the Presidency of the USA, overseeing industrial development and planning for the future exodus of the Church to the Rocky Mountains (Godfrey, 1992). This new council acted as the first, formalized TMT of the Church.
We note here that in 1844, the nomenclature used for concepts related to organizations was quite different from that of the present; for example, the term “team” was not widely or commonly used in North American verbiage. In 1844, the term that Smith used to describe what would today be referred to as a “team” was “council.” Also, the nomenclature, “TMT”, is of recent usage, first appearing in 1980 (Bourgeois, 1980a, 1980b). The quotations that we hereafter cite from our data that use the term “Council” refer to what today is termed a TMT. We next describe the elements of the two analytical constructs in our study: collaboration and structure, how they influenced the creation of BI and how they were chronologically manifested (Figure 1).
Initial establishment of the collaborative leadership framework
When forming the original TMT, Joseph Smith took measures to elevate the collaborative skills of those he would invite to become its members. He did this by educating them in, and modeling for them, a collaborative framework in 29 meetings over 81 days from March 11 to May 31, 1844 (Grow et al., 2016). After inviting some of the members to the first meeting on March 11, 1844, Smith immediately began to educate them regarding the collaborative leadership behaviors they would be expected to engage in within their meetings. Smith’s approach was to explain, and then apply the protocols repeatedly during the 29 TMT meetings he held before his untimely death on June 27, 1844. Two themes emerged from our analysis of these meetings within each of the sensitizing constructs: normative participation and process respect (collaboration) and induction and pledging commitment (structure).
Normative participation (collaboration). Smith grounded the TMT’s working norms in ways that explicitly produced the sharing of opinions by all of its members. He emphasized the importance of openly sharing views, perspectives and opinions in the deliberations of the TMT; the minutes of March 10, 1844 record that:
Joseph [Smith] said he wanted all the brethren to speak their minds on this subject and to say what was in their hearts whether good or bad. He did not want to be forever surrounded by a set of “dough heads” and if they did not rise up and shake themselves and exercise themselves in discussing these important matters he should consider them nothing better than “dough heads”. He gave some good advice which seemed to have due effect. (Grow et al., 2016, p. 39).
Smith emphasized this theme throughout the 29 meetings: if members had any objections to ideas put forth or any knowledge or experience that pertained to the subject at hand, they were “under covenant to fully and freely make them known to the Council” (Ehat, 1980, p. 256). Everyone was expected to share their opinions, proposals, perspectives and ideas on the issues under consideration. One of many examples of this education occurred in the April 4, 1844 meeting, when he made it clear that it was only through open communication that effective decision-making can occur. The minutes record:
Pres Joseph Smith arose to give some instructions […] He commenced by showing, that the reason why men always failed to establish important measures was, because in their organization they never could agree to disagree long enough to select the pure gold from the dross by the process of investigation. (Grow et al., 2016, p. 79).
Thus, for Smith, the work of the TMT:
[…] consisted in our exercising all [our] intelligence […] and bringing forth all the light which dwells in the breast of every man […] and [when the decision receives] the sanction of the Council [through voting] it becomes a law (Grow et al., 2016, p. 92).
The minutes of the meetings repeatedly show the embracing of this norm by its members. By midway through the three months, the norm seems to have taken hold as the minutes are filled with the reporting of members’ frank and open comments. For example, in a robust give-and-take meeting that was held on April 18, 1844, the clerk recorded that:
Erastus Snow felt to differ with some of the preceding speakers, but inasmuch as we had liberty to speak what was in us whether sense or nonsense he wanted to enjoy the privilege. (Grow et al., 2016, p. 122).
Later in the same meeting, George A. Smith summarized the growing understanding of his fellow members of the greater purpose of this principle:
If all the wisdom and knowledge of this Council is exerted we can do something […] By taking this course we gain wisdom and prudence much better than we would if we had set down like chickens to wait for [God] to give it [to us]. (Grow et al., 2016, p. 115).
In the case of the Church’s TMT, this condition was codified as a protocol, wherein all members were expected to voice their perspectives and opinions regarding all issues under discussion along with the concomitant rule that there would be no retribution for doing so. We label this group condition, “normative participation.” Smith was adamant in the belief that problems could not be resolved, and solutions created within the TMT unless the collective wisdom and experience of all the members were continually brought to bear upon the issues they addressed.
Process respect (collaboration). The protocol of normative participation was specifically established by Smith to ensure critical thinking and the emergence of alternative courses of action for the TMT’s appraisal, combatting the condition now known as “groupthink” (Janis, 1971) wherein “congruence-seeking becomes so dominant in a cohesive in-group that it tends to override realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action” to “bolster morale at the expense of critical thinking” (Janis, 1971, p. 84). Thus, before a final vote was taken and a final decision was rendered, it was required that all members felt that everyone’s perspectives had been taken into consideration and integrated into the final decision. Smith stated that “I don’t want any man ever to assent to anything in this Council and then find fault with it. Don’t decide in favor of anything until you know it” (Grow et al., 2016, p. 93). He warned that unless this is the case, leadership decisions would not generate the desired outcomes due to a lack of harmony among the leaders who had to implement the decisions (Doctrine and Covenants, 1879, pp. 107:27).
For normative participation to result in unified decision-making, Smith instituted a protocol that focused on the criticality of respecting the collaborative process. We label this protocol that involves sustaining and supporting decisions that are made through normative participation, “process respect.” After an issue has been duly considered through a transparent process of openness wherein all the members are fully able to voice their opinions, proposals and perspectives on the issue, the TMT members were expected to support and sustain the final decision of the collaborative process. Brigham Young, who would later become the second president of the Church, summarized the necessity of the protocol of process respect: “If this were not the case one brother through private pique alone could do manifest wrong and injury to men as good as himself” (Grow et al., 2016, p. 44). Respecting the process of normative participation by sustaining final decisions protected the TMT from being riven by factions, from stubborn resistance to the final decision and from members who strive to poison the well for their own political purposes. It also served to ward off internal politicking, proposal maneuvering, vote-rigging and other processes antithetical to BI (Packer, 1991).
In addition to establishing the above two themes related to the analytical construct of collaboration into the modus operandi of the TMT, Smith established two other protocols related to structural procedures wherein individual members formally committed to abide by the theme of collaboration: induction and pledging commitment. Smith based these two protocols on procedures that were common in his day and are common today; namely, notarization and the swearing of testimony in court proceedings.
Induction (structure). Before being formally accepted into the TMT, prospective entrants underwent a two-part process. We term the first part of the process, “induction,” as it involves a formal procedure whereby new members were integrated into the TMT. Inductees into the TMT were first taught about the collaborative protocols of the TMT (normative participation and process respect) by either Smith or an existing member of the TMT whom he designated to do the induction. They were then asked if they were willing to, and would, act in conformance with the two protocols. This was akin to taking an “oath of office.” where individuals are asked to promise to faithfully discharge their duties in their new role, by making “a solemn affirmation or declaration” (Webster, 1828). Such public, formal agreements to conform to the protocols were designed to formally commit new entrants to take seriously and abide by the TMT’s collaborative rules. The following record from the TMT’s minutes is illustrative of the practice that occurred regularly over the course of its three-month formation process:
Tuesday, March 19th. 1844. Council met at 9 a.m. […] The chairman presented Samuel Bent, Uriah Brown […] and Orrin Porter Rockwell for admission to membership. The object of the Council and its order [rules] was made known to these candidates by the chairman, who also gave many instructions on the privileges and blessings pertaining to [it]. (Grow et al., 2016, pp. 51-52).
Pledging commitment (structure). Once the formal induction was given by either Smith or another designated TMT member to new entrants, the inductees were then asked to either formally promise to abide by the themes of collaboration – often termed the “rules of this council” by those who performed the induction – or to decline membership. If they chose to accept membership, they did so by a “spoken, solemn promise on one’s personal honor” similar to one that is “made before a Notary in relation to a jurat or other Notary act” (National Notary Association, 2018, p. 1). The setting of the induction and the pledge of commitment was not done privately; it was always performed before the full membership of the TMT. The minutes of these meetings consistently summarize the proceedings, and the following recording of the induction and subsequent pledging of commitment on April 18, 1844, is illustrative of the process:
The chairman […] requested Er. Rigdon to explain to them the nature of this organization upon which Er. Rigdon arose and stated at some length the nature of the council proving its importance […]. He called upon them to say if they would willingly comply with the rules of the council. They signified their full assent whereupon on [the] motion they were received as members. (Grow et al., 2016, pp. 108-109).
After gaining membership into the TMT via pledging commitment to the “rules of the council” (normative participation and process respect), if members subsequently felt they did not want to continue in their membership, they were free to leave it. Smith stated after an induction and pledge of commitment during the meeting on April 11, 1844, that:
[…] there was nothing to require a man to submit to the order of the council unless he was so disposed. Any man who did not acquiesce with our regulations could withdraw and say nothing about it. He could either go or tarry as he saw proper. (Grow et al., 2016, p. 89).
Recurring establishment of the collaborative leadership framework
The full complement of the members of the new TMT were not invited to join all at once by Smith. Rather they were incrementally invited to join the TMT until April 25, 1844, when the TMT membership was declared complete by Joseph Smith. Thus, as new members were invited to join, they needed to be taught the collaborative protocols of the TMT (normative participation and process respect) and be inducted and pledged into the TMT. This replication occurred in eight subsequent meetings after the March 11 meeting. Thus, the education about the collaborative protocols upon which the TMT operates was recurring, as was the formal commitment process. While entrants newly experienced it for themselves, existing members relived their own inductions each time a new entrant entered the TMT. This repetition via observation, along with experientially living out the protocols of collaboration in the actual deliberations and operations of the TMT seemed to function as a “deep” socializing process that internalized Smith’s collaborative framework within the members of the TMT.
Formation of requisite authenticity (collaboration)
In the second meeting on March 11, 1844, the members of the TMT desired that a constitution be drafted that would delineate the rules and laws that would guide how the TMT should govern and be governed, and three individuals were selected as a committee to “draft a constitution and present it to this Council for their approval or disapproval” (Grow et al., 2016, p. 54). After multiple meetings, the subcommittee failed in its attempt to create what rules, procedures and by-laws it should contain. Upon reporting their failure to the TMT on April 18, 1844, Smith stated that he would take the task upon himself (Grow et al., 2016). A week later, Smith reported in their April 25th meeting that he had created a constitution for the TMT (Grow et al., 2016, pp. 135–137). He stated that they did not need a formal, bureaucratic document to guide their governance behavior; rather, he contended that their roles were to be spokespersons on behalf of the organization, its members, and all who were not members of the Church who would come into contact with the Church in the future. He proposed that the TMT’s members were themselves to be the constitution – that it was expected of them to authentically embody the values upon which the Church was based and to behave in accordance with them as they abided by the collaborative protocols of the TMT.
This expectation to internalize values related to collaboration and corporate mission we term, “requisite authenticity,” and it constitutes a third theme in the analyzing construct of collaboration. The theme of requisite authenticity was often later referred to in shorthand by subsequent church leaders as the “Living Constitution” (Ehat, 1980). TMT members were expected to personify the “Living Constitution” by manifesting through their behavior the values and norms of the TMT and those of the Church (Ehat, 1980). The leader of the subcommittee of three that attempted but failed in their efforts to write a constitution, John Taylor, recorded his view of requisite authenticity or the “Living Constitution”:
[Joseph Smith’s] words are pregnant with meaning and full of intelligence […] it is expected of us that [we] can act right […] That we should consider we are not acting for ourselves, but we are […] to bless and exalt all humanity. (Ehat, 1980, p. 259).
Smith’s approach to dealing with the “constitution crisis” of the group echoed his belief that ingrained values associated with collaboration are a prerequisite to the creation of collaboration – that authenticity in the enactment of the collaborative protocols is crucial for its manifestation.
Cementing of the full collaborative leadership framework
A little over four months after he founded the TMT, Joseph Smith was assassinated. Given that the full complement of the TMT membership had been settled upon in late April of 1844, the minutes of the five meetings before his assassination, held from May 3rd through May 31st, show no recording of induction or pledges of commitment. Instead, the minutes focus on reporting the TMT’s deliberations and decision-making. The minutes reflect the open discussion around the meetings’ agenda items (e.g. the potential for Texas as a location for the Church to relocate) and then unanimity around the final decisions that were rendered on each topic. During this time-period, Smith focused on cementing the protocols he established via experiential practice.
In the next section of the paper, we address our second research question: “once BI is formed, how is it preserved?” by examining the conditions that preserved BI in the TMT after Joseph Smith’s assassination in June of 1844 to the present.
Behavioral integration preservation
External forces created turmoil for the Church’s leadership in the wake of Smith’s assassination in June of 1844. The Governor of Illinois supported a mandatory en masse expulsion of the Church from the state and vigilante organizations began harassing Church communities to increase the pressure on the Church to leave the state. Eventually, Brigham Young was determined, by a vote of the general Church membership, to be the successor to Smith to lead the Church. Due to the above circumstances, Young was not able to reconvene a TMT meeting until February 4th, 1845 – eight months after the last TMT meeting was held under the presidency of Joseph Smith. Young, at this point, had the option to alter, reconstruct, or significantly change the Church’s TMT operating and process norms from those that Smith created. We were interested in the degree to which this occurred after Smith’s death.
Initial conservatorship (collaboration)
Brigham Young began the first TMT meeting under his presidency on February 4th, 1845, by following the protocol of normative participation. According to the minutes of the meeting:
[Young] said he would relate the reflections of his own mind in relation to this council. It has been a long time since this council were together. He does not know of any one who can say that it would have been prudent and safe to call the council together until within a few days past. The object now is to know the brethrens minds whether we shall reorganize, according to the rules in the beginning. Some who were members here have gone away, some have apostatized and turned against us […] and I want to know whether it is the minds of the council to fill up the places of those who are gone and fill the council. Also whether they are willing that I should take the place of Brother Joseph as chairman. He wished the brethren to each state their feelings on the subject. (Grow et al., 2016, p. 215).
The minutes record the detailed summaries of the openly shared perspectives of each of the TMT members in response to Young’s question. Each spoke their mind and were forthright in their expressions, one example of many is below:
Samuel Bent said that “he felt desirous to see this organization continue. He rejoices in the opportunity of meeting once more and feels steadfast in the principles and rules of the council as laid down by our beloved brother Joseph. He feels that it would be highly satisfactory to him to have President Young to take the place of brother Joseph as chairman and carry out Joseph’s measures” (Grow et al., 2016, pp. 219-220).
After a lengthy discussion, and after all had spoken – some multiple times – Young:
then asked if the council were all satisfied with each other to sustain him as chairman, and the vote was then taken in due form […] The vote was unanimous in the affirmative (Grow et al., 2016, p. 225).
Young’s decision to continue to operate from Joseph Smith’s organizing philosophy was important to the conservation of protocols that enhance BI in the Church’s TMT. An example of Young’s statements in this meeting that evidenced his desire to conserve Smith’s approach is below:
We know this was one of Joseph’s measures and my feelings are that, if we cannot have the privilege of carrying out Joseph’s measures I would rather lie down and have my head cut off at once. To carry out Joseph’s measures is sweeter to me than the honey or the honeycomb (Grow et al., 2016, p. 257).
This drive to uphold the collaborative framework was crucial to the initial preservation of BI in the Church’s TMT, and we term this structural theme, “CEO conservatorship.” CEO conservatorship involves continuous attention to ensuring the collaborative framework is operating to control for variant, non-collaborative behaviors. Young followed Smith’s pattern of embedding the collaborative leadership framework as new members replaced old members who had left the Church after Smith’s death. For example, in the TMT’s third meeting under Brigham Young’s leadership on March 1, 1845, the collaborative framework was enacted by Young exactly as it was before Smith’s death:
The chairman [Brigham Young] then vacated his seat for a few minutes and called upon councilor George Miller to give the new members their charge, which was done in a very lucid and condensed form. After which councilor Miller called upon them to manifest whether they were willing to conform to the regulations of the council. They all signified their assent […] The chairman then explained further and said we are the living body to enact laws for the government of this [church], we are a living constitution. (Grow et al., 2016, p. 254).
The term, “giving the charge” that was used by the clerk of the TMT refers to the explanation of the protocols of the collaborative framework: normative participation, process respect and requisite authenticity (the living constitution) and the subsequent induction and pledging of commitment. The process of “giving the charge,” which followed the pattern developed by Smith, does not involve a long time period or an in-depth training of new entrants. The protocols are simply stated to the new entrant (induction) and the individual then has to decide whether or not to pledge to abide by those principles of conduct. The use of the term, “giving the charge” became a shorthand phrase to describe the induction and pledge of commitment phases for new entrants throughout future TMTs (Gibbons, 1993). Until his death in 1877, Brigham Young explicitly and proactively engaged in CEO conservatorship to preserve the governance principles Smith established for the Church’s TMT.
Upholding and expansion of initial conservatorship
The thirty-year period from 1850–1880 was full of change for the Church, including but not limited to the
shift from Church to State governance in Utah;
integration of outsiders into the communities of Utah;
focus on building new communities in the Rocky Mountain corridor to accommodate the influx of convert immigrants from Europe; and
changes in norms in the broader society of Utah.
In this sociological milieu, after Brigham Young’s death in 1877, John Taylor began his term as president of the Church at the age of 72. Additionally, by the time of Taylor’s succession, a new generation of leaders had emerged who had never experienced the “origin experience” of the Church. To educate these young leaders, Taylor hearkened back to the leadership teachings that Joseph Smith gave to the members of the original TMT in 1844.
Apprenticeship (structure). Taylor felt that the best way to socialize these younger leaders into the collaborative leadership framework was through a traditional apprenticeship process within the TMT. In 1880, he expanded the size of the Church’s TMT to include as many high potential leaders as possible. Also, he felt it was important that surviving members of the original TMT (some of whom were presently in the Church’s TMT and others who were not) serve as guides to the younger leaders. They could speak from experience given they had been taught directly by Smith in 1844, and it was hoped they would be able to bring the younger leaders into their social memory of how Church governance should be conducted.
In the initial meeting of this reformed TMT, portions of the minutes of the original TMT of 1844 were read to the members (Richards, 1880; Smith, 1880; Wells, 1880), allowing the new generation of leaders to reach back to the roots of the Church to connect with the TMT protocols espoused by Smith. The minutes of the TMT from 1880–1884 reveal purposeful compliance with the original protocols established in 1844. Throughout these meetings, open perspectives and opinions were promoted in the group’s deliberations. During these meetings, the new members were consciously mentored and taught by those with longer tenure who had been members of the original 1844 TMT. For example, during the meeting held on April 8, 1881, Erastus Snow, one of the original members of the 1844 TMT, shared with the group that:
[…] freedom of speech was promulgated by [Joseph Smith], so that all may see and come to an understanding alike on all subjects presented – truth is the object in view that all may have a full opportunity to express their views – no man should be a member of a party but should speak his sense of truth and right and to the point or object of the subject under consideration to draw out the full expression of views and sentiments, each one in parting his mind by the spirit of truth, all can come to a oneness – we should try to implant this spirit into the minds of all […] (Council Minutes, 1880-1884).
Also, in line with the precedent, all the members of the expanded TMT were not admitted at once, but rather incrementally. After they were taught the rules of the collaborative framework, they were inducted and were then asked to either accept the charge by pledging commitment or to decline the invitation if they felt unable to accept the conditions of membership. An illustrative example from the April 8, 1881 minutes of the TMT, summarizing the charge given to George Reynolds, is given below:
Geo. Q. Cannon […] explained to him [Reynolds] the nature of the organization of this council […] the name and constitution of this organization […] It is expected that there will be unity and the greatest freedom of expression had, and then when action is taken all will be agreed and that no fault shall be found or change sought for […] Bro. Reynolds in being asked, expressed his willingness to accept the name, constitution, rules and obligations of the council – whereupon he took a seat. (Council Minutes, 1880-1884).
Also, during this time period much attention was focused on process respect, the sustaining of the council’s final decisions despite what one’s original opinion about the subject under discussion might have been. An unwillingness to sustain a decision that the clear majority of the Council members agreed with, after open and free deliberation, was thought to reflect a pride and stubbornness of spirit and a lack of respect for the efficacy of the TMT’s collaborative process norms. John Taylor continued abiding by the collaborative leadership framework for the Church’s TMT that was laid down by Joseph Smith in 1844. Perhaps more importantly, Taylor ensured that future leaders could learn and follow the collaborative leadership processes set down originally by Smith. Taylor inculcated a theme (apprenticeship) into Smith’s collaborative leadership framework that would remain and evolve into the twenty-first century.
Institutionalization of conservatorship and recurrent socialization
In 1884, the expanded TMT was re-constituted into a set of 15 leaders. This 15-person structure for the TMT has been carried forth to the present along with the collaborative framework that Young and Taylor preserved. Throughout the 20th century and into the present, the protocols of induction and pledging commitment have been formally carried out when new members join the TMT. Because this experience is now regarded as being intimately personal, these experiences are rarely reported verbatim for public consumption. However, the fact that this structural process occurs in the Church’s TMT has been noted in biographies of many Church leaders and also in their journal entries (Gibbons, 1990, 1992; 1993; Hatch, 2006; Knowles, 1994; Madsen, 2004; Swinton, 2010). For example, a personal journal entry noted that on April 7, 1910, Joseph Fielding Smith was told in his induction that the TMT
[…] composes the living constitution of the Church […] a decision rendered here, though it may not meet exactly the mind of an individual member or individual members, will represent the course, the mind of the majority […] and not one of us can with impunity oppose it or in anywise, directly or indirectly, speak derogatory to it, as to do so would be a transgression […] of the covenant we enter into […] in this Council. I regard this as one of the most sacred obligations resting upon [us]. (Smith, 1910: MS 1325).
Gibbons’ report notes that Joseph Fielding Smith was also asked:
[…] to uphold and promote all the decisions of the council, even though during the discussions leading up to them he may have expressed a contrary view. He was encouraged to express his views freely so that the council could enjoy the benefit of his experience and wisdom (Gibbons, 1992, p. 152).
In another example, Hugh B. Brown in 1958 was taught during his induction “to exercise the freedom to speak his mind but always be willing to subjugate his own thoughts and accept the majority opinion” (Campbell and Poll, 1976, pp. 126-127). Similarly, Thomas S. Monson on October 10, 1963, was taught at his induction that “each member of the Council is to express his views without hesitation; but when the decision of the Council is made, its will is to be carried out wholeheartedly” (Swinton, 2010, p. 226). It was also stated that “he is not true to the pledge if at any time he might say, “The Council decided that way, but I thought differently.” He has no right to say that” (Kimball and Kimball, 1977, p. 344). Gibbons (1986, 1990, 1992, 1993, 1996), Hatch (2006) and Knowles (1994) have noted similar content was given to numerous other leaders when they entered the Church’s TMT upon their induction.
Mentoring (structure). Because the induction to new entrants does not involve in-depth training on how to enact the protocols of collaboration on a day-to-day basis, we found that learning how to behave collaboratively in the Church’s TMT occurs via both formal and informal mentoring. Today, new TMT entrants receive a modern mentorship process that includes being formally assigned to a more senior TMT member to be socialized in the nuances of the TMT’s collaborative leadership culture. For example, in 2018 two new members joined the Church’s TMT. They were formally assigned seasoned members from the TMT to act as mentors to help them “learn procedures, protocols, and principles […] related to their [roles]” (Walch, 2018, p. 2). We found that mentoring in the Church’s TMT also occurs informally, by learning from observation. An example of this is provided by Henry B. Eyring, a current member of the Church’s TMT. In a report of a press conference interview, Eyring recalled his first observational experience of seeing the Church’s TMT collaborative framework in operation. Eyring had been a Stanford Business School professor who, at the time, had recently left that faculty to become president of one of the Church’s universities. In his first meeting with the Church’s education council that was chaired by the president of the Church (Harold B. Lee) and attended by most of the Church’s TMT members, he states:
When I first came as the president of Ricks College I attended my first meeting [of the Church’s leadership] that I’d ever been in, watching the general authorities of the church […] running a meeting. I had been studying for the 10 years I was a professor at Stanford how you make decisions in meetings, in groups. […] I looked at [the meeting] with my Harvard, Stanford eyes, and I thought, “This is the strangest conversation […] they’re disagreeing in an openness that I had never seen in business. In business, you're careful when you’re with the bosses […] I watched this process and they’re disagreeing […] It was more open than anything I had ever seen in all the groups I’d ever studied in business. I was just dumbfounded. […] President Harold B. Lee, taught me a great lesson that says, “No, we can be open, we can be direct, we can talk about differences in a way that you can’t anywhere else because we're all just looking for the truth. We’re not trying to win. We’re not trying to make our argument dominate. We just want to find what’s right.” (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2007).
As new entrants are educated, inducted, pledge their commitment to and mentored in the TMT’s collaborative framework, this serves not only to preserve BI across time due to new entrants’ integration into the shared cognition of the TMT, but the observation of new entrants’ socialization experiences also seems to reinforce more tenured TMT members’ ongoing internalization of the collaborative framework. This recursive social modeling process, wherein TMT members continually learn and internalize collaborative values and behavior via mutual observation, has aided the Church’s TMT in maintaining BI across time.
In summary, throughout the twentieth century and to the present, the Church’s TMT iteratively engaged in behavior congruent with its collaborative leadership framework due to CEOs who each evinced conservatorship to preserve the framework and oversaw the socialization and subsequent internalization of the framework’s themes via mentoring within new entrants. Intentional, iterative reinforcement of the TMT’s collaborative framework ensured the preservation of BI, characterized by high levels of collaboration in the TMT across time.
Discussion and implications
Cole and Chandler (2019, p. 1044) explain that “although one cannot generalize statistically from a single case, we can abstract from [its] findings to generate theoretical insights.” In this section, we abstract and extrapolate theoretical insights from our main findings to create a process model of BI formation and preservation that considers how the CEO and TMT members create BI and the structural protocols that maintain BI (Figure 2). Next, we describe our process model and discuss its implications for future research.
Toward a process model of behavioral integration formation and preservation
In the literature, the construct of BI is invariably viewed and studied as a condition that is useful for TMT performance but one that arises in a somewhat ancillary fashion. It is characterized as an unintentional but valuable state for TMTs, and one that results from the interaction of a variety of antecedents. In contrast, in our study, BI was an intentional outcome that was fostered by CEOs across time. In Figure 2, we delineate the principal dynamics of intentional BI formation (education, commitment and emergence) and preservation (conservation and new entrants). We do not assert that these process elements are comprehensive or necessary in all cases of BI formation or preservation; however, they were fundamental to BI longevity in our study.
Education. CEOs who intentionally act to create a culture of collaborative governance within their TMTs focus first on educating TMT members regarding the core protocols that will produce BI (normative participation, process respect). They formulate and teach norms designed to produce collaboration, information sharing and unanimity in decision-making amongst TMT members. They also teach the philosophy and values that must be internalized (requisite authenticity) to operate in a culture of collaboration. By doing so, CEOs evoke and plant a communal belief within TMT members of the importance of the collaborative process: that its framework, philosophy and norms are inviolate.
The need to consider the education of TMT members in protocols that promote BI seems vital for its creation. We propose that the education process is not necessarily linear and sequential – CEOs may teach TMT members these fundamentals simultaneously via a combination of experiential, didactic, behavioristic and other pedagogies. Our findings suggest that having a shared, concrete understanding of a collaborative framework acts as a reference point or “North Star” for TMT members to guide their mutual work.
Commitment. However, simply educating TMT members about new ways to work more collaboratively and then expressing intentionality that this is how the TMT will operate moving forward is necessary but not sufficient for instilling BI. Similar to other formal pledging processes among executives that have been invoked to ensure organizational change in areas such as corporate social responsibility (Business Roundtable, 2019) and enhancement of diversity and inclusion in corporations (Kress, 2017), Smith established a post-educational induction process through which TMT members formally committed to abide by the TMT’s collaborative framework. We theorize that formal commitment or pledging is an important step in moving a TMT from the condition of a group of independently operating executives to that of an actual team (Hambrick, 1994) and that neglecting this variable will likely result in a lower probability of BI emergence. Again, how CEOs construct formal commitment procedures that fit the culture of their organizations will, of course, vary, but our analysis suggests that eliciting formal commitment processes enhances BI emergence.
Emergence. Following this commitment process, CEOs instill the collaborative framework by immediately ensuring its implementation in subsequent TMT meetings and other TMT work interactions. Formal commitment processes enhance the rapidity of the adoption and deployment of collaborative protocols by TMT members. This results in the initial production of BI. The emergence phase ends when TMT members perceive the collaborative framework that they now operate under to be normative in nature and habitual in practice. We assume that the time required to reach habituation to collaborative and structural protocols varies between TMTs due, for instance, to differences in context, past experiences of TMT members and educational skills of CEOs. Once the threshold of BI continuity has been reached, it seems clear from our findings that further measures are then necessary to ensure BI survives into the future.
Conservation. BI is preserved in the TMT and becomes a dominant team orientation to the degree that subsequent CEOs act as conservators of the collaborative framework with an internalized duty to maintain BI. In our findings, CEO conservatorship of BI acted as a primary driver of continued BI in the TMT. The resiliency of the Church’s TMT collaborative framework was tested at various times due to conflicts among TMT members (Godfrey, 1998; Grow et al., 2016; Prince and Wright, 2005) and breaking of the TMT’s norm of requisite authenticity requiring expulsion of individuals from the TMT (Bergera, 2011; Flake, 2001; Godfrey, 1998; Grow et al., 2016). Yet, in each case, CEO conservatorship enabled the collaborative framework to be preserved and BI to continue. Our findings support Hambrick’s (1994) postulation that CEOs’ “behaviors and policies for the [TMT] can greatly affect its behavioral integration” (206). We theorize that CEO conservatorship toward existing TMT members is two-dimensional:
conservatorship of the ideal behind the collaborative framework and its principles; and
loyalty to existing TMT members to continue operating as a team using the collaborative framework.
CEOs act as the primary element in the TMT’s control system to preserve BI, engaging in behavior, such as:
stepping in when variances to the protocols of the collaborative framework occur and taking corrective measures to restore order;
commemorating past and current successes that derive from collaboration; and
modeling behavior that is in alignment with the protocols of collaboration that constitute the framework.
The iterative enactment of the collaborative framework that is promoted by the CEO has the effect of mutually reinforcing adherence to the collaborative protocols in TMT members via social modeling. That is, as members observe each other engage in the protocols across time they experience both a continuing renewal of internal commitment and an ongoing refining of their skills in collaborative behavior. BI preservation, then, is a process of re-creation that is recursive and is driven by intentional leadership by the CEO and shared leadership within the TMT cadre.
New entrants. CEOs also facilitate the conservation of BI through the management of new entrants into TMTs. New entrants require socialization in the existing collaborative framework, and this is done through both the education and commitment processes discussed above, with one addition: the formal assignment of a seasoned TMT member or members to the new entrant for the express purpose of showing and teaching them how the TMT operates within the collaborative framework. Under the tutelage of more tenured TMT members, new entrants experience mentorship to learn the modus operandi of the TMT. Additionally, when new entrants formally pledge to adopt behavioral protocols in a public setting, it signals to existing TMT members the new entrants’ awareness of the TMT’s collaborative norms and their intentionality to become productive members of the TMT, thus forming a social contract with the other TMT members and BI is preserved moving forward.
Concluding comments
To date, little is known about the underlying processes that initially form and then sustain BI in TMTs. To help fill this void in the literature and close the gap between what we know and what we need to know about BI formation and preservation in TMTs, we used an inductive, analytically structured historical approach with a case exemplar to study and then theorized about BI formation and preservation. We presented a process model of BI formation and preservation from our findings that shifts attention in the literature from analyses of existing BI in TMTs and its effect on various organizational outcomes to how BI can be formed and subsequently preserved across long time periods. We view this process model not as the final theoretical word in BI formation and preservation but rather as a heuristic that opens new vistas for scholars interested in studying BI in TMTs. The model delineates important processes that likely are essential in forming BI across a variety of organizational types; thus, the model can act as a foundation for future empirical investigation as well as a guide for executives who desire to increase BI in TMTs. We also contend that our study moves the field forward by answering calls for historical and qualitative methods to longitudinally study BI in TMTs (Kisfalvi et al., 2016; Menz, 2012; Talaulicar, 2017).
Figures
Themes by analytical constructs
Themes by analytical constructs |
Representative quotes | |
---|---|---|
Collaboration | ||
A. | Normative participation | A1: March 1, 1845. “These are some matters lying before us and I want the brethren to speak their minds freely. I want the brethren to be patient, stop, and consider and don't get in a hurry. We can stop as long as we like, and meet as often as we have a mind to.” (Grow et al., 2016, p. 260). |
A2: April 8, 1880. “Freedom of speech was promulgated by [Joseph Smith], so that all may see and come to an understanding alike on all subjects presented…that all may have a full opportunity to express their views-no man should be a member of a party but should speak his sense of truth and right and to the point or object of the subject under consideration to draw out the full expression of views and sentiments, each on imparting his mind by the spirit of truth [so] all can come to a oneness.” (Council Minutes, 1880-1884, p. 29). | ||
A3: December 28, 1832. “Let not all be spokesmen at once; but let one speak at a time and let all listen unto his sayings, that when all have spoken that all may be edified of all, and that every man may have an equal privilege.” (Doctrine and Covenants, 1879, p. 122) | ||
A4: “Friday, April 11, 1845…Joseph declared for every man to spue out every thing there was in him, and see if there is not a foundation in him for a great work. He could have told his mind long ago, but he wants to hear all the brethrens views and feelings…he wants to hear the brethren's views on the subject, and by talking over each others views, we learn each others feelings, and all learn what each other knows.” (Grow et al., 2016, p. 401). | ||
B. | Process respect | B1: October 10, 1867. “In regard to the idea that one negative vote would prevent a measure passing the Council, he [Pres. John Taylor] stated, that in the event if a negative vote being given on any subject the member voting in the negative is called upon to give his reasons for thus voting. If his reasons are not good and based in righteous principels he will be called upon to suppress and waive them, and thus do away with his opposition. If this were not the case one [person] through private pique alone could do manifest wrong and injury to men as good as himself, a principle which this [church] cannot tolerate. If a member should persist in his opposition after it is proved to him that is in the wrong, his opposition would sever him from the Council.” (Council Minutes, 1880-1884, p. 1). |
B2: April 4, 1844. “Pres. Joseph Smith arose to give some instructions to the council…He commenced by showing, that the reason why men always failed to establish important measures was, because in their organization they never could agree to disagree long enough to select the pure gold from the dross by the process of investigation.” (Grow et al., 2016: 79). | ||
B3: April 11, 1844. “I don’t want ay man ever to assent to any thing in this council and then find fault with it. Don't decide in favor of anything until you know it.” (Grow et al., 2016, p. 93). | ||
B4: 1958. The apostolic charge given to Hugh B. Brown included the charge “to exercise the freedom to speak his mind but always be willing to subjugate his own thoughts and accept the majority opinion–not only to vote for it but to act as though it were his own original opinion after it has been approved by the majority of the Council of the Twelve and the First Presidency.” (Firmage, 1988, pp. 126–127). | ||
C. | Requisite authenticity | C1: April 1835. “The decisions of these quorums, or either of them, are to be made in all righteousness, in holiness, and lowliness of heart, meekness and long-suffering, and in faith, and virtue, and knowledge, temperance, patience, godliness, brotherly kindness and charity…” (Doctrine and Covenants, 1879: Section 107, verse 30). |
C2: April 8, 1881. “Ye are my constitution etc. These words are pregnant with meaning and full of intelligence and point out our position…it is expected of us that we can act right-that our interests is bound up in the [church] that we should consider we are not acting for ourselves. But that we are … selected for [the] purpose .. to bless and exalt all humanity…there is a peculiary significance in these things which need some consideration.” (Council Minutes, 1880-1884, p. 32). | ||
C3: April 7, 1910. “I merely wish to say in addition to what Pres. Lyman has said, which I endorse thoroughly, that this body of men, this Council of the Presidency and Apostles, compose the living constitution of the Church…” (Smith, 1910). | ||
C4: October 5, 1880. “We should be united and as brethren be one [and] have the utmost confidence in each other, so that those great principles which were enjoyed by our brethren in the early organization of this council [exist here].” (Council Minutes, 1880-1884, p. 16). | ||
D. | CEO conservatorship | D1: February 4, 1845 (first meeting after assassination of Joseph Smith). “[Brigham Young said] …the object now is to know the brethrens minds whether we shall reorganize, according to the rules in the beginning…and I want to know…whether they are willing that I should take the place of brother Joseph as chairman. He wished the brethren to each state their feelings on the subject at the oldest according to the order.” (Grow et al., 2016, p. 2018). |
D2: April 8, 1881. “I [John Taylor] was one of the younger members [of the original Council of Fifty] and was well acquainted with the views of the Prophet Joseph Smith in regard to its organization [he] said he…felt constrained…to set the example and make the impression to be remembered and taught by the younger members to remember his teachings in the organization of this Council and to protect the rights of all men irrespective of their creed or religious belief.” (Council Minutes, 1880-1884, p. 28). | ||
D3: April 7, 1910. “… this body of men…compose the living constitution of the Church…a decision rendered here, though it may not meet exactly the mind of an individual member…will represent the course, the mind of the majority…and not one of us can with impunity oppose it or in anywise, directly or indirectly speak derogatory to it, as to do so would be a transgression, in the spirit at least, of the covenant we enter into…in this Council. I [Joseph F. Smith] regard this as one of the most sacred obligations resting upon the Presidency and the Twelve.” (Smith, 1910). | ||
Structure | ||
E. | Induction | E1: April 4, 1844. “The chairman introduced Edward Bonney and Elias Smith to the council. The minutes of the last meeting was read and accepted after which Pres. J. Smith arose to explain the object of the council to those who had not been previous. He also stated the principles on which the council was organized. They cheerfully conceded to the order whereupon on motion…they were admitted members by the unanimous vote of the council and took their seats in proper order.” (Grow et al., 2016, p. 74). |
E2: March 4, 1845. “He then called those who had been invited to become members of the council to take their seats in the centre…and called upon Councillor Phelps to give them their charge and the object of the organization, which was done.” (Grow et al., 2016, p. 277). | ||
E3: April 8, 1881. “Pres. Taylor presented…George Reynolds as a member of this council…and called upon Pres. Geo. Q. Cannon who explained to him the nature of the organization of this council…the name and constitution of this organization…which was explained to Bro Reynolds–it is a rule of this council that…there will be unity and the greatest freedom of expression had, and then when action is taken all will be agreed and that no fault shall be found or change sought for…Bro. Reynolds in being asked, expressed his willingness to accept the name, constitution, rules and obligations of the council - whereupon he took a seat.” (Council Minutes, 1880-1884, p. 31). | ||
F. | Pledging Commitment | F1: “March 1, 1845. Saturday. At 10:00 A.M. met at th Seventies Hall in the Council of Fifty. The following brethren were taken in to fill up the Quorum…They subscribed to the laws of the Council and covenanted before God with uplifted hands to maintain all things inviolate agreeable to the order of the Council.” (William Clayton journal entry from Smith, 1991, p. 158). |
F2: April 8, 1881. “Elders Caine and Winder having been called in, Pres. Taylor informed them they had been accepted as members of the Council and requested Coun. Cannon to deliver the usual charge, and give the name and constitution and charge to [them].” (Council Minutes, 1880-1884, p. 28). | ||
F3: April 10, 1941. “The procedure followed in the temple this day was one whose origin extended back to the dawn of the restored church…after the newest member had taken his place anchoring the north end of the semicircle, the aged, bearded [president] Heber J. Grant turned toward [Harold B.] Lee and, in slow, measured words, delivered the apostolic charge to him. Once this charge had been given…[jhe] was asked to respond to it, and then to express himself. With quiet humility, he accepted the charge, without qualification…” (Gibbons, 1993, p. 155). | ||
G. | Mentoring | G1: April 10, 1880. “the morning was occupied in organizing… [new members] were voted in to fill vacancies. At 3 p.m. instructions were given and portions of the early Records [of the Nauvoo Council of Fifty] were read … Several of the first members present spoke of certain important items of great interest to all present – especially to the new members – all seemed to rejoice.” (Richards, 1880). |
G2: 2007. “President Lee taught me a great lesson…that we can be open, direct and talk about differences in a way you can’t anywhere else. No one is trying to win or make our arguments dominate. We just want to do and say what is right.” (Moore, 2007, p. A8) | ||
G3: June 29, 2018. “The Quorum of the Twelve operates based on seniority in service in the quorum. New members … receive a mentor to aid their adjustment. Elder Gong's mentor is Elder D. Todd Christofferson, a member of the Twelve for a decade. Elder Soares is mentored by Elder Neil L. Anderson, who has served as an apostle for nine years…Their mentors have helped them learn procedures, protocols, and principles…related to their callings.” (Walch, 2018, p. 2). |
References
Allen, J. B. (1987), Trials of Discipleship: The Story of William Clayton, University of IL Press, Urbana and Chicago.
Araujo-Cabrera, Y., Suarez-Acosta, M.A. and Aguiar-Quintana, T. (2017), “Exploring the influence of CEO extraversion and openness to experience on firm performance: the mediating role of top management team behavioral integration”, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 201-215.
Bergera, G.J. (2011), “Transgression in the LDS community: the cases of albert Carrington, Richard R. Lyman, and joseph F. Smith, part 1”, Journal of Mormon History, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 119-161.
Black, S.E. (1995), “How large was the population of Nauvoo?”, BYU Studies Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 91-94.
Bourgeois, L.J. (1980a), “Strategy and environment: a conceptual integration”, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 25-39.
Bourgeois, L.J. (1980b), “Performance and consensus”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 227-248.
Bowen, G.A. (2006), “Grounded theory and sensitizing concepts”, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 12-23.
Bromiley, P. and Rau, D. (2016), “Social, behavioral, and cognitive influences on upper echelons during strategy process: a literature review”, Journal of Management, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 174-202.
Bushman, R.L. (2005), Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling. A Cultural Biography of Mormonism’s Founder, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, NY.
Business Roundtable (2019), “Statement on the purpose of a corporation”, Business Roundtable, August 19, 2019, available at: https://opportunity.businessroundtable.org/ourcommitment/ (accessed 15 March 2021).
Buyl, T., Boone, C., Hendriks, W. and Matthyssens, P. (2011), “Top management team functional diversity and firm performance: the moderating role of CEO characteristics”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 151-177.
Camelo-Ordaz, C., Garcia-Cruz, J. and Sousa-Ginel, E. (2014), “Antecedents of relationship conflict in top management teams”, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 124-147.
Campbell, E.E. and Poll, R.D. (1976), Hugh B. Brown: His Life and Thought, Bookcraft, Salt Lake City.
Carmeli, A. (2008), “Top management team behavioral integration and the performance of service organizations”, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 712-735.
Carmeli, A. and Halevi, M.Y. (2009), “How top management team behavioral integration and behavioral complexity enable organizational ambidexterity: the moderating role of contextual ambidexterity”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 207-218.
Carmeli, A., Schaubroeck, J. and Tishler, A. (2011), “How CEO empowering leadership shapes top management team processes: implications for firm performance”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 399-411.
Chandler, A.D.J. (1962),. Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of Industrial Enterprise, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Chan-Serafin, S., Brief, A.P. and George, J.M. (2013), “Perspective – how does religion matter and why? Religion and the organizational sciences”, Organization Science, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 1585-1600.
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (2007), “Press conference with president eyring and elder cook [video]”, available at: https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-president-names-new-leaders
Cole, B.M. and Chandler, D. (2019), “A model of competitive impression management: Edison versus Westinghouse in the war of the currents”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 64 No. 4, pp. 1020-1063.
Council Minutes (1880-1884), The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Cummins, B. (2018), “Heresy and humbug: Mormons, millerites, and the protestant evangelical definition of religious freedom in the burned over district”, 1830-1845, Master’s Thesis, University of Lethbridge.
Dacin, M.T., Munir, K. and Tracey, P. (2010), “Formal dining at Cambridge colleges: linking ritual performance and institutional maintenance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53 No. 6, pp. 1393-1418.
Darowski, J.F. (2010), “Seeking after the ancient order: conferences and councils in early church governance, 1830-1834”, Mormon Historical Studies, Vol. 11, pp. 27-39.
Doctrine and Covenants (1879), Salt Lake City, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Du, J., Chan, L.B., Birnbaum, A. and Lin, X. (2022), “Learning within teams: a multilevel analysis of team behavioral integration and creativity”, Small Group Research, Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 274-306.
Dutton, J.E. and Dukerich, J.M. (1991), “Keeping an eye on the mirror: image and identity in organizational adaptation”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 517-554.
Edmondson, A.C., Roberto, M.A. and Watkins, M.D. (2003), “A dynamic model of top management team effectiveness: managing unstructured task streams”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 297-325.
Ehat, A.F. (1980), “‘It seems like heaven began on earth’ – Joseph Smith and the constitution of the kingdom of god”, BYU Studies, Vol. 3, pp. 253-279.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), “Building theories from case study research”, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532-550.
Eisenhardt, K.M. and Graebner, M.E. (2007), “Theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 25-32.
Firmage, E.B. (1988), An Abundant Life: The Memoirs of Hugh B. Brown, Signature Books, Salt Lake City.
Flake, K. (2016), “Ordering antinomy: an analysis of early Mormonism's priestly offices, councils, and kinship”, Religion and American Culture: A Journal of Interpretation, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 139-183.
Flake, L.R. (2001), Prophets and Apostles of the Last Dispensation, BYU Religious Studies Center Press, Provo, UT.
Forbes (2007), “America's largest private companies, #386, deseret management corporation”, available at: www.forbes.com/lists/2008/21/privates08_Deseret-Management_9AUD.html (accessed 17 September 2018).
Friedman, Y., Carmeli, A. and Tishler, A. (2016), “How CEOs and TMTs build adaptive capacity in small entrepreneurial firms”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 53 No. 6, pp. 996-1018.
Gibbons, F.M. (1986), David O. McKay: Apostle to the World, Prophet of God, Deseret Book Company, Salt Lake City.
Gibbons, F.M. (1990), George Albert Smith: Kind and Caring Christian, Prophet of God, Deseret Book Company, Salt Lake City.
Gibbons, F.M. (1992), Joseph Fielding Smith: Gospel Scholar, Prophet of God, Deseret Book Company, Salt Lake City.
Gibbons, F.M. (1993), Harold B. Lee: Man of Vision, Prophet of God, Deseret Book Company, Salt Lake City.
Gibbons, F.M. (1996), Ezra Taft Benson: Statesman, Patriot, Prophet of God, Deseret Book Company, Salt Lake City.
Godfrey, K.W. (1992), “Council of fifty”, Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Macmillan, New York, NY, pp. 326-327.
Godfrey, K.W. (1998), “Moses thatcher in the dock: his trials, the aftermath, and his last days”, Journal of Mormon History, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 54-88.
Grow, M.J., Esplin, R.K., Ashurst-McGee, M., Dirkmaat, G.J. and Mahas, J.D. (Eds) (2016), Administrative Records Series of the Joseph Smith Papers, Vol. 1. Council of Fifty Minutes, March 1844-January 1846, Church Historian’s Press, Salt Lake City.
Gu, J., Weng, Q. and Xie, F. (2012), “Leadership, team and decision speed: empirical study using cross-provincial data”, Chinese Management Studies, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 598-609.
Gully, S., Incalcaterra, K.A., Joshi, A. and Beaubien, J.M. (2002), “A meta-analysis of team efficacy, potency, and performance: interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of observed relationships”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 5, pp. 819-832.
Gutierrez, B., Howard-Grenville, J. and Scully, M.A. (2010), “The faithful rise up: split identification and an unlikely change effort”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53 No. 4, pp. 673-699.
Halevi, M.Y., Carmeli, A. and Brueller, N.N. (2015), “Ambidexterity in SBUs: TMT behavioral integration and environmental dynamism”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 54 No. S1, pp. 223-238.
Hambrick, D.C. (1989), “Guest editor's introduction: putting top managers back in the strategic picture”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 10 No. S1, pp. 5-15.
Hambrick, D.C. (1994), “Top management groups: a conceptual integration and reconsideration of the ‘team’ label”, in Shaw, B.M. and Cummings, L.L. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 171-214.
Hambrick, D.C. (2007), “Upper echelons theory: an update”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 334-343.
Hambrick, D.C. (1995), “Fragmentation and the other problems CEOs have with their top management teams”, California Management Review, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 110-127.
Hambrick, D.C. (1998), “Corporate coherence and the top management team”, in Hambrick, D.C., Nadler, D.A. and Tushman, M.L. (Eds), Navigating Change: How CEOs, Top Teams, and Boards Steer Transformation, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, pp. 123-140.
Hampel, C.E. and Tracey, P. (2017), “How organizations move from stigma to legitimacy: the case of cook’s travel agency in Victorian Britain”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 60 No. 6, pp. 2175-2207.
Hatch, J.P. (2006), Danish Apostle: The Diaries of Anthon H. Lund, 1890-1921, Signature Books/Smith-Pettit Foundation, Salt Lake City.
Heavey, C. and Simsek, Z. (2017), “Distributed cognition in top management teams and organizational ambidexterity: the influence of transactive memory systems”, Journal of Management, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 919-945.
Janis, I.L. (1971), “Groupthink”, Psychology Today, Vol. 5 No. 6, pp. 43-46.
Jansen, J.J., George, G., Van den Bosch, F.A. and Volberda, H.W. (2008), “Senior team attributes and organizational ambidexterity: the moderating role of transformational leadership”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 45 No. 5, pp. 982-1007.
Ji, H.Y., Jin, Y.S., Li, J., Tian, H. and Feng, S.Z. (2015), “The influence of transformational leadership on top management’s behavioral integration and organizational ambidexterity in dynamic environment – an empirical study based on E-commerce enterprises in China”, International Journal of u- and e-Service, Science and Technology, Vol. 8 No. 11, pp. 357-378.
Keck, S.L. and Tushman, M.L. (1993), “Environmental and organizational context and executive team structure”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 1314-1344.
Kimball, E.L. and Kimball, A.E. (1977), Spencer W. Kimball, Bookcraft, Salt Lake City.
Kisfalvi, V., Sergi, V. and Langley, A. (2016), “Managing and mobilizing microdynamics to achieve behavioral integration in top management teams”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 427-446.
Knowles, E. (1994), Howard W. Hunter, Deseret Book Company, Salt Lake City.
Kress, R. (2017), “175 Top CEOs pledge to diversity and inclusion initiative”, Ivy Exec, available at: www.ivyexec.com/career-advice/2017/ceos-pledge-diversity-and-inclusion/ (accessed 15 March 2021).
Langley, A., Smallman, C., Tsoukas, H. and Van de Ven, A.H. (2013), “Process studies of change in organization and management: unveiling temporality, activity, and flow”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 1-13.
Li, J.T. and Hambrick, D.C. (2005), “Factional groups: a new vantage on demographic faultlines, conflict, and disintegration in work teams”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 48 No. 5, pp. 794-813.
Li, C., Lin, C. and Tien, Y. (2015), “CEO transformational leadership and top manager ambidexterity: an empirical study in Taiwan SMEs”, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 36 No. 8, pp. 927-954.
Li, H. and Zhang, Y. (2002), “Founding team comprehension and behavioral integration: evidence from new technology ventures in China”, in Nagao, D. (Ed.), Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings, Briarcliff Manor, New York, NY, pp. 1-6.
Lin, H.C. and Rababah, N. (2014), “CEO–TMT exchange, TMT personality composition, and decision quality: the mediating role of TMT psychological empowerment”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 943-957.
Ling, Y., Simsek, Z., Lubatkin, M.H. and Veiga, J.F. (2008), “Transformational leadership’s role in promoting corporate entrepreneurship: examining the CEO-TMT interface”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 557-576.
Liu, J., Chen, J. and Tao, Y. (2015), “Innovation performance in new product development teams in China’s technology ventures: the role of behavioral integration dimensions and collective efficacy”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 29-44.
Liu, F., Jarrett, M. and Maitlin, S. (2021), “Top management team constellations and their implications for strategic decision making”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 33 No. 3, p. 101510.
Lubatkin, M., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y. and Veiga, J.F. (2006), “Ambidexterity and performance on small- to medium-sized firms: the pivotal role of TMT behavioral integration”, Journal of Management, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 646-672.
Luo, B., Zheng, S., Ji, H. and Liang, L. (2018), “Ambidextrous leadership and TMT-member ambidextrous behavior: the role of TMT behavioral integration and TMT risk propensity”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 338-359.
MacKay, R.B. and Chia, R. (2013), “Choice, chance, and unintended consequences in strategic change: a process understanding of the rise and fall of northco automotive”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 208-230.
Madsen, T.G. (2004), The Presidents of the Church, Deseret Book Company, Salt Lake City.
Menz, M. (2012), “Functional top management team members: a review, synthesis, and research agenda”, Journal of Management, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 45-80.
Miller, D. (1991), “Stale in the saddle: CEO tenure and the match between organization and environment”, Management Science, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 34-52.
Mooney, A.C., Holahan, P.J. and Amason, A.C. (2007), “Don’t take it personally: exploring cognitive conflict as a mediator of affective conflict”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 44 No. 5, pp. 733-758.
Mooney, A.C. (2000), “The antecedents of conflict during strategic decision making: the importance of behavioral integration”, Dissertation, University of Georgia.
Mooney, A.C. and Sonnenfeld, J. (2001), “Exploring antecedents to conflict during strategic decision making: the importance of behavioral integration”, Paper presented at the Academy of Management Meeting, BPS Division, Washington, DC.
National Archives’ National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC) (2020), “Endorsement of the joseph smith papers project”, available at: www.archives.gov/nhprc/projects/states-territories/ut.html (accessed 22 July 2020).
National Notary Association (2018), “Glossary of terms”, available at: www.nationalnotary.org/knowledge-center/about-notaries/glossary-of-terms (accessed 31 May 2019).
Neely, B.H., Jr, Lovelace, J.B., Cowen, A.P. and Hiller, N.J. (2020), “Metacritiques of upper echelons theory: verdicts and recommendations for future research”, Journal of Management, Vol. 46 No. 6, pp. 1029-1062.
Newsroom (2022), “Facts and statistics, the church of Jesus Christ of latter-day saints”, available at: https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/facts-and-statistics (accessed 24 September 2021).
O’Reilly, C., Snyder, R. and Boothe, J. (1993), “Effects of executive team demography on organizational change”, in Huber, P. and Glick, W. (Eds), Organizational Change and Redesign, Oxford University Press New York, NY, pp. 147-175.
On, L.W., Liang, X., Priem, R. and Shaffer, M. (2013), “Top management team trust, behavioral integration and the performance of international joint ventures”, Journal of Asia Business Studies, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 99-122.
Ou, A.Y., Waldman, D.A. and Peterson, S.J. (2018), “Do humble CEOs matter? An examination humility and firm outcomes”, Journal of Management, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 1147-1173.
Ou, A.Y., Tsui, A.S., Kinicki, A.J., Waldman, D.A., Xiao, Z. and Song, L.J. (2014), “Humble chief executive officers’ connections to top management team integration and middle managers’ responses”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 34-72.
Ozcan, P., Han, S. and Graebner, M.E. (2017), “Single cases: the what, why, and how”, in Mir, R. and Jain, S. (Eds), The Routledge Companion to Qualitative Research in Organization Studies, Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 92-112.
Packer, B.K. (1991), “I say unto you, be one”, Speech given at Brigham Young University on 12 February 1991, available at https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/boyd-k-packer_say-unto-one/ (accessed 31 May 2019).
Peterson, R.S., Martorana, P.V., Smith, D.B. and Owens, P.D. (2003), “The impact of chief executive officer personality on top management team dynamics: one mechanism by which leadership affects organizational performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 795-808.
Plowman, D.A., Baker, L.T., Beck, T.E., Kulkarni, M., Solansky, S.T. and Travis, D.V. (2007), “Radical change accidentally: the emergence and amplification of small change”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 515-543.
Prince, G.A. and Wright, W.R. (2005), David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Raes, A.M.L., Bruch, H. and De Jone, S.B. (2013), “How top management team behavioural integration can impact employee work outcomes: Theory development and first empirical tests”, Human Relations, Vol. 66 No. 2, pp. 167-192.
Reina, C.S., Zhang, Z. and Peterson, S.J. (2014), “CEO grandiose narcissism and firm performance: the role of organizational identification”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 958-971.
Richards, F.D. (1880), Diary, Church History Library and Archives of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City.
Rojas, F. (2010), “Power through institutional work: acquiring academic authority in the 1968 third world strike”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53 No. 6, pp. 1263-1280.
Rowlinson, M., Hassard, J. and Decker, S. (2014), “Strategies for organizational history: a dialogue between historical theory and organization theory”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 250-274.
Samimi, M., Cortes, A.F., Anderson, M.H. and Herrmann, P. (2020), “What is strategic leadership? Developing a framework for future research”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 33 No. 3, p. 101353, doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2019.101353.
Shepherd, N.G., Hodgkinson, G.P., Mooi, E.A., Elbanna, S. and Rudd, J.M. (2020), “Political behavior does not (always) undermine strategic decision making: theory and evidence”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 53 No. 5, p. 101943, doi: 10.1016/j.lrp.2019.101943.
Siggelkow, N. (2001), “Change in the presence of fit: the rise, the fall, and the renaissance of Liz Claiborne”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 838-857.
Siggelkow, N. (2002), “Evolution toward fit”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 125-159.
Siggelkow, N. (2007), “Persuasion with case studies”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 20-24.
Simons, T., Pelled, L.H. and Smith, K.A. (1999), “Making use of difference: diversity, debate, and decision comprehensiveness in top management teams”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 42, pp. 477-492.
Simsek, Z., Heavey, C. and Fox, C.B. (2005), “Interfaces of strategic leaders: a conceptual framework, review, and research agenda”, Journal of Management, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 280-324.
Simsek, Z., Veiga, J.F., Lubatkin, M.H. and Dino, R.N. (2005), “Modeling the multilevel determinants of top management team behavioral integration”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 69-84.
Smith, G.D. (1991), An Intimate Chronicle: The Journals of William Clayton, Signature Books, Salt Lake City.
Smith, J.F. (1880), Diary, Church History Library and Archives of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City.
Smith, J.F. (1910), Instructions given to Elder Joseph F. Smith Jr, at the Salt Lake Temple., April 7th, 1910, Joseph F. Smith Papers, MS 1325, Salt Lake City: Church History Library and Archives of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Swinton, H.S. (2010), To the Rescue: The Biography of Thomas S. Monson, Deseret Book Publishing Company, Salt Lake City.
Talaulicar, T. (2017), “Top management team organization of high-tech venture firms: structural arrangements and their potential”, in Gabrielsson, J. (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Corporate Governance and Entrepreneurship, Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton, MA, pp. 84-110.
The Joseph Smith Papers Project (2020), “Endorsements”, available at: www.josephsmithpapers.org/articles/endorsements (accessed 22 July 2020).
Tracey, P. (2012), “Religion and organization: a critical review of current trends and future directions”, Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 87-134.
Tracey, P. (2016), “Spreading the word: the microfoundations of institutional persuasion and conversion”, Organization Science, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 989-1009.
Tran, H.Q. (2013), “Top management team behavioral integration, organizational ambidexterity, and small firm’s performance: The moderating effect of entrepreneurial orientation”, Dissertation. University of Texas-Pan American.
Tripsas, M. and Gavetti, G. (2000), “Capabilities, cognition, and inertia: evidence from digital imaging”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21 Nos 10/11, pp. 1147-1161.
Venugopal, A., Krishnan, T.N., Upadhyayula, R.S. and Kumar, M. (2020), “Finding the microfoundations of organizational ambidexterity – demystifying the role of top management behavioural integration”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 106, pp. 1-11.
Walch, T. (2018), “Elders gong, soares share experiences from first 3 months as LDS apostles”, Deseret News, June 28, 2018, available at: www.deseretnews.com/article/900023248/lds-elders-gong-soares-first-3-months-as-apostles.html (accessed 11 October 2018).
Webster, N. (1828), “American dictionary of the English language”, available at: http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/affirmation (accessed 6 November 2018).
Weick, K.E. (1993), “The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: the mann gulch disaster”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 628-652.
Wells, J.F. (1880), Junius F. Wells “Full Journal, Church History Library and Archives of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City.
Whipp, R. and Clark, P.A. (1986), Innovation and the Auto Industry: Product, Process and Work Organisation, Francis Pinter, London.
Winter, C. (2012), “How the Mormons make money”, Bloomberg Businessweek, July 18, 2012.
Yin, R.K. (2014), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 5th ed., Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Further reading
Clark, E. (2004), History, Theory, Text: Historians and the Linguistic Turn, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Eisenhardt, K.M. and Bourgeois, L.J. (1988), “Politics of strategic decision making in high-velocity environments: toward a midrange theory”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 31, pp. 737-770.
Hinings, C.R. and Raynard, M. (2014), “Organizational form, structure, and religious organizations”, Religion and Organization Theory, Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley, UK, pp. 159-186.
Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, 2nd ed., Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Don Hambrick and Dave Ketchen for valuable feedback on previous versions of the manuscript.