Exploring the top management team diversity paradox: A qualitative and quantitative analysis of diversity and strategic decision-making in the public sector

What does the decision-making process look like in homogenous teams and heterogenous teams? What influences the nature of conflict and debate in the strategic decision-making process? What kind of diversity is necessary for debate and comprehensiveness to occur? Who influences the strategic decision-making process? What leads to "better" decisions---homogeneity or heterogeneity? These are the kinds of questions that are addressed in this thesis.; To date, very little research has examined the impact of character/personality, demographic diversity and power on the strategic decision-making process including conflict, debate, comprehensiveness and outcomes; there has been even less in the public sector setting. Furthermore, few researchers have explored the diversity paradox that results when the intended benefits of selecting top management team (TMT) members on the basis of their demographic heterogeneity do not accrue because of their homogeneity along other dimensions such as personality/character. As a result of such homogeneity, key elements in a strategic decision-making process such as debate and comprehensiveness may be incomplete, at best, and overlooked, at worst.; This thesis describes the results of an exploratory study in which the strategic decision-making process in two different TMTs was analysed using a combination of interviews with multiple informants, survey data of team participants and archival analysis. Although both decision processes lasted about 9 months, they were markedly different. Survey data revealed that the homogenous TMT reported lower levels of cognitive and affective conflict and, yet, higher levels of debate, comprehensiveness and decision process outcomes than the heterogenous TMT.; However, the interview evidence and analysis of documents told a much different story and indicated that the diversity paradox was present on the homogenous team. The evidence suggested that the leader of the homogenous TMT was inexperienced in the decision context and created a coalition with another team member that limited opportunities for discussion and debate. Key issues were not treated very comprehensively and the homogenous TMT had difficulty identifying issues, managing the process and never fully realized its potential. As a result, the reported levels of debate, comprehensiveness and decision outcomes may have been overstated in the survey.; On the other hand, the leader of the heterogenous TMT had a great deal of experience and knew how to manage a diverse team by identifying issues, assembling resources and managing the process. Despite some tension between those that had been on the team previously and the newcomers to the team, members contributed to the decision process. Qualitative data suggested that there was more debate and comprehensiveness than first reported and that the quality of the decision outcome may have been understated by the team members.; Both character/personality and demographic dimensions were seen to have an effect on the strategic decision-making process of both teams moderated by external pressures, contextual factors and team factors.; This research makes a contribution to the literature by going beyond traditional demographic and survey analysis and qualitatively exploring other dimensions that impact on the nebulous strategic decision-making process. Suggestions are made for future research.