Prior research indicates that the relationship between top management team (TMT) faultlines and firm performance is equivocal. We shed new light on this topic by highlighting the moderating role of the CEO-TMT interface. Analyzing data from large international firms over the period 2005-2009 (347 firm-year combinations), we find that the performance effect of knowledge-based TMT faultlines is significantly altered when the leader of the TMT (i.e., the CEO): (a) socio-demographically resembles incumbent executives, (b) possesses a diverse career background, and (c) shares common socialization experience with other TMT members. Overall, our research reveals that different dimensions of the CEO-TMT interface play a pivotal role in determining the performance effects of knowledge-based TMT subgroups. Implications for upper echelons theory, team diversity, and strategic leadership research are discussed.

Changes that have been made to the final published version, including changes resulting from the publishing process, are not reflected in this document.

There has been much controversy concerning the relationship between outside CEO succession origin and firm performance. Some scholars take the organizational‐adaptation view to highlight the benefits of outside succession; yet others adopt the organizational‐disruption view to pose the selection of an outsider CEO as a disruptive and disadvantageous event for organizations. In this study, we develop an integrated multilevel framework that reconciles these opposing perspectives and examines the conditions under which the benefits of outside CEO succession outweigh the costs. Data from 109 CEO succession events in large international firms show that the performance advantages of outside succession materialize when the new CEO: (a) socio‐demographically resembles incumbent executives, (b) possesses a variety of experience, and (c) is hired by a well‐performing firm operating in a munificent industry. Overall, our research demonstrates that the performance implications of new CEO origin should not be considered in isolation, but in interaction with multilevel characteristics.

We examine the relation between boards of directors' knowledge heterogeneity and organizational ambidexterity (OA) (i.e. simultaneous exploration and exploitation) in knowledge-intensive firms (KIFs). Although the literature on OA has started to emphasize its antecedents, the role of the board remains unaddressed. This is an important omission, as boards have become increasingly involved in strategy-making. In turn, studies on boards have looked at their influence on either exploration-or exploitation-type strategies. Yet, KIFs particularly need to balance both exploration and exploitation to renew their knowledge base. We draw on knowledgebased perspectives to disentangle the benefits and costs of board knowledge heterogeneity for driving OA in KIFs. Our empirical analysis based on a longitudinal panel of UK pharmaceutical firms provides support for our hypothesized U-shaped relation. Our findings suggest that the benefits of knowledge heterogeneity only outweigh the costs beyond a particular threshold. Overall, our theoretical approach and allied findings advance the literature by introducing boundary conditions to the resource provision role of boards in KIFs. We discuss contributions for organizational learning, strategic leadership, and human resource management. We conclude with implications for theory and practice, as well as key opportunities for future research.