1

Sören Salomo
Kai Teichmann

Institute for Business Administration

Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel
Olshausenstr. 40

24098 Kiel
Germany

Tel: +49 (431) 880-1466

+49 (431) 880-4696
Email: salomo@bwl.uni-kiel.de
teichmann@bwl.uni-kiel.de

The relationship of performance and managerial succession

in the German Premier Soccer League

Introduction

Managerial succession and organizational performance has been subject to a wide

range of empirical studies in the area of sport management. To asses the relationship
between team performance and managerial succession we examine two main
research questions dealing with the determinants and effects of management
change. We employ a multivariate analysis of time series data on all German premier
soccer league teams between 1979 and 1998. As expected poor performance is
identified as the main factor influencing the dismissal of the manager. Additionally
two intervening variables modify this relationship. The probability of a management
turnover increases in case of organizational turbulence due to turnover in the board
of directors as well as in case of an intensive local media coverage. Examining the
effects of managerial succession the analysis indicates a negative performance effect
even after controlling for prior performance. This effect seems to be enforced in case
of an outside successor.
 2

Prior research and research question

The relationship between management turnover and organizational performance

remains, even after three decades of empirical research in this area, an important
question in organizational sociology as well as in sport management. Allen et al.
(1979) observe that „given the crucial importance of this problem, there is a clear
need for an empirical analysis that can elucidate, in a rigorous and systematic
manner, the relationship between managerial succession and organizational
performance”. With succession being the focal point of analysis two research
questions need to be addressed: (1) Is performance a central predictor of managerial
succession and (2) does succession have any impact on the following performance?

Focussing on sport teams as subject of investigation provides the researcher with a

highly comparable group of organizations. Sport teams show a very similar
organizational structure and are exposed to an almost identical set of environmental
factors. They pursue similar goals which considerably eases the measurement of
performance. Being in the center of public interest and subject to intensive coverage
in the media, sport teams and especially the German premier soccer league offer the
possibility of collecting a large sample with a detailed history of information.
Additionally sport teams as organizations are sufficiently small enough to allow a test
of the direct relationship between the succession of team managers and team
performance.

Prior research and common sense suggest that team performance is negatively
related to management turnover (Allen et. al., 1979 / Eitzen/Yetman, 1972). The
directors of the board intend to maximize team performance. Aspiration level theory
suggests that the current performance of a team is compared to a reference
performance (Greve, 1998 / Lant, 1992)). The reference performance is established
e.g. by the performance record of the nearest competitors or in relation to previously
set goals dependent on e.g. past performance history. Managers coaching teams
which experience a period of realized performance below the aspiration level should
be in danger of being dismissed. This turnover of the current team manager or coach
is seen as a measure to improve the team standing in such a period of dissatisfying
performance (Pfeffer/Davis-Blake, 1986).
 3

Apart from team performance several other intervening variables should be

considered additionally. Brown (1982) e.g. suggests that the rate of personnel
turnover is another important variable influencing management turnover. With the
board having the power to dismiss and select the team manager it might be
hypothesized that different types of boards exert different policies towards the
question of management turnover (Scully, 1992). Especially a newly established
board can be expected to be more willing to change the current manager in case of a
performance decrease since personal ties to the incumbent manager should be of
lesser importance. Not only board types but as well characteristics of the incumbent
manager should determine the performance succession relationship. A manager who
has build up a very good reputation during previous seasons should have more credit
or „good will” than a not so well accepted team manager. Consequently a better
reputation should weaken the relationship between performance and turnover. An
additional variable – of potentially high importance to sports organizations – might be
the intensity of media coverage. In case of a highly active local media at least the
visibility of the team performance and especially of the person in charge – the team
manager or coach – increases. The chance of being dismissed in times of poor
performance should increase as well under these circumstances.

In total, we expect team performance to be the major determinant of manager or

coach turnover. Additionally the probability of succession in times of poor
performance should increase with a relatively bad reputation of the manager or
coach, with a supervising board assuming office recently, with a high rate of
personnel turnover, and with a highly intensive local media coverage of the team.

The investigation of the process of managerial succession should not only focus on
the reason for turnover but as well discuss the effects of management turnover.
Although the change of the management obviously is intended as a measure of
performance improvement, succession does not necessarily fulfill these expectations.
Management turnover can result both in functional as well as in dysfunctional effects.
Dependent on the relative strength of each of these effects succession implies
positive, negative or even indifferent effects on performance. Apart from this rational,
succession might exert no influence at all on team performance. If the team manager
is completely irrelevant in determining organizational results a change in his position
 4

should not cause any performance variation at all. His change in times of poor team
performance can thus be interpreted as a mere scapegoating process
(Gamson/Scotch, 1964).

Empirical results based on sport teams do not give a clear hint which succession
effect dominates (Brown, 1982). While e.g. Allen et al. (1979) in an empirical
examination of management turnover in baseball teams found a negative relationship
between „during season” turnover and performance, Scully (1992) reports a positive
turnover effect. But indifferent effects of turnover are reported as well. Both
Eitzen/Yetman (1972) and Pfeffer/Davis-Blake (1986) can not detect any positive or
negative effects at all. Obviously these conflicting results of empirical research need
some further attention (Allen et al., 1979). The relationship between succession and
following performance might be moderated by further variables (Pfeffer/Davis-Blake,
1986). Different turnover situations might result in a different performance
development following the turnover event. Again different types of managers might
be considered, as e.g. an internal successor could have a different impact on
performance than an outsider (Allen et al., 1979 / Guthrie/Datta, 1998). Coming from
inside the organization a successor is already informed in detail about strength and
weaknesses of a team and is able to draw on a wide range of previously established
personal ties. His knowledge of the organization should ease the process of
succession and reduce dysfunctional effects critical to the performance. On the other
hand an insider might be committed to much to past decisions and thereby causing
organizational rigidities in times were change and disruption is called for. Apart from
the knowledge about the organization successors can differ additionally in their
reputation and competency. This might as well contribute to a different evolution of
the performance following a change in the management position.

Both Eitzen/Yetman (1972) and Pfeffer/Davis-Blake (1986) point out, that previous
performance is a strong predictor of current performance. How far this relationship is
characterized by a so called „regression to the mean” effect or by a generally positive
relation, still remains to be investigated. The latter (positive) relationship could point
towards certain turnover-independent effects which determine performance in the
sense of structural stability, i. e. a team with a good reputation and a sound financial
 5

basis will always come up with rather good results more or less independent of the
managerial succession.

Again different factors based in the external or internal environment might have some
influence on the central turnover performance relationship. At least the influence of
these variables like intensity of media coverage, board experience and rate of
personnel turnover should be controlled for.

With the exception of only few prior empirical studies (Allen et al., 1979 / Audas et al.,
1997) most empirical research employed rather limited data sets in terms of size and
periods of investigation. Although sport teams provide the researcher with highly
comparable and possibly complex measures of organizational performance, most
prior studies limited their research to rather simple performance measures. As an
example, Allan et al. (1979) measure team performance as a dichotomous variable
separating high performing teams from teams having losing seasons by using a
team-winning percentage. Teams with a percentage over 0.5 are considered as
winning teams in this study. Moderating variables influencing the hypothesized
relationship between performance and turnover were only to a limited extend subject
of investigation. Keeping this in mind our analysis is both a replication and an
extension of the prior research on the performance turnover relationship among
professional sport teams. By using a relatively large data set over a period of 19
years we are able to perform a detailed investigation of the determinants and effects
of managerial succession in team sports.

In order to test the hypothesized relationships it is crucial to asses which kind of

measure is used to evaluate team performance. Those measures can be
characterized by the underlying time frame and the measure of reference. Team
management dismissal could be explained by actual or past performance. Whether
the manager is dismissed or not, depends on either team performance in relation to
other teams (objective performance) or on team performance in relation to intended
performance at the beginning of the season (subjective performance).
 6

Sample and measures

Sample
In order to examine the different research questions we use time series data on all
German premier soccer league („Bundesliga“) teams between 1979 and 1998.
During this period 5.888 matches took place.

As mentioned above we have to distinguish between different types of managerial

succession for professional sport teams. Figure 1 presents different types of
managerial succession and their frequency of occurrence within the period under
investigation.

Figure 1: Types of managerial succession and their frequency

change of team manager

(without interim managers)
n = 194

regular, expected irregular

n = 27 n = 167

between two seasons during a season

n = 31 n = 136
(F ig u re 1 )

Due to the exceptional organizational turbulence caused by an irregular management

change during a season this type of succession should display the highest
performance variance during the process of succession and thereby be the most
interesting one to investigate. Our empirical analysis is consequently focused on this
type of management change. In order to isolate determinants and effects of
management change we use a parallel design of analysis. Corresponding to each
turnover team we select a control team which is characterized by similar goals at the
 7

beginning of each season and similar ranking at the time of management change
(accumulated points from game one to the game of the management change).

Measures
The central measure of this analysis is concerned with the performance of the teams.
Generally two types of team performance can be distinguished: (a) Performance in
the regular national league, and (b) Performance in the national and European cup
competitions. We choose to focus on performance in the regular national league
because it is the most important competition, and more data points being dispersed
equally during the season are available. The measures of national league
performance can be characterized by the underlying time frame and the measure of
reference. Time frame refers to the evaluation of performance which is either
performance of the entire season or the performance of the last matches preceding
or following a change of the management. Differing between measures of reference
the performance of a soccer team can be expressed in relation to other teams
(objective performance) or in relation to intended performance at the beginning of the
season (subjective performance). Combining these two measures we can consider
four possibilities to express the team performance in the league matches of the
current season (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Performance in the league of the current season

m easure of reference
objective perform ance subjective perform ance

entire
tim e fram e

season ppga pari

last
m atches
ppga k pari k

(F igure 2)
 8

Based on the convention that a team gets two points for a victory, one point for a tie
and zero points for a defeat we can compute a performance measure for each team
and each match (variable „pag”).i The average points of a team at any time of the
season is defined as:
n

∑ pag
i =1
i
(1) ppga = with „n“ as the number of matches played in the current season.
n
The variable „ppga“ represents the objective performance of the entire season. The
variable „ppgak“ represents the objective performance of the last „k” matches:
n

∑ pag
n − k +1
i
(2) ppga k = with k as an indicator how many matches are considered.
k

To define the subjective team performance we have to consider the different goals of
each team proclaimed before the season starts. Generally we can differentiate
between four goals measured on an ordinal scale: (1) the German championship, (2)
the qualifying for a European cup competition, (3) a place in the midfield of the
ranking, and (4) the avoiding of relegation. In order to identify individual goals at the
beginning of a season the German sport press was screened for interviews and
analysis containing information on this subject. A total of 349 articles made a
classification of individual goals possible. Since each of these goals depend on the
final ranking in the national league, the relationship between the ranking and the
aims can be presented as in figure 3.

Figure 3: Ranking and season goals

F in a l
r a n k in g 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
in n a tio n a l
le a g u e
Q u a l i f y i n ga Ef ourr o p e a n
c u p c o m p e titio n

C h a m p io n s h ip
A v o id in g o f

G o a ls
re le g a tio n

M id fie ld

p r o c la im e d

( F ig u re 3 )
 9

Based on the results historically needed to reach each of the proclaimed goals it is
possible to determine the average number points to be reached in order to realize
each goal (variable „ppgi”). The subjective performance of the entire season is then
measured as:

ppga
(3) pari =
ppgi

The subjective performance of the last „k“ matches is:

ppga k
(4) pari k = with k as an indicator how many matches are considered.
ppgi

Performance may not only be measured as the performance of the current season
but as well as performance of the prior season. Consequently an additional
performance variable „pps” can be introduced which measures prior season
performance by average points per match.

Apart from measuring performance as an output variable directly related to results

obtained in the league competition, relevant performance has a financial dimension
as well. Because German soccer clubs are not obliged to disclose their financial
statements we have to use a proxy-variable in order to measure financial
performance. The number of visitors is potentially highly correlated with financial
performance of the clubs and therefore chosen as an additional performance
measure. The variable „vis“ indicates the development of the number of visitors. It is
defined by the relationship between the average number of visitors of the last three
home matches to the average number of visitors of the 17 home matches before.
These 17 home matches correspond to one season.

The management change can be defined by a dichotomous variable („mc”) with 0 as

„no management change“ and 1 as „management change“. Furthermore, we
consider different personal characteristics of the manager. The variables „former
experience” and „former success” („fexp“/“fsuc“) of a manager are generated from a
factor analysis incorporating variables like age, number of matches as a coach,
number of different coach positions in the German premier soccer league, average
points per match, number of previous titles, number of previous relegations or
previous dismissals. The variable „ios“ expresses the type of succession: In case of
 10

an inside successor it is coded with the value 1, in case of an outside successor with
the value 2. Data on this variable is only available for teams changing their manager.

The turnover of the president of the board is expressed by a dichotomous variable

(„board”) with 0 as „no turnover of the president of the board during the last twelve
months” and 1 as „turnover of the president of the board during the last twelve
months”.

To measure the personal turnover of the players we use the variable „turno“ which
expresses the relation between the number of active players of the own team to the
number of active players of all teams at any time of the season. To examine the
intensity of local media coverage we sent a questionnaire to 60 prominent soccer
sport journalists in Germany. Their perception of local media intensity was
aggregated to the variable „media”, which rates each club individually on a three
point ordinal scale.

Analysis and results

In order to test the above stated research questions we employ both bivariate and
multivariate statistical analysis. To investigate the determinants of management
change the dependent variable is dichotomous while the potentially important
independent variables show all different kinds of scales. Consequently a logistic
regression is an appropriate tool for a multivariate analysis in order to evaluate the
probability of management turnover contingent on different covariates. The second
main research question deals with the effects of management change on team
performance. In this case the dependent variable changes from being a dichotomous
to a cardinal scaled variable. Consequently a multivariate regression analysis is
employed.

Following our argumentation management change should mainly be determined by

team performance: poorly performing teams should be more prone to dismiss their
managers than their better performing counterparts.
 11

Figure 4: Performance differences prior to management change

m easure o f referen ce
o bjectiv e p erfo rm an ce su b jectiv e p erfo rm ance

n m ean s.e. n m ean s.e.

entire
tim e fra m e

change 116 0,7505 0,2545 change 116 0,7295 0,2229

seaso n no no
116 0,8260 0,2092 116 0,8170 0,1757
change change

n m ean s.e. n m ean s.e.

last
chan g e 11 2 0,5 7 5 9 * 0,3 3 5 3 ch ange 11 2 0,5 593* 0,3 294
m atch es
no no
11 2 0,9 0 4 0 * 0,4 1 4 1 11 2 0,8 932* 0,4 011
chan g e ch ange

(F igu re 4)

As figure 4 shows, teams changing their manager differ significantly from the control-
teams in two of four performance measures. Only short term performance seems to
influence managerial succession. We chose to employ a parallel design of analysis
determining a control team as a team without a management change but on a similar
ranking position as the changing team. Consequently the long term performance can
not vary between the two groups of change and no change teams. In this sense the
insignificant results in the long term performance validates our selection of control
teams. All performance differences are of the expected direction. In order to control
for other possibly intervening variables – apart from the performance effect – the
results of a logistic regression analysis (the covariates, their regression coefficients
and the level of significance along with the Wald statistic) are presented in the
following table 1. Since the different performance measures are highly correlated only
one of these measures („points achieved in relation to points intended last four
matches”) is introduced into the regression in order to avoid problems of
multicollinearity.
 12

Table 1: Determinants of management change

variable b s.e. wald df sig r
points achieved in relation to
-3,1666 0,5766 30,1555 1 0,0000 -0,3288
points intended last 4 games
turnover of the president of the board 1,7603 0,7375 5,6969 1 0,0170 0,1191
personell turnover of the players -0,4169 1,9037 0,0480 1 0,8267 0,0000
intensity of media coverage 1,0252 0,3039 11,3822 1 0,0007 0,1898
former experience of the
-0,1310 0,2042 0,4116 1 0,5211 0,0000
incumbent manager
former success of the
-0,3702 0,2510 2,1757 1 0,1402 -0,0260
incumbent manager
development of visitors -1,0432 0,6772 2,3732 1 0,1234 -0,0379
constant 2,5020 2,1738 1,3248 1 0,2497

Before the relevance of each covariate can be interpreted the model’s goodness of fit
needs to be assessed. With a chi-square of 69.06 (7 df) the model is highly
significant. Using all covariates 76.06% of all cases can be classified correctly. This
sufficient goodness of fit allows to interpret each coefficient of the regression.

Three out of the seven analyzed independent variables show a significant influence
on management change. The performance variable measuring the subjective
average performance within the four matches preceding the change shows a
negative coefficient which is highly significant. Teams with a managerial succession
performed worse before changing, in general, than the corresponding teams
experiencing no change in their top position. The two other variables with a
significant influence on managerial succession concern recent fluctuation within the
board and intensity of local media coverage. Both coefficients show a positive
relation to management change: the probability of management change increases
significantly in case a new president of the board has been appointed recently and in
case the whole team is exposed to intensive monitoring by the local press media.
Neither personnel turnover, other characteristics of the dismissed manager (former
success or experience) nor the development of the number of visitors show any
significant effect on managerial succession.

The second issue under investigation is the impact of management turnover on team
performance. This research question is adequately assessed by employing a
 13

multivariate regression analysis.ii Again, before discussing each independent variable

an assessment of the model’s fit is needed. As displayed in table 2 the relevant
model 1 is highly significant (F = 6,758) and explains nearly 18% of the total variance
of performance.

Table 2: Performance effects of management change

model 1 model 2

variable b s.e. beta T sig b s.e. beta T sig

constant 0,475 0,249 1,908 0,058 -0,061 0,383 -0,160 0,873
points per game
achieved before
0,113 0,090 0,100 1,265 0,208 0,075 0,123 0,067 0,608 0,544
management
change
performance
0,444 0,123 0,277 3,599 0,000 0,607 0,193 0,346 3,152 0,002
prior season
turnover of the
president of the 0,013 0,064 -0,014 -0,202 0,840 0,065 0,079 0,079 0,822 0,413
board
personell
turnover of the 0,036 0,202 0,012 0,179 0,858 0,283 0,340 0,083 0,832 0,407
players
intensity of media
0,018 0,031 0,042 0,596 0,552 0,049 0,046 0,102 1,053 0,295
coverage
management
-0,130 0,039 -0,241 -3,307 0,001
change
type of
-0,024 0,056 -0,040 -0,418 0,677
succession
mean sum mean
sum sq df F sig df F sig
sq sq sq

regression 2,507 6 0,418 6,758 0,000 1,541 6 0,257 3,474 0,004

residuals 11,499 186 0,062 6,950 94 0,074
total 14,006 192 8,490 100

2
R 0,179 0,181
2
Adjusted R 0,153 0,129
 14

Only two of the six variables show significant coefficients. Both the performance of the
prior season and the management change are significant factors determining team
performance. The performance of the prior season is positively related to current
performance, indicating that teams who experienced a poor performance in the previous
season continue to perform badly in the current season and vice versa. In this sense this
coefficient can be interpreted as an indicator of stability. Although this effect is controlled
for, the management change still influences performance negatively. Teams changing
their management during the season perform worse after the change, in general, than
teams who do not change. This negative effect on performance of management change
remains true even with control teams who exhibit a similar poor performance level before
the change.

To assess the effect of different types of succession model 2 in table 2 presents the
results of a multiple regression analysis which introduces the insider/outsider distinction as
another independent variable in order to explain the performance after the change. As
control teams do not experience a management change by definition, data on these
teams can not be used in model 2. Contrary to the negative effect of a management
change in general, the type of successor – coming from inside or outside the organization
– does not influence the performance development following the turnover significantly. The
only important variable is „performance of the prior season” which again determines
current performance. Both performance measures exhibit a positive relationship.

In order to asses whether teams with an insider or outsider successor differ significantly
from no change control teams an analysis of variance is employed. The following table 3
presents the results of this analysis.

Table 3: Performance differences of succession type

a) Means and Standard Deviations
#
type of succession n mean s.d. groups compared Mean difference sig
inside succesion 44 0,9292 0,3109 inside - outside 0,0428 0,733
outside succession 72 0,8863 0,2770 inside - no change -0,0940 0,176
no change 116 1,0231 0,2774 outside - no change -0,1368 0,006*
b) ANOVA results for change groups
mean square 0,446
F 5,541
sig 0,004
# probability levels refer to mean difference of groups compared
 15

It can be seen that there is a general performance difference between control teams,
insider-, and outsider teams. With an F-value of 5.541 this difference is highly
significant. A rather conservative Scheffé-test is used as a post-hoc test to evaluate
which groups differ individually from each other. While there seems to be no
significant difference between teams with an insider succession and control teams
nor between insider and outsider teams, the performance following an outsider
succession is obviously worse than the performance of the control teams. This might
be interpreted as a weak signal that outsider succession is the alternative with the
worst performance consequences.

Conclusion

This analysis provides some important insights into the relationship of performance
and management turnover among sport teams. As for the first research question,
whether performance determines the dismissal of the manager we can conclude that
consistent with expectations past performance constitutes the central determinant of
managerial succession in team sport. Especially the performance development within
the short term in relation to goals set at the beginning of the season seems to
influence the decision to replace the manager. Although performance is a central
variable two other factors – board turnover and media intensity – contribute as well to
an increase of the turnover probability. Managers are more prone to be dismissed in
case the president of the board has recently assumed his position. A new board
president obviously introduces more organizational turbulence in the sense of
reduced commitment to the status quo which together with weakened personal ties
creates a situation of increased instability in other leading positions of the
organization. Managerial succession is additionally enforced by intensive interest of
the local media in the doing of the sport team. In times of poor performance intensive
local media coverage might create substantial pressure on the supervising board to
take appropriate measures in order to improve the performance situation. The
supervising board assumes that a change in the team management helps to improve
the team performance. Consequently the probability of management turnover
increases.
 16

Although the dismissal of the manager is supposed to improve team performance this
effect does not seem to be supported by the data on the German premier soccer
league presented here. Dysfunctional effects obviously outweigh possible functional
consequences contributing to a deterioration of the performance following the
management change. This negative effect of succession is even true after controlling
for prior performance which shows a positive correlation with current performance.
The results presented here thereby not only support the early notion of Grusky
(1963), that managerial change has negative effects on team performance, but
enforces this result by controlling for several potentially important other intervening
variables. The distinction of different successor types helps additionally to support the
interpretation of increased dysfunctional effects of succession. Teams experiencing
an outsider succession – especially compared to no change teams – realize the
worst performance development following the turnover event. As an outsider can be
expected to have little or no knowledge of the organization nor to have well
developed personal ties to other members of the organization his succession
probably goes along with increased internal turbulence. Outsider succession can
consequently be characterized as mainly dysfunctional.

Although the analysis incorporates a wide range of potentially important variables

other factors could have an impact on team performance following the management
change. Time of succession in relation to different phases of a season might be an
influential factor, as e.g. a new manager assuming his position during the winter
break has more opportunity to establish a new strategy than a new manager who is
appointed during the active part of a season. The latter is forced to start with day to
day business which considerably reduces his possibilities to enforce a more long
term strategy. Moreover we did not check for different activities introduced by the
new managers. A more complex analysis in the sense of different successor types
might reveal a more detailed view on succession effects. This remains an interesting
field of empirical research in the area of sport management.
 17

References

Allen, M. P., Panian, S. K., Lotz, R. E.: Managerial Succession and Organizational
Performance - A Recalcitrant Problem Revisited, in: Administrative Science Quarterly
24 (1979), pp. 167-180.

Audas, R., Dobson, S., Goddard, J.: Team Performance and Managerial Change in
the English Football League, in: Economic Affairs, 17 (1997), pp. 30-36.

Brown, M. C.: Administrative Succession and Organizational Performance – The

Succession Effect, in: Administrative Science Quarterly 27 (1982), pp. 1-16.

Eitzen, D. S., Yetman, N. R.: Managerial Change, Longevity, and Organizational

Effectiveness, in: Administrative Science Quarterly 17 (1972), pp. 110-116.

Gamson, W. A., Scotch, N. A.: Scapegoating in Baseball, in: American Journal

Sociology 70 (1964), pp. 69-72.

Greve, H. R.: Performance, Aspirations, and Risky Organizational Change, in:

Administrative Science Quarterly 43 (1998), pp. 58-86.

Grusky, O.: Managerial Succession and Organizational Effectiveness, in: American

Journal of Sociology 69 (1963), pp. 21-31.

Guthrie, J. P., Datta, D. K.: Corporate Strategy, Executive Selection and Firm
Performance, in: Human Resource Management 37, 2 (1998), pp. 101-115.

Lant, T. K.: Aspiration Level Adaption: An Empirical Exploration, in: Management

Science 38 (1992), pp. 623-644.

Pfeffer, J., Davis-Blake, A.: Administrative Succession and Organizational

Performance – How Administrator Experience mediates the Succession Effect, in:
Academy of Management Journal 29 (1986), pp. 72-83.

Scully, G. W.: Is Managerial Termination rational? – Evidence from Professional

Team Sports, in: Advances in the Economics of Sport 1 (1992), pp. 67-87.
 18

Appendix 1: List of variables

Abbreviatio Variable
n

mc management change
pag points actual game
ppga points per game achieved
ppgak points per game achieved last k games
ppgi points per game intended
pari points achieved in relation to points
intended
parik points achieved in relation to points
intended last k games
pps performance prior season
vis development of visitors (financial
performance)
board turnover of the president of the board
turno personnel turnover players
media intensity of media coverage
fexp former experience of the incumbent
manager
fsuc former success of the incumbent
manager
ios type of succession (insider/outsider)

i
Since 1995 the German premier soccer league awards a victory with three instead of two points. In order to
make the data comparable we re-coded these results to the former two-point rule.
ii
The assumptions of regression analysis – especially linearity of the problem, no multicollinearity and normal
distribution of residuals – are met by the data presented. Three influential outliers were eliminated before
starting regression analysis.