“if you don't know what port you are sailing to, no wind is favorable”**

University reforms
Schuler (1995); Williamson and Cable (2003)).
Our results further show that homophily is a significant predictor in personnel selection decisions
even in the context of massive change. At least two different interpretations come to mind
to explain these results. First, the results are in line with previous findings in similarity and
homophily research (McPherson, Smith-Lovin, and Cook (2001)) and complement these in
the context of universities, which are characterized by high autonomy in their selection decisions.
Second, the results could also be an indication that individual and psychological motives
are stronger than organizational motives. Another possible interpretation is that the management
professors in our study did not actually perceive a strong pressure to change, and therefore
did not succumb to this pressure in their personnel selection preferences. On the other hand,
previous research shows that strong external change can lead to “the closing of ranks” in organizations
and to even more homophilous personnel selection decisions (Boone et al. (2004)). Thus,
counterintuitively, reproducing homosocial strategies can happen in times and circumstances
when it is least expected (and perhaps most beneficial) from the organization’s perspective.
Is homosocial reproduction detrimental for organizations that are facing pressure to change?
Some authors (Schneider (1987)) suggest that it is, but others (Schaubroeck et al. (1998))
argue that it is not necessarily harmful. So far, no study has empirically tested the organizational
consequences for homosocial preferences in hiring decisions for organizations. A few
qualitative studies suggest that homosocial strategies can have both positive and negative
outcomes, depending on factors such as team heterogeneity, communication, and resources,
and environmental complexity.
Our results on the influence of homophily are of particular interest, given the ongoing institutional
pressures for organizational change in the university systems. The preference for applicants
similar to oneself might be at odds with the attainment of the change goals as put forth by
the German Ministry for Education and Research. For example, previous studies have already
shown the effect of homophily on the spread of gender inequalities (Dick and Nadin (2006)).
Our results show that satisfaction with management structures prior to the university reforms
has a positive effect on the preference for applicants with good monographs and those with a
venia legendi. Moreover, it appears that university professors who were satisfied with management
structures prior to the university reforms also prefer applicants from a reputable chair.
These findings demonstrate that successful organizational changes presuppose dissatisfaction
with the previous situations and conditions as expressed in the literature to date (Greenwood
and Hinings (1996)). Our study shows that when they make their appointment decisions,
university professors who support the organizational changes prefer applicants who have international
experience and have been published in prestigious journals. A further interesting
finding is that the more strongly professors approve of the university reform objectives, the
less likely they are to prefer applicants with a venia legendi.
However, our results should be viewed in the light of their limitations, which have to be taken
into account for the interpretation and generalizability of the results. First, results from nonexperimental
and non-longitudinal research design can only be interpreted causally with great
caution (Cliff (1983); Biddle, Bank, and Marlin (1987)). Second, in Section 3.2 we discussed
sbr 60 January 2008 -31 2