"COGNITION AND ORGANIZATIONALANALYSIS: WHO'S MINDING THE STORE?"
bySusan C. SCHNEIDER*Reinhard ANGELMAR**
N° 88 / 52
* Susan C. SCHNEIDER, Associate Professor of Organizational BehaviourINSEAD, Fontainebleau, France
** Reinhard ANGELMAR, Associate Professor of Marketing, INSEAD,Fontainebleau, France
Director of Publication :
Charles WYPLOSZ, Associate Deanfor Research and Development
Printed at INSEAD,Fontainebleau, France
Cognition and Organizational Analysis:Who's Minding the Store?
Susan C. Schneider
Reinhard Angelmar
INSEAD
Blvd. de Constance77305 Fontainebleau
FRANCE
33-1-60-72-4000
An earlier version of this paper was presented at the AnnualAcademy of Management Meeting in New Orleans, 1987.
Cognition and Organizational Analysis: Who's Minding the Store?
This paper provides a framework for organizing research and theory
on cognition as discussed in the organizational literature.
Cognition is described in terms of structure, process and style.
As a property of systems, and thereby independent of a specific
level of analysis, cognition is then discussed across the
individual, group and organizational levels of analysis. Several
issues are raised concerning the state of theory development and
measurement. Research strategies are proposed.
1
The increasing interest in the cognitive approach to organization
analysis is based on the assumption that organizational behaviors
are manifestations of cognitive phenomena. But beyond this
assumption, analysts differ widely in their preferred level of
analysis and methodological approach. The debate is raging as to
the appropriate level of analysis. Many insist that "organizations
don't think only people do" (see Sims & Gioia, 1986) or that
"organizations don't cognize" (James, Joyce, & Slocum, 1988;
Glick, 1988). Organizational theorists who think otherwise brave
attacks of anthropomorphism and reification. Many who attempt to
study cognition at the organizational level of analysis succumb to
cross-level fallacies (Rousseau, 1985).
As the cognitive paradigm is becoming increasingly popular, one
runs the risk of researchers carving out highly specialized
niches, using models and methods borrowed from other fields, and
becoming constrained by them. For example, by borrowing heavily
from psychology many become convinced that the individual level of
analysis is the most appropriate. Models and methodologies from
psychology have been well developed, proven valid and reliable, so
why not use them to study cognition within the organizational
context? We feel that the individual-level approach will not
advance the development of a cognitive paradigm in organizational
analysis. If organizational theorists do not mind the store, who
will?
In this paper we review and synthesize the organizational
cognition literature in order to construct a map that will let us
2
see where we are and where we need to go. First, cognition is
defined as a set of core concepts referring to structure, process
and styles. Next, applications of these concepts at the
individual, group, and organizational levels of analysis are
reviewed. This framework helps to identify critical issues and
gaps in theory and in research. Research strategies are discussed
that will encourage developing the cognitive paradigm at the
organizational level of analysis.
Cognitive Approaches to Organization Analysis
The cognitive paradigm in organizational analysis flourished
following the publication of Cyert and March (1963). Organizations
were subsequently described as information processing systems
(Galbraith, 1974; Tushman & Nadler, 1978), social information
processing systems (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978), bodies of thought,
of thinkers, and sets of thinking practices (Weick, 1979a),
multicephalous organisms capable of symbolic representation (Pondy
& Mitroff, 1978), interpretive systems (Daft & Weick, 1984), and
as minds (Sandelands & Stablein, 1986). The classic study of
Bougon, Weick, & Binkhost (1977) on the Utrecht Jazz Orchestra
launched the study of cognitive or causal maps in organizations.
This approach was complemented by the study of differences in the
way information is processed, giving rise to the concept of
"cognitive style". The impact of cognitive structures, processes
and styles on behavior has also been studied. For example, risk
averse behavior can be elicited by labelling (categorizing) as
gain vs. loss or as threat vs. opportunity (Tversky & Kahneman,
1974; Dutton & Jackson, 1987).
3
Core Concepts of the Cognitive Paradigm
Regardless of the level of analysis, the study of cognition is
always concerned with three types of phenomena: structure,
process, and style.
Cognitive structures are representations of knowledge that contain
and organize information. Information is sorted into categories
based on similarities of attributes. Categories can be described
in terms of width as broad or narrow. Construct systems refer to
systems of categories which are related through non-causal
relations (e.g., similarity, liking, hierarchy). They can be
described as abstract or concrete, and in terms of complexity,
differentiation and integration. This refers to the number of
elements within a construct system and their interrelationships
and has been demonstrated in managerial thinking through verbal
protocol analysis (Isenberg, 1986) and in group as well as
individual task performance (Driver & Streufert, 1969; Schroder,
Driver & Streufert, 1967). Much research has been developed using
methodology derived from Kelley (1955) Repertory Grid Techniques
(Dunn, Cahill, Dukes, & Ginsberg, 1986; Ginsberg, 1987; Walton,
1986; Reger, 1987).
In causal systems, categories are related through cause-effect
relations. Such systems can be described as tightly associated or
loosely coupled, as in the case of habits or contingent events
taken for causal events. Causal systems can be established by
trial and error, empirical testing, or can be created by salience
and contiguity, e.g. temporal sequencing. For example,
4
superstitious behavior is caused by erroneous perceptions of cause
and effect based on contiguous events. Causal systems are also
responsible for attribution phenomena (Kiesler & Sproull, 1982;
Ford, 1985). Cognitive mapping techniques have been used to
measure the degree of perceived individual control over events or
elements (Weick & Bougon, 1986). These systems can be extremely
complex as they contain feedback loops which can amplify the
positive or negative effect of one variable on another (Maruyama,
1963; Masuch, 1985).
Cognitive processes refer to the search, selection and retention
involved in information processing (Weick, 1979b). The manner in
which information is sought, selected, organized, interpreted and
stored is thought to reflect the nature of the task or the
environment, e.g. levels of uncertainty, ambiguity, analyzability
and routineness (Ungson, Braunstein, & Hall, 1981; Cowan, 1986;
Daft & Weick, 1984; Dutton & Duncan, 1987; Perrow, 1970; Tushman &
Nadler, 1978; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). Furthermore, the task
itself often determines the level of analysis. For example,
decision making is most often treated at the individual level
(Slovic, Fischoff, & Lichtenstein, 1977), while strategy
formulation is considered an organizational level phenomena (Lyles
& Mitroff, 1981). Scanning, however, has been discussed at both
levels (Hambrick, 1982; Frederickson, 1984).
Cognitive process is also relevant to the discussion of systematic
biases found in decision making (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974; Hogarth
& Makridakis, 1981). Information processing capacity is limited by
5
the existing cognitive structures and processes (Miller, 1978;
Broadbent, 1958; March & Simon, 1958; Huber, 1982; Schneider,
1987). As a result, simplification, retrospective rationalization,
self justification, overconfidence, escalation and erroneous
attribution of causality can occur (Schwenk, 1984; Hall, 1984;
Huff & Schwenk, 1985; Beyer, 1981; Staw, 1981; Barnes, 1984).
Furthermore, it has been argued that under conditions of threat,
information processing becomes restricted resulting in rigidified
behavior (Staw, Dutton, & Sandelands, 1981).
Notions of learning rely on cognitive change processes (Hedberg,
1981). Watzlawick, Weakland, & Fisch (1974) describe first order
change as embedded in existing cognitive structures and processes,
while second order change requires cognitive restructuring. This
is also the basis of the difference between single vs. double loop
learning (Argyris & SchOn, 1978). These notions derive from
Piaget's (1954) discussion of accomodation and assimilation in
which information is assimilated to fit the schema or the schema
is changed to accomodate the information.
Cognitive styles refer to the differences in the manner of
selecting, organizing and interpreting information. For example,
the Myers-Briggs Inventory (1962), based on Jungian theory,
measures information gathering (perceptual) and information
evaluating (cognitive) styles. This instrument has been
extensively used for management development and some research,
although there is much debate as to its validity and reliability
(see Schweiger, 1983; Robey & Taggart, 1981; Taggart & Robey,
6
1981; Robey & Taggart, 1983). These styles have been related to
problem formulation (Ramaprasad & Mitroff, 1984); information
search (Blaylock & Rees, 1984; Herden & Lyles, 1981), design
preferences (Mitroff & Kilmann, 1976), change strategies (Slocum,
1978), entrepreneurship and innovation strategies (Miller,
Toulouse, & Belanger, 1985; Hendersen & Nutt, 1980)
Cognitive styles at the individual level of analysis are thought
to be closely linked to personality and behavior (Witkin, Dyk,
Faterson, Goodenough, & Karp, 1962; Gardner, Jackson, & Messick,
1960). Some commonly studied styles are: 1) field independence,
which reflects the degree to which individuals' perceptions
distinguish figure from ground, has been related to analytic vs.
intuitive reasoning ; 2) category width, which reflects the number
of objects sorted per category and has also been measured by the
outward limits within which a stimulus can be assigned to a
category/structure; 3) cognitive complexity measures the degree of
differentiation among constructs and their interrelatedness (also
known as integrative complexity or multidimensional thinking); 4)
intolerance of ambiguity which was initally demonstrated in
perceptual taks as premature closure has been shown to be related
to dogmatism - i.e. close mindedness; and 5) locus of control,
which reflects degree to which people feel that they have control
over what happens to them, is related to attribution pheneomena.
These styles have been examined in the management literature in
terms of perceptions of task characteristics (Stone, 1979),
confidence in decision making (Gul, 1984; 1985), information
7
search/selection in merger & acquisitions (Blaylock & Rees, 1984),
openness to information (Davidson, 1977), company growth and
internationalization (Bradley, 1984), policy analysis (Baum,
1982), perceptions of environmental uncertainty and organizational
need for change (Paine & Anderson, 1975), entrepreneurship and
strategies of innovation and risk taking (Miller, Kets de Vries, &
Toulouse, 1982; Miller & Toulouse, 1986).
Level of Analysis
Individuals as units of analysis. Most of the cognitive
organizational literature focuses on the individual level of
analysis (for example, the majority of the contributions in Sims
and Gioia, 1986) as a consequence of the borrowing from
psychology. The organizational literature typically refers and
defers to authors like Abelson (1976), Bartlett (1932), Fiske and
Taylor (1984), Kahneman, Slovic & Tversky (1982), Kelley (1955),
Neisser (1976), and Nisbett & Ross (1980). Several fields within
psychology serve as suppliers of concepts, hypotheses and
methodologies. For example, Tolman's (1925) experiments with mice
provides to basis for discussions of cognitive maps. Hebb's (1949)
description of the psychophysiology of the brain provides the
basis for Sandelands & Stablein's (1986) discussion of the
"organization mind".
Response tendencies or behavior of individuals in organizational
settings is explained or inferred by way of individual cognition.
For example, individuals are given scenarios, cases, simulations
in which they respond to or indicate how they would respond to a
8
given situation in which some cognitive map is elicited which
becomes the independent variable. Or, cognitive structures are
inferred based on observed behavior. Individual maps are often
aggregated and said to represent group and/or organizational level
phenomena. Problems arise when these individual phenomena are
attributed to other levels of analysis. This raises issues of
whether aggregation adequately reflects organizational level
phenomena (Glick, 1985; Rousseau, 1985).
Groups as the level of analysis. When individuals join and
participate in groups, they bring with them their cognitive maps
that may then be modified according to group processes and
pressures. The Asch (1955) experiments demonstrated that
individual perceptions could be brought in line by group pressures
to conform. This was also demonstrated in increased communication
aimed at deviants (Schacter, 1951) until they are discredited or
ignored (Janis, 1972). Group cognition evolves through members'
interaction with the event and with each other through
communication (Donnelon, Gray, & Bougon, 1986), social interaction
(Gray, Bougon, & Donnellon, 1985) and politics (Walsh, Henderson,
& Deighton, 1986). In this manner, reality (behaviorally enacted)
is defined, i.e. socially constructed.
Groups dynamics can encourage sharing maps to the extent reality
is ignored or reinterpreted as in Janis (1972) discussion of
groupthink. Sion (1961) found that group members come to share
fantasies about "raison d'être". In Festinger, Riecken, &
Schacter's (1956) example, the Seventh Day Adventists' prediction
9
of the end of the world, the day which came and went unnoticed,
was reinterpreted to reinforce the strength of the group's belief.
Sapienza (1985) demonstrates that metaphors (structures) emerge in
group discussions about environmental issues that then determine
the strategy pursued. Methods for surfacing assumptions
(structures) about organizational stakeholders to evaluate their
validity and then impact on strategic in strategic decision making
groups have been described (Mitroff, Emshoff, & Kilmann, 1979;
Finney and Mitroff, 1986).
Group cognition can be measured as an aggregation of individual
cognitive structures, as a composite derived from group
interaction and consensus, or as an assemblage (Weick & Bougon,
1986). For example, in the UJO (Utrecht Jazz Orchestra) case,
group level maps were created through aggregation of individual
(average) cognitive maps (Bougon et al., 1977). Composite cause
maps are discussed, agreed, and argued such that the group process
is considered in crucial factor. An example of assemblage is that
of Hall's (1984) study of the Saturday Evening Post in which he
created an organizational level map based on the group maps of
departments and their interactions.
In group-level analyses, the cognitive phenomena of interest are
conceptualized as attributes of groups. The relationship between
individual and group level cognition however is not necessarily
clarified. Maps are often considered to be "shared" or at least
publically agreed upon. This leaves unanswered the question as to
the extent to which conformity reflects true change in structures
10
at the individual levels. Walsh et al.(1986) address this issue in
terms of coverage and consensus which reflects the scope of domain
and the amount of overlap. The different impact or influence that
individual members have on the outcome of group decisions provide
a measure of political processes (Walsh & Fahey, 1984). Also the
relationship between individual and group cognition has been
explored in terms of cognitive styles, e.g. levels of integrative
complexity (Driver & Streufert, 1969).
Organizations as units of analysis. Cognitive phenomena are here
conceptualized as properties of the organization. Specific
organizational cognition, such as scanning, is thought to affect
strategic behavior (Hambrick, 1982). Perceptions of the
environment relate to the degree of strategic analysis and
innovation (Miller & Friesen, 1983). Organization adaptiveness is
also considered to be a function of managerial perceptions (Daft &
Weick, 1984; Hedberg, Nystrom, & Starbuck, 1976; Paine & Anderson,
1978).
In the corporate culture literature, discussions of values,
beliefs, assumptions, myths, ideologies express the notion that
these phenomena exist at the organization level of analysis
(Smircich, 1983; Schein, 1985). Beliefs determine design (Sproull
& Sproull, 1981); ruling myths create the general strategic
framework (Starbuck, 1982); and organization stories serve as
scripts i.e. prescriptions for behavior (Martin, 1983). These
stories, supposedly reflecting the uniqueness of an organization's
"culture", were found to be paradoxically similar (Martin,
1 1
Feldman, Hatch, & Sitkin, 1983). The question of differences at
the organizational level of analysis has also been addressed in
terms of the types of beliefs (structures) (Schneider &
Shrivastava, forthcoming) and the characteristic ways of
processing information (Shrivastava & Schneider, 1984).
Issues in Organizational Cognition Research
In the previous section we have discussed the key aspects of
cognitive phenomena at several levels of analysis as described in
the organizational literature. Table 1 summarizes our framework.
Insert Table 1 here
By looking at the map we can see that there are some gaps that
need to be explored. Much of the discussion is at the individual
level of analysis if not in theory then in measurement. In what
follows we will discuss some of the reasons for those gaps and
some of the problems encountered in trying to fill them.
Attack on "Anthropomorphism" and "reification"
To talk about cognition at levels of analysis above individuals
immediately triggers charges of anthropomorphism (i.e., individual
human characteristics and processes are attributed to other levels
of analysis), and of reification. This recalls older controversies
about whether organizations have goals (Simon, 1973), or whether
organizations can display behavior (Weick, 1979b).
12
Those who claim that only individuals have certain properties,
e.g., "goals", "behavior", "thinking", rarely define the meaning
of these properties in a testable way. Cognitive science and
artifical intelligence have defined the concepts of cognitive
structure, process, and styles in a level-independent way.
Campbell (1974) has illustrated how cognition, i.e., structure
(retention), and information processing (variation and selection)
can be inferred from and tested against observable behavior at
many different levels of analysis. This renders anthropocentric
the argument of anthropomorphism.
The second charge against using concepts like cognitive processes
at higher levels of analysis is that this leads to reification,
which means "to treat an abstract concept as if it referred to a
thing" (Weick, 1979b, p. 34). However, reification at the
individual level is also possible. Concepts like knowledge,
memory, and information processing become "things" (just like
personality traits), and these "things" are then used to "explain"
observable behavior of individuals. This appears to be an obstacle
to the conceptualization of cognition at group and organizational
levels although not at the individual level.
The obstacle disappears as soon as one ceases to reify cognition
at the individual level. Concepts like memory and
information-processing cease to be "real" objects and become
hypothetical constructs. Observable behavior mainly serves to
suggest (context of discovery) and test (context of verification)
models of these constructs. The concept of behavior is itself an
13
abstract concept which can be applied at all levels of analysis
(see Ackoff & Emery, 1972, for a level-independent systematic
development of a conceptual and terminological system). Underlying
the different levels of analysis and corresponding scientific
disciplines is the assumption that each structural level of social
reality requires its own level of description.
Terms and constructs at different levels of analysis.
The same terms are used to refer to cognitive phenomena at
different levels of analysis. Examples are beliefs, schemas,
information processing rules, memory, learning, and cognitive
complexity. In our view, the cognitive paradigm requires at the
same time a certain uniformity in terminology across levels of
analysis, and a diversity. The convergence of cognitive psychology
and artificial intelligence illustrates the benefits of a common
terminology that reflect abstract essential properties of
cognitive phenomena.
Differences between constructs at different levels arise from two
sources: different measurement procedures and different
nomological relations. The measurement procedures used influence
the meaning of a scientific concept. For example, the measurement
tasks through which properties of individual memory are tested is
very different from the way properties of organizational memory
might be tested. A construct is also defined through the network
of nomological relationships; if levels are independent, then
isomorphism of relationships across levels should be the
exception. Rousseau (1985) discusses the differences between
14
individual and group learning in this regard.
Measurement and levels of analysis.
Most empirical studies of cognition at levels above the individual
level are based on measurement below that level of analysis.
Examples at the group level are Schroder et.al.(1967) and Bougon
et al.(1977). In these studies, information concerning individual
group members is combined and the result interpreted as a group
property. Hall's (1984) study uses departmental cause maps to
reconstruct organizational cognitions. Few studies have measured
organizational cognition directly at the organizational level.
Examples are Bettman and Weitz (1983) who used annual reports, and
Bartunek (1984) who based her study on official company documents.
The use of lower-level information to create higher-level measures
is questionable, because it raises ambiguity about whether one is
truly measuring higher-level phenomena. Rousseau (1985) recommends
that focal-level variables should be preferred to aggregated
variables.
Direct vs inferred measurement of cognition.
The major difference in measurement methods is between those which
directly question subjects about their cognitions and those which
are based on inferences. Examples of studies using direct
measurement are Bougon et al. (1977), Ford & Hegarty (1984),
Isenberg (1986) and Salancik & Porac (1986). Other studies infer
cognition from observed behavior (Bowman, 1963; Hammond, Stewart,
Behmer, & Steinmann, 1975). However, Blake, Hammond, & Meyer
(1973) have compared self-reports of judgment policies with the
1 5
policies inferred from subjects' behavior and found substantial
divergence.
The researchers using direct measurement tend to interpret their
results as reflecting the subjects' true cognitions. This
interpretation is likely to be invalid for a number of reasons.
First, subjects often lack awareness of the knowledge that
underlies their own behavior. Self-reports are more likely to
produce "espoused theories" than "theories-in-use" (Argyris &
Schon, 1978). Second, subjects may not possess any precomputed
cognitive structures but construct ad hoc representations
(Kahneman & Miller, 1986). Third, even if they possess such
precomputed structures, these may not be accurately retrieved
because of availability and other heuristics (Tversky & Kahneman,
1974). Fourth, subjects may not be willing to disclose their true
thoughts for reasons related to self-justification and impression
management (Chatman, Bell, & Staw, 1986; Tetlock, 1985).
There exists little empirical evidence assessing the reliability
and validity of direct measures (see Bougon, 1986, for an
exception). The automatic identification of the measures with the
constructs ("definitional operationism") leads to an atheoretical,
reifying view of cognition. In the inferential approach, the
measurement methods are seen as providing fallible data, the
interpretation of which requires a nomological network. Studies
which infer cognition from behavior also avoid the criticism that
cognition is irrelevant for behavior. The major risk in an
inferential approach is that alternative constructions of
16
cognition might explain the data just as well if not better. But
this risk is inherent in science. Schein's (1985) inferential,
iterative method for measuring culture in organizations may
provide a useful approach to studying cognition.
Research direction: Linking levels
In our view, studies of individual cognition have organizational
relevance only in the context of research involving several levels
of analysis. Individuals do not necessarily share or have similar
maps for group or organizational behavior to occur (Weick, 1979b;
Donnellon, Gray, & Bougon, 1986; Finney & Mitroff, 1986). The
social judgment paradigm also offers evidence for this as Brehmer
(1976) reported differences between overt (group shared) vs.
covert (individually held) judgment policies, a widely replicated
finding.
One research direction relates group or organization-level
variables to individual cognition (Calder & Schurr, 1981).
Examples of relevant questions are: how do organizations influence
the development of individual schemas (March & Simon, 1958)? How
do organizations guide the acquisition of individual expertise in
different organization-relevant domains (Dearborn & Simon, 1958)?
How do organizations influence the instantiation of schemas that
guide both private thought and public expressions (Chatman et al.,
1986; Tetlock, 1985).
A second research direction concerns the effect of individual
cognitive processes on cognitive processes at higher levels of
17
analysis. Most commonly this involves looking at the influence of
the CEO or founder on organizational culture or strategy (Kets de
Vries & Miller, 1984; Gupta, 1984; Schein, 1985; Siehl, 1985;
Hambrick & Mason, 1984). Another common example is the discussion
of the dominant coalition (group), i.e. "dominant logic", on
strategic behaviors (organization level) (Prahalad & Bettis,
1986). The research reported by Schroder et al.(1967) is an
example where characteristics of individual cognitive functioning
(e.g. integrative complexity) were related to group phenomena.
Brehmer's (1976) research demonstrates the degree of agreement
individual vs. group level maps.
A third avenue for research are the reciprocal interactions of
cognition at several levels of analysis. These interactions are
probably most easily observable during periods of change and
paradigmatic shifts in groups and organizations. For example, Staw
et al.(1981) discussion of the effects of threat on information
processing at several levels within the organization illustrates
the logic of this type of research. However, research has to go
beyond descriptions and demonstrate how the phenomena at the
different levels is mutually influencing.
CONCLUSIONS
Providing a framework to classify cognitive phenomenon discussed
in the organizational literature clarifies important issues that
need to be addressed in the field. First it demonstrates that
organizational analysts have been playing it too safe. We have
borrowed from individual psychology because it has been "tried and
tested". We have avoided anticipated accusations by reviewers of
18
anthropomorphism and reification by adding facile disclaimers such
as "Of course organizations don't think, only individuals do".
Rather than sins of commission we choose sins of omission. We
avoid guilt by avoiding dealing with cognition at the organization
level of analysis. This creates inconsistency in our theoretical
arguments as well as when we move towards measurement.
It's time to become legitimate and to confront cheap criticism by
reviewers who use anthropomorphism and reification as easy outs.
Our own responsibility, however, is to carefully develop theory
and measurement. This means establishing conceptual equivalence
between levels of analysis, developing models for understanding
the interrelationship of levels of analysis, and developing the
measurement capability at the focal level of analysis.
The cognitive approach to organizational analysis holds much
promise, but a substantial reorientation of effort is needed to
fulfill it. The redirection involves: 1. A concentration on what
is organizational about individual cognition. 2. The study of
cognition at group and organizational levels. 3. Developing models
linking levels to demonstrate the interaction across levels.
Success in all of these directions requires greater efforts at
conceptualizing cognitions in an organizational context, and the
development of reliable and valid measurement instruments.
19
Table 1
A Framework for Classifying Organizational Cognition
INDIVIDUAL
STRUCTURE
beliefs (Sproull & Sproull, 1981)cognitive maps
(Bougon et al., 1977;Weick & Bougon, 1986;Ford & Hegarty, 1984)
cause maps (Hall, 1984)schema(ta)
(Weick, 1979a;Walsh, 1984; Schwenk, 1985)
scripts (Gioia & Poole, 1984)implicit theories
(Walton, 1986; Brief & Downey, 1983)knowledge systems (Shrivastava, 1984)distilled ideologies (Salancik & Porac, 1986)taxonomic structures (Porac & Thomas, 1987)
PROCESSES
assiliation/accomodation (Gioia, 1986)attribution (Kiesler & Sproull, 1982;
Huff & Schwenk, 1985)
Biases (Tversky & Kahnemen, 1974;Hogarth & Makridakis, 1981)
limited capacity (Miller, 1978;Broadbent, 1958)
simplification (Schwenck, 1984)justification,retrospective rationalization (Staw, 1981)escalation
(Staw, 1981; Schwenck, 1986; Whyte, 1986)
STYLES
Myers-Briggs (1962)field independence (Gul, 1983)category width (Gul, 1985)locus of control (Miller et al, 1982)tolerance of ambiguity (Gupta, 1984)cognitive complexity; multidimensional thinking
(Streufert & Driver, 1969; Isenberg, 1986;Schroder et al., 1967)
managerial frames of reference(Mitroff & Shrivastava, 1983)
GROUP
STRUCTURES
20
basic assumptions (Sion, 1961)metaphors (Sapienza, 1985)ideologies (Dunbar et al.,1982)negotiated beliefs(Walsh & Fahey, 1984;
Walsh et al;, 1986)coincident meaning (Gricar et al., 1984)PROCESSES
groupthink (Janis, 1972)strategic assumption analysis
(Mitroff et al., 1979)
STYLES
integrative capacity (Driver & Streufert, 1966)functional domain (Dearborn & Simon, 1958)
ORGANIZATION
STRUCTURES
bodies of thought (Weick, 1979a)cognitive systems (Weick, 1979b;
Daft & Lengl, 1986)cognitive maps (Weick, 1979b;
Bougon et al., 1977)cause maps (Hall, 1984)influence diagrams (Roos & Hall, 1980;
Diffenbach,1982)interpretive systems (Daft and Weick, 1984)ideologies (Beyer, 1981)mind (Sandelands & Stablein, 1986)ruling myths (Starbuck, 1982)myths (Boje et al., 1978)symbols (Bougon et al., 1985)beliefs (Sproull & Sproull, 1981)basic assumptions (Schein, 1985;
Schneider & Shrivastava,forthcoming)decision-rules (Cyert and March, 1963)
PROCESSES
search-selection-retention (Weick, 1979b)input-throughput-output (Katz & Kahn, 1966)information processing systems
(Galbraith, 1974; Miller, 1978)multinationals as examples
(Egeihoff, 1981; Keegan, 1972)sensemaking (Weick, 1979b)threat rigidity cycles (Staw et al., 1981)sets of thinking practices (Weick, 1979a)attribution (Bettman & Weitz, 1983)learning (Hedberg, 1981; Duncan & Weiss, 1986;
21
Fiol & Lyles, 1985; Shrivastava, 1983))
STYLESframes of reference (Shrivastava & Schneider, 1984)comprehensiveness (Frederickson, 1984)characteristic ways of
perceiving and believing (Schein, 1985)
2.2
References
Abelson, R.P. (1976) Script processing in attitude formation anddecision making. In Caroll, J.S., & Payne, I.W. (Eds),Cognition and social behavior. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Ackoff, R.L., & Emery, F.E. (1972) On purposeful systems. Chicago:Aldine Athenton.
Argryis, C., & Schiin, D.A. (1978) Organizational learning : Atheory of action perspective. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
Asch, S. (1955) Studies of independence and conformity: A minorityof one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs 20, 4-6.
Bartlett, F.C. (1932) Remembering. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.
Bartunek, J.M. (1984) Changing interpretive schemes andorganizational restructuring: An example of a religious order.Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 355-372.
Barnes, J. (1984) Cognitive biases and their impact on strategicplanning. Strategic Management Journal, 5, 129-138.
Baum, H.S. (1982) Policy analysis, special cognitive style neededAdministration and Society, 52(3).
Bettman, J.R., & Weitz, B.A. (1983) Attributions in the boardroom: Causal reasoning in corporate annual reports.Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 145-183.
Beyer, J.M. (1981) Ideologies, values and decision making inorganizations. In Nystrom, P.C., & Starbuck, W.H. (Eds),Handbook of Organizational Design, Vol. 2 (pp. 166-202). NewYork: Oxford University Press.
Sion, W. (1961) Experiences in groups and other papers. New York:Basic Books, Inc.
Blake, W.M., Hammond, K.R., & Meyer, G.D. (1973) An alternativeapproach to labor-management relations. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 311-327.
Blaylock, B.K., & Rees, L.P. (1984) Cognitive style and theusefulness of information. Decision Sciences, 15, 74-91.
Boje, D.M., Fedor, D.B., & Rowland, K.M. (1982) Myth making: Aqualitative step in organizational development interventionsJournal of Applied Behavioral Science, 18, 1, 17-28.
Bougon, M.G. (1986) Using the Self-Q Interview Process Manual.
Bougon, M.G., Gray, B., & Donnellon, A. (1985) Making sense of
23
symbols. Presented at the Academy of Management Meeting,Boston.
Bougon, M., Weick, K., & Binkhorst, D. (1977) Cognition inorganizations: An analysis of the Utrecht Jazz Orchestra.Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 606-631.
Bradley, M.P. (1984) Effects of congitive style, attitude towardgrowth, and motivation on the internationalization of the firm.Research in Marketing, 7, 237-260.
Bowman, C.H. (1963) Consistency and optimality in managerialdecision making. Management Science, 9(2), 310-321.
Brehmer, B. (1976) Social judgement theory and the analysis ofinterpersonal conflict. Psychological Bulletin, 83(6),985-1003.
Brief, A.P., & Downey, H.K. (1983) Cognitive and organizationalstructures: A conceptual analysis of implicit organizingtheories. Human Relations, 36, 1065-1090.
Broadbent, D.E. (1958) Perception and communication London:Pergamon.
Calder, B.J., & Schurr, P.H. (1981) Attitudinal processes inorganizations. In Cummings, L.L., & Staw, B.M. (Eds), Researchin Organizational Behavior. Vol.3 (pp 283-301). Greenwich,Conn: JAI Press.
Cambell, D.T. (1974) Evolutionary epistemology. In Schilpp, P.A.(Ed), The Philosophy of Karl Popper. 14-I. (pp 413-463).Lasalle, Ill: Open Court Publishing.
Chatman, J.A., Bell, N.E., Staw, B.M. (1986) The managedthought: The role of self justification and impressionmanagement in organization settings. In Sims, Jr., H.P., etal. The Thinking Organization. (pp 191-214). San Francisco,California: Jossey-Bass.
Cowan, D.A. (1986) Developing a process model of problemrecognition. Academy of Management Review, 11(4), 763-776.
Cyert, R.M., & March, J.G. (1963) A behavioral theory of thefirm. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Daft, R.L., & Weick, K.E. (1984) Toward a model of organizationsas interpretation systems. Academy of Management Review, 9(2),284-295.
Davidson, D. (1977) The effect of individual differences ofcognitive style on judgements of document relevance. Journal ofThe American Society For Information Science, 273-285.
Dearborn, D.C., & Simon, H.A. (1958) Selective perception: A noteon the departmental identification of executives. Sociometry,
24
21, 140-143.
Diffenbach, J. (1982) Influence diagrams for complex strategicissues. Strategic Management Journal, 3, 133-146.
Donnelon, A., Gray, B., & Bougon, M.G. (1986) Communication,meaning and organized action. Administrative Science Quarterly,31, 43-55.
Driver, M.J., & Streufert, S. (1969) Integrative complexity : anapproach to individuals and groups as information-processingsystems. Administrative Science Quarterly, June, 272-285.
Dunbar, R.L.M., Dutton, J.M., & Torbert, W.R. (1982) Crossingmother: Ideological constraints on organizational improvements.Journal of Management Studies, 19, 91-108.
Dunn,W.N., Cahill, A.G., Dukes, M.J., & Ginsberg A. (1986) Thepolicy grid: A cognitive methodology for assessing policydynamics. In W.N. Dunn (Ed.), Policy analysis: Perspectives, concepts, and methods (pp. 355-375). Greenwich, Conn.:JAIPress.
Dutton, J.E., & Duncan, R.B. (1987) Strategic issue diagnosis andits relationship to organizational change. Strategic ManagementJournal, 4, 307-323.
Dutton, J.E., & Jackson, S.E. (1987) Categorizing strategicissues: Links to organizational action. Academy of ManagementReview, 12(1), 76-90.
Egelhoff, W.G. (1982) Strategy and structure in multinationalcorporations: an information processing approach.Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 435-458.
Festinger, L., Riecken, H., & Schacter, S. (1956) When prophecyfails. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Finney, M., & Mitroff, (1986) Strategic plan failures: Theorganization as its own worst enemy. In Sims, Jr., et al., (pp.317-335).
Fiol, C.M., & Lyles, M.A. (1985) Organizational learning. Academyof Management Review, 10(4), 803-813.
Fiske, S.T., & Taylor, S.E. (1984) Social cognition. ReadingMass.: Addison Wesley.
Ford, J.D. (1985) The effects of causal attributions on decisionmakers' responses to performance downturns. Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 770-786.
Ford, J.D., & Hegarty, W.H. (1984) Decision maker's beliefs aboutthe causes and effects of structure: An exploratory study.Academy of Management Journal, 27(2), 271-291.
25
Galbraith, J.R. (1974) Organization design: An informationprocessing view. Interfaces, 4, 28-36.
Gardner, R.W., Jackson, D.N., & Messick, S.J. (1960) Personalityorganization in cognitive controls and intellectual abilities.Psychological Issues, 2, 4.
Ginsberg, A. (1987) Toward a cognitive methodology for assessingstrategic diversity. Presented at the conference on ManagerialThinking in Business Environments, Boston.
Gioia, D.A. (1986) Symbols, scripts and sensemaking: creatingmeaning in the organizational experience. In Sims, Jr., H.P.,et al. (pp.49-74).
Gioia, D.A., & Poole, P.P. (1984) Scripts in organizationalbehavior. Academy of Management Review, 9, 449-459.
Glick, W.H. (1985) Conceptualizing and measuring organizationaland psychological climate: Pitfalls in multilevel research.Academy of Management Review, 10(3) 601-616.
Glick, W.H. (1988) Organizations are not central tendencies:Shadowboxing in the dark, round 2. Academy of Management Review, 13(1), 133-137.
Gray, B., Bougon, M.G., & Donnellon, A. (1985) Organizations asconstructions and destructions of meaning. Journal of Management, 11, 83-98.
Gul, F.A. (1984) The joint and moderating role of personality andcognitive style on decision making. The Accounting Review,59(2), 264-277.
Gul, F.A. (1985) Category width cognitive style as a factor inaccountants' perceptions of accounting information. DecisionSciences, 16, 428-434.
Gupta, A.K. (1984) Contingency linkages between strategy andgeneral manager characteristics: A conceptual examination.Academy of Management Review, 9(3), 399-412.
Hambrick, D.C. (1982) Environmental scanning and organizationalstrategy. Strategic Management Journal, 3, 159-174.
Hambrick, D.C., & Mason, P.A. (1984) Upper echelons: Theorganization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy ofManagement Review, 9 (2), 193-206.
Hammond, K.R., Stewart, T.R., Behmer, B., & Steinmann, D.O. (1975)Social judgement theory. In M.F. Kaplan, & S. Schwartz,(Eds.), Human judgement and decision process: Formal andmathematical approaches (pp. 272-312). New York: AcademicPress.
Hall, R.I. (1984) The natural logic of management policy making:
26
Its implications for the survival of an organization.Management Science, 30(8), 905-927.
Hebb, D.O. (1949) The organization of behavior: Aneurophysiological theory. New York: Wiley.
Hedberg, B.L.T. (1981) How organizations learn and unlearn. InNystrom, P.C., & Starbuck, W.H. (Eds) Handbook of Organizational Design, Vol.' (pp. 3-27). New York: OxfordUniversity Press.
Henderson, J., & Nutt, P. (1980) The influence of decision styleon decision behavior. Management Science, 26, 371-386.
Herden, R.P., & Lyles, M.A. (1981) Individual attributes and theproblem conceptualization process. Human Systems Management 2, 275-384.
Hogarth, R.M., & Makridakis, S. (1981) Forecasting and planning:An evaluation. Management Science, 27(2), 115-138.
Huber, G. (1982) Organizational information systems. ManagementScience, 28(2), 138-155.
Huff, A.S., & Schwenk, C. (1985) Bias and sense making in goodtimes and bad. Presented at the Strategic Management SocietyMeetings, Barcelona, October.
Isenberg, D.J. (1986) Thinking and managing: A verbal protocolanalysis of managerial problems solving. Academy of ManagementJournal, 29(4), 775-788.
James, L.R., Joyce, W.F., & Slocum, J.W. (1988) Organizations donot cognize. Academy of Management Review, 13(1), 129-132.
Janis, I.L. (1972) Victims of groupthink. Boston: HoughtonMifflin.
Kahneman, D., & Miller, D.T. (1986) Norm theory: Comparing realityto its alternatives. Psychological Review, 93(2), 136-153.
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tverksy, A. (1982) Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R.L. (1966) The social psychology oforganizations. New York: Wiley.
Keegan, W.J. (1974) Multinational scanning: A study of theinformation sources utilized by headquarters executives inmultinational companies. Administrative Science Quarterly,19(3), 411-421.
Kelly, G.A. (1955) The psychology of personal constructs. NewYork: Norton.
27
Kets de Vries, M.F.R., & Miller, D. (1984) The neurotic organization, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kiesler, S., & Sproull, L. (1982) Mangerial response to changingenvironments: Perspectives on problem sensing from socialcognition. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 548-570.
Lyles, M.A., & Mitroff, I.I. (1980) Organizational problemforumation: An empirical study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 102-119.
Lyles, M.A., & Mitroff, I.I. (1985) The impact of sociopoliticalinfluences on strategic problem formulation. In Lamb, R., &Shrivastava, P. (Eds.), Advances in strategic management, Vol.3 (pp. 69-81). Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press.
March, J.G., & Simon, H.A. (1958) Organizations. New York: JohnWiley.
Martin, J. (1983) Stories and scripts in organizational settings.In Hastorf, A.H., & Isen, A.M. (Eds.), Cognitive social psychology. New York: Elsevier-North Holland.
Martin, J., Feldman, M.S., Hatch, M.J., & Sitkin, S.B. (1983) Theuniqueness paradox in organizational stories. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28 (3), 438-453.
Maruyama, M. (1963) The second cybernetics: Deviation-amplifyingmutual causal processes. American Scientist, 51, 149-164.
Masuch, M. (1985) Vicious circles in organizations. AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 30, 14-33.
Miller, D., & Friesen, P.H. (1983) Strategy-making andenvironment: The third link. Strategic Management Journal,4(3), 221-235.
Miller, D., & Toulouse, J.M. (1986) Chief executive personalityand corporate strategy and structure in small firms. ManagementScience, 32 (11), 1389-1409.
Miller, D., Toulouse, J.M., & Belanger, N. (1985) Top executivepersonality and corporate strategy: Three tentative types. InLamb, R., & Shrivastava, P. (Eds.), Advances in strategic management, Vol. 4 (pp. 223-232), Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press.
Miller, D., Kets de Vries, M., Toulouse, J.M. (1982) Topexecutive locus of control and its relationship tostrategy-making, structure and environment. Academy of Management Journal, 25(2), 237-253.
Miller, J.G. (1978) Living Systems. New York: McGraw Hill BookCompany.
Mitroff, & Kilmann, R.H. (1976) On organization stories: Anapproach to the design and analysis of organization through
28
myths and stories. In Kilmann, R.H., Pondy, L.R., & Slevin,D.P. (Eds.), The management of organization design: Strategiesand implementation, Vol. 1 (pp 189-207). New York: NorthHolland.
Mitroff, Emshoff, J.R., & Kilmann, R.H. (1979) Assumptionalanalysis: A methodology for strategic problem solving.Management Science, 25 (6), 583-593.
Myers, I.B. (1962) Manual: The Myers-Briggs type indicator.Princeton, New Jersey: Educational Testing Service.
Neisser, U. (1976) Cognition and reality. San Francisco: W.H.Freeman and Company.
Nisbett, R.E., & Ross, L. (1960) Human inference: Strategies andshortcomings of social judgement. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:Prentice-Hall.
Paine, C.R., & Anderson, F.T. (1975) Managerial perceptions andstrategic behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 18(4),811-823.
Perrow, C.A. (1970) Organizational analysis: A sociological viewBelmont, California: Wadsworth.
Piaget, J. (1954) The construction of reality in the child. NewYork: Basic Books, Inc.
Pondy, L.R., & Mitroff, I.I. (1979) Beyond open systems models oforganizations. In Staw, B.M., & Cummings, L.L. (Eds.), Researchin organizational behavior. Vol. 1 (pp 3-39). Greenwich, Conn.:JAI Press.
Prahalad, C.K., & Bettis, R.A. (1986) The dominant logic: A newlinkage between diversity and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 7, 485-501.
Ramaprasad, A., & Mitroff, I.I. (1984) On formulating strategicproblems. Academy of Management Review, 9(4) 597-605.
Reger, R.K. (1987) Repertory grid technique. Presented at theAnnual Meeting of the Academy of Management, New Orleans.
Robey, D., & Taggart, W. (1981) Measuring managers' minds: Theassessment of style in human information processing. Academy ofManagement Review, 6(3), 375-383.
Robey, D., & Taggart, W. (1983) Issues in cognitive stylemeasurement: A response to Schweiger. Academy of Management Review, 8(1), 152-155.
Roos, L.L., Jr., & Hall, R.I. (1980) Influence diagrams andorganizational power. Administrative Science Quarterly. 25,57-71.
29
Rousseau, D.M. (1985) Issues of level in organizational research:multi-level and cross-level perspectives. In Cummings, L.L., &Staw, B. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior. Vol. 7,Greenwich, Conn: JAI Press.
Salancik, G.R., & Pfeffer, J.A. (1978) A social informationprocessing approach to job attitudes and task design.Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 224-253.
Salancik, G.R., & Porac, J.F. (1986) Distilled ideologies: Valuesderived from causal reasoning in complex environments. InSims, Jr., H.P. et al., (pp. 75-101).
Sandelands, L.E., & Stablein, R.E. (1986) The concept oforganization mind. In S. Bachrach, & N. Di Tomaso (Eds.),Research in the sociology of organizations, Vol. 6, Greenwich,Conn: JAI Press.
Sapienza, A.M. (1985) Believing is seeing: How culture influencesthe decisions top managers make. In Kilmann, R., Saxton, M.J.,Serpa, R., et al.(Eds.), Gaining Control of Corporate Culture (pp. 66-83). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schacter, S. (1951) Deviation, rejection and communication.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46, 190-207.
Schein, E.H. (1985) Organizational culture and leadership. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schneider, S.C. (1987) Information overload: Causes andconsequences. Human Systems Management, 7(2) 143-153.
Schneider, S.C., & Shrivastava, P. Basic assumption themes inorganizations. Human Relations, (forthcoming).
Schroder, H.M., Driver, M.J., & Streufert, S. (1967) Human information processing. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Schwenk, C.R. (1986) Information, cognitive biases and commitmentto a course of action. Academy of Management Review, 11(2),298-310.
Schwenk, C.R. (1984) Cognitive simplification processes instrategic decision-making. Strategic Management Journal, 5 (2),111-128.
Schweiger, D.M. (1985) Measuring managerial cognitive styles: Onthe local validity of the Myers-Briggs type inventory. Journal of Business Research, 13, 315-328.
Shrivastava, P. & Schneider, S.C. (1984) Organizational frames ofreference. Human Relations, 37(10), 795-809.
Shrivastava, P., & Mitroff, I. (1982) Frames of reference managersuse: A study in applied sociology of knowledge. In R. Lamb(Ed.), Advances in strategic management, Greenwich, Conn: JAI
30
Press.
Shrivastava, P. (1983) A typology of organizational learningsystems. Journal of Management Studies, 20 (1), 7-28.
Shrivastava, P. (1984) Knowledge systems for strategic decisionmaking. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,.
Siehl, C. (1985) After the founder: An opportunity to manageculture. In P. Frost, L. Moore, M. Louis, C. Lundberg, & J.Martin (Eds.), Organizational culture (pp. ). New York: Sage.
Simon, H.A. (1973) The organization of complex systems. InPattee, H.H. (Ed.), Hierarchy theory (pp. 1-28). New York:George Braziller, Inc.
Sims, Jr., H.P., Gioia, D.A., & Associates (Eds.) (1986) Thethinking organization. San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass.
Slovic, P., Fischoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1977) Behavioraldecision theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 28, 1-39.
Smircich, L. (1983) Studying organizations as cultures. In G.Morgan (Ed.), Beyond method: Strategies for social research,Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, Inc.
Sproull, L.S. (1981) Beliefs in organizations. In Nystrom, P.C.,& Starbuck, W.I.T. (Eds.), Handbook of organizational design, Vol. 2, (pp. 203-224). New York: Oxford University Press.
Starbuck, W.H. (1982) Congealing oil:Inventing ideologies tojustify acting ideologies out. Journal of Management Studies,19(1), 3-27.
Staw, B.M. (1981) The escalation of commitment to a course ofaction. Academy of Management Review, 6(4), 577-587.
Staw, B.M., Sandelands, L., & Dutton, J. (1981) Threat rigiditycycles in organizational behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(4), 501-524.
Steinmann, D.O., Smith, T.H., Jundem, L.G., & Hammond, K.R. (1977)Application of social judgement theory in policy formulation:An example. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 13(1),69-88.
Stone, E.F. (1979) Field independence and perception of taskcharacteristics: A laboratory investigation. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 64(3), 305-310.
Taggart, W., & Robey, D. (1981) Minds and managers: On the dualnature of human information processing and management. Academyof Management Review, 6(2), 187-195.
Tetlock, P.E. (1985) Accountability: The neglected social contextof judgement and choice. In Cummings, L.L., & Staw, S.M.
31
(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 279-332).Greenwich, Conn: JAI Press, Inc.
Tolman, E.C. (1925) Purpose and cognition: The determiners ofanimal learning. Psychology Review, 32, 285-297.
Tushman, M.L., & Nadler, D.A. (1978) Information processing as anintegrating concept in organizational design. Academy of Management Review, 3, 613-624.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1944) Judgement under uncertainty:Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131.
Ungson, G..R., Braunstein, D.N., & Hall, P.D. (1981) Managerialinformation processing: A research review. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 116-134.
Walsh, J.P. (1984) The schema for organizational success: Itsorigins, structure, and implications for decision making.working Paper.
Walsh, J.P., & Fahey, L. (1984) The role of negotiated beliefstructures in strategy making. Working paper.
Walsh, J.P., Henderson, C.M., & Deighton, J.A. (1986) Negotiatedbelief structures and the committment to a course of action.Working paper.
Walton, E.T. (1986) Managers' prototypes of financial terms.Journal of Management Studies, 23 (6), 679-698.
watzlawick, P., Weakland, P., & Fisch, J. (1974) Change. New York:W.W. Norton.
Weick, K.E. (1979a) Cognitive processes in organizations. In StawB. (Ed.), Research in organizational behavior Vol.1,Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press.
Weick, K.E. (1979b) The social psychology of organizing, SecondEdition. Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley.
Weick, K.E., & Bougon, M.G. (1986) Organizations as cognitivemaps: charting ways to success and failure. In Sims, Jr.,H.P., et al. (pp. 102-135).
Whyte, G. (1986) Escalating commitment to a course of action.Academy of Management Review, 11 (2) 311-321.
Witkin, A., Dyk, R.B., Faterson, H.F., Goodeneough, D.R., & Karp,S.A. (1962) Psychological differentiation: Studies ofdevelopment. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Table 1
A Framework for Classifying Organizational Cognition
STRUCTURE PROCESSES ___ ___STYLES
beliefs (Sproull 6 Sproull, 1981) assiliation/accomodation (Gioia, 1986)cognitive maps(Bougon et al., 1977; 977;
;Weick 6 Bougon, 1986;
attribution (Kiesler 6 Sproull, 1982;Huff & Schwenk, 1985)
Myers-Briggs (1962)field independence (Gui, 1983 )category width (Gul, 1985)
Ford 6 Hegarty, 1984) Biases (Tversky 6 Kahnemen, 1974; locus of control (Miller et al, 1902)cause maps (Hall, 1984) Hogarth 6 Makridakis, 1981) tolerance of ambiguity (Gupta, 1984)INDIVIDUAL schemata(Weick 1979a;,Walsh, 1984; Schwenk, 1985)
limited capacity (Miller, 1978;,nBroadbent, 1958)8 )
simplification (Schwenck, 1984)
cognitive complexity; multidimensional thinkin g.(Streufert 6 Driver, 1969; Isenberg, 1986:Schroder et al., 1967)scripts (Gioia 6 Poole, 1984)implicit theories
(Walton, 1986; Brief 6 Downey, 1983)knowledge systems (Shrivastava, 1984)distilled ideologies (Salancik s Porac, 1986)taxonomic structures (Porac 6 Thomas, 1987)
justification,retrospective rationalization (Staw, 1981)escalation
(stew, 1981; Schwenck, 1986; Whyte, 1986)
managerial frames of reference(Mitroff 6 Shrivastava, 1983)
GROUP
(Janis, 1972)
rZ1lysis
(sTiggirclk offe=(Mitroff et a , 1979 )
integrative capacity (Driver & Streufert, 1966)functional domain (Dearborn 6 Simon, 1958)
sbasicci a s s umpt i o sn ( B i on 1961me
)metaphors (Sapienza, 1985)ideologies (Dunbar et a1.,1982)negotiated beliefs(Walsh 6 Fahey, 1984;
Walsh et al;, 1986)coincident meaning (Gricar et al., 1984)
search-selection-retention (Weick, 19796)inpu t-throughput-output (Katz & Kahn, 1966)
frames of reference (Shrivastava & Schneider, 19comprehensiveness (Frederickson, 1984)
bodif thought (Weick, 1979a)se ,ocognitive systems (Weick, 1979b;
Daft 6 Lengl, 1986) information processing systems characteristic ways ofcognitive maps (Weick, 1979b;
al.,. 7Bou ngo ete al 197 ))c a u mapses ( Ha l ,l 1 98 4
influence diagrams (Roos 6 Hall, 1980;Diffenbach,1982)
interpretive systems (Daft and Weick, 1984)
(Galbraith, 1974; Miller, 1978)multinationals as examples
(Egelhoff, 1981; Keegan, 1972)sensemaking (Weick, 19796)threat rigidity cycles (Staw et al., 1981)sets of thinking practices (Weick, 1979a)
perceiving and believing (Schein, 1985)
)RGANIZATION ideologies (Beyer, 1981)m nd e l a 6snd S t abl e i ,n 1 98 6mindi ( Sa )ruling myths (Starbuck, 1982)myths (Boje et al., 1978)symbols (Bougon et al., 1985)beliefs (Sproull 6 Sproull, 1981)basic assumptions (Schein, 1985;
attribution (Bettman & Weitz, 1983)learning (Hedberg, 1981; Duncan & Weiss, 1986;
Fiol 6 Lyles, 1985; Shrivastava, 1983)
Schneider 6 Shrivastava,forthcoming)decision-rules (Cyert and March, 1963)
INSEAD WORKING PAPERS SERIES
"The R L D/Production interface".
"Subjective estimation in integratingcommunication budget and allocationdecisions: a case study", January 1986.
"Sponsorship and the diffusion oforganizational innovation: a preliminary viev".
"Confidence intervals: an empiricalinvestigation for the series in the N-Competition" .
"A note on the reduction of the workweek",July 1985.
"The real exchange rate and the fiscalaspects of • natural resource discovery",Revised version: February 1986.
"Judgmental biases in sales forecasting",February 1986.
"Forecasting political risks forinternational operations", Second Draft:March 3, 1986.
"From "Lydiametry" to "Pinkhamization":misspecifying advertising dynamics rarelyaffects profitability".
"The economics of retail firms", RevisedApril 1986.
"Spatial competition i la Cournot".
*Comparaison internationals des merges brutesdu commerce", June 1985.
'Les prices des offres publiques, la note&information et le march* den transferta decontriSle des sociétes".
"Strategic capability transfer in acquisitionintegration", May 1986.
"Towards an operational definition ofservices", 1986.
"Nostradamus: a knowledge-based forecastingadvisor".
"The pricing of equity on the London stockexchange: seasonality and size preaiumm,June 1986.
*Risk-premia seasonality in U.S. and Europeanequity markets", February 1986.
"Seasonality in the risk-return relationshipssome international evidence", July 1986.
"An exploratory study on the integration ofinformation systems in manufacturing",July 1986.
"A methodology for specification andaggregation in product concept testing",July 1986.
"Protection", August 1986.
"The economic consequences of the FrancPoincare", September 1986.
"Negative risk-return relationships inbusiness strategy: paradox or truism?",October 1986.
"Interpreting organizational texts.
"Why follow the leader?".
"The succession game: the real story.
"Flexibility: the next competitive battle",October 1986.
"Flexibility: the next competitive battle",Revised Version: March 1987
1986
86/01 Arnoud DE MEYER
86/02 Philippe A. NAERTMarcel VEVERBERGHand Guido VERSVIJVEL
86/03 Michael BAIRN
86/04 Spyros MAKRIDAKISand Michele HIBON
86/05 Charles A. VYPLOSZ
86/06 Francesco GIAVAllI,Jeff R. SHEEN andCharles A. WYPLOSZ
86/07 Douglas L. MacLACRLANand Spyros MAKRIDAKIS
86/08 Jose de la TORRE andDavid R. NECKAR
86/11 Philippe A. NAERTand Alain BULTEZ
86/12 Roger BETANCOURTand David GAUTSCHI
86/13 S.P. ANDERSONand Damien J. NEVER
86/14 Charles VALDMAN
86/16 B. Espen ECKBO andHervitt M. LANGOHR
86/17 David B. JEMISON
86/18 James TEBOULand V. MALLERET
86/19 Rob R. WEITZ
86/20 Albert CORHAY,Gabriel HAWAVINIand Pierre A. MICHEL
86/21 Albert CORHAY,Gabriel A. HAVAVINIand Pierre A. MICHEL
86/22 Albert CORHAY,Gabriel A. HAWAWINIand Pierre A. MICHEL
86/23 Arnoud DE MEYER
86/24 David GAUTSCHIand Vithala R. RAO
86/25 H. Peter GRAYand Ingo WALTER
86/26 Barry EICHENGREENand Charles WYPLOSZ
86/27 Karel COOLand Ingemar DIERICKX
86/28 Manfred KETS DEVRIES and Danny MILLER
86/29 Manfred KETS DE VRIES
86/30 Manfred KETS DE VRIES
86/31 Arnoud DE METER
86/31 Arnoud DE MEYER,Jinichiro NAKANE,Jeffrey G. MILLERand Kasra FERDOVS
86/09 Philippe C. HASPESLACH "Conceptualizing the strategic process indiversified firms: the role and nature of thecorporate influence process", February 1986.
86/10 R. MOENART, "Analysing the issues concerningArnoud DE METER, technological de-maturity".J. BARBS andD. DESCHOOLMEESTER.
86/15 Mihkel TOMBAK andArnoud DE MEYER
"Rov the managerial attitudes of firms vithVMS differ from other manufacturing firms:survey results". June 1986.
86/32 Karel COOLand Dan SCHENDEL
Performance differences among strategic groupmembers", October 1986.
1987
87/01 Manfred KETS DE VRIES "Prisoners of leadership".
87/02 Claude VIALLET
"An empirical investigation of internationalasset pricing", November 1986.
87/03 David GAUTSCHIand Vithala RAO
87/04 Sumantra GHOSHAL andChristopher BARTLETT
87/05 Arnoud DE MEYERand Kasra FERDOVS
"A methodology for specification andaggregation in product concept testing",Revised Version: January 1987.
"Organizing for innovations: case of themultinational corporation", February 1987.
"Managerial focal points in manufacturingstrategy", February 1987.
87/06 Arun K. JAIN, "Customer loyalty as a construct in theChristian PINSON and marketing of banking services", July 1986.Naresh K. MALHOTRA
86/33 Ernst BALTENSPERGERand Jean DERMINE
86/34 Philippe HASPESLAGHand David JEMISON
86/35 Jean DERMINE
86/36 Albert CORHAY andGabriel HAWAVINI
86/37 David GAUTSCHI andRoger BETANCOURT
86/38 Gabriel HAVAWINI
86/39 Gabriel HAVAWINIPierre MICHELand Albert CORHAY
86/40 Charles WYPLOSZ
86/41 Kasra FERDOWSand Wickham SKINNER
86/42 Kasra FERDOWSand Per LINDBERG
86/43 Damien NEVEN
86/44 Ingemar DIERICKXCarmen NAMESand Damien NEVEN
"The role of public policy in insuringfinancial stability: a cross-country,comparative perspective", August 1986, RevisedNovember 1986.
"Acquisitions: myths and reality",July 1986.
"Measuring the market value of a bank, aprimer", November 1986.
"Seasonality in the risk-return relationship:some international evidence", July 1986.
"The evolution of retailing: a suggestedeconomic interpretation".
"Financial innovation and recent developmentsin the French capital markets", Updated:September 1986.
"The pricing of common stocks on the Brusselsstock exchange: a re-examination of theevidence", November 1986.
"Capital flows liberalization and the EMS, aFrench perspective", December 1986.
"Manufacturing in a new perspective",July 1986.
"FMS as indicator of manufacturing strategy",December 1986.
"On the existence of equilibrium in hotelling'smodel", November 1986.
"Value added tax and competition",December 1986.
87/07 Rolf BANZ andGabriel HAVAWINI
87/08 Manfred KETS DE VRIES
87/09 Lister VICKERY,Mark PILKINGTONand Paul READ
87/10 Andre LAURENT
87/11 Robert FILDES andSpyros MAKRIDAKIS
87/12 Fernando BARTOLOMEand Andre LAURENT
87/13 Sumantra GHOSHALand Nitin NOHRIA
87/14 Landis GABEL
87/15 Spyros MAKRIDAKIS
87/16 Susan SCHNEIDERand Roger DUNBAR
87/17 Andre LAURENT andFernando BARTOLOME
87/18 Reinhard ANGELMAR andChristoph LIEBSCHER
87/19 David BEGG andCharles WYPLOSZ
87/20 Spyros MAKRIDAKIS
87/21 Susan SCHNEIDER
87/22 Susan SCHNEIDER
87/23 Roger BETANCOURTDavid GAUTSCHI
"Equity pricing and stock market anomalies",February 1987.
"Leaders who can't manage", February 1987.
"Entrepreneurial activities of European MBAs",March 1987.
"A cultural view of organizational change",March 1987
"Forecasting and loss functions", March 1987.
"The Janus Head: learning from the superiorand subordinate faces of the manager's job",April 1987.
"Multinational corporations as differentiatednetworks", April 1987.
"Product Standards and Competitive Strategy: AnAnalysis of the Principles", May 1987.
"METAPORECASTING: Valet of improvingForecasting. Accuracy and Usefulness",May 1987.
"Takeover attempts: what does the language tellus?, June 1987.
"Managers' cognitive maps for upward anddownward relationships", June 1987.
"Patents and the European biotechnology lag: astudy of large European pharmaceutical firms",June 1987.
"Vhy the EMS? Dynamic games and the equilibriumpolicy regime, May 1987.
"A nev approach to statistical forecasting",June 1987.
"Strategy formulation: the impact of nationalculture", Revised: July 1987.
"Conflicting ideologies: structural andmotivational consequences", August 1987.
"The demand for retail products and thehousehold production model: nev views oncomplementarity and substitutability".
87/24 C.B. DERR andandr6 LAURENT
87/25 A. K. JAIN,N. K. MALHOTRA andChristian PINSON
87/26 Roger BETANCOURTand David CAUTSCHI
87/27 Michael BURDA
87/28 Gabriel HAVAVINI
87/29 Susan SCHNEIDER andPaul SHRIVASTAVA
87/30 Jonathan HAMILTONW. Bentley MACLEODand J. F. THISSE
87/31 Martine QUINZII andJ. P. THISSE
87/32 Arnoud DE MEYER
87/33 Yves DOZ andAmy SHUEN
87/34 Kasra FERDOWS andArnoud DE MEYER
87/35 P. J. LEDERER andJ. F. THISSE
87/36 Manfred KETS DE VRIES
87/37 Landis GABEL
87/38 Susan SCHNEIDER
87/39 Manfred KETS DE VRIES1987
87/40 Carmen MATUTES andPierre REGIBEAU
"The internal and external careers: atheoretical and cross-cultural perspective",Spring 1987.
"The robustness of MDS configurations in theface of incomplete data", March 1987, Revised:July 1987.
"Demand complementarities, household productionand retail assortments", July 1987.
"Is there a capital shortage in Europe?",August 1987.
"Controlling the interest-rate risk of bonds:an introduction to duration analysis andimmunization strategies", September 1987.
"Interpreting strategic behavior: basicassumptions themes in organizations", September1987
"Spatial competition and the Core", August1987.
"On the optimality of central places",September 1987.
"German, French and British manufacturingstrategies less different than one thinks",September 1987.
"A process framework for analyzing cooperationbetween firms", September 1987.
"European manufacturers: the dangers ofcomplacency. Insights from the 1987 Europeanmanufacturing futures survey, October 1987.
"Competitive location on netvorks underdiscriminatory pricing", September 1987.
"Prisoners of leadership", Revised versionOctober 1987.
"Privatization: its motives and likelyconsequences", October 1987.
"Strategy formulation: the impact of nationalculture", October 1987.
"The dark side of CEO succession", November
"Product compatibility and the scope of entry",November 1987
87/41 Cavriel HAVAVINI andClaude VIALLET
87/42 Damien NEVEN and
Jacques-F. THISSE
87/43 Jean GABSEEVICZ andJacques-F. THISSE
87/44 Jonathan HAMILTON,Jacques-F. THISSEand Anita VESKAMP
87/45 Karel COOL,David JEMISON andIngemar DIERICKX
87/46 Ingemar DIERICKXand Karel COOL
1988
88/01 Michael LAWRENCE andSpyros MAKRIDAKIS
88/02 Spyros MAKRIDAKIS
88/03 James TEBOUL
88/04 Susan SCHNEIDER
88/05 Charles WYPLOSZ
88/06 Reinhard ANGELMAR
88/07 Ingemar DIERICKXand Karel COOL
88/08 Reinhard ANGELMARand Susan SCHNEIDER
88/09 Bernard SINCLAIR-DESGAGN4
88/10 Bernard SINCLAIR-DESGAGNe
88/11 Bernard SINCLAIR-DESGAGNV
"Seasonality, size premium and the relationshipbetween the risk and the return of Frenchcommon stocks", November 1987
"Combining horizontal and verticaldifferentiation: the principle of max-mindifferentiation", December 1987
"Location", December 1987
"Spatial discrimination: Bertrand vs. Cournotin a model of location choice", December 1987
"Business strategy, market structure and risk-return relationships: a causal interpretation",December 1987.
"Asset stock accumulation and sustainabilityof competitive advantage", December 1987.
"Factors affecting Judgemental forecasts andconfidence intervals", January 1988.
"Predicting recessions and other turningpoints", January 1988.
"De-industrialize service for quality", January1988.
"National vs. corporate culture: implicationsfor human resource management", January 1988.
"The svinging dollar: is Europe out of step?",January 1988.
"Les conflits dans les canaux de distribution",January 1988.
"Competitive advantage: a resource basedperspective", January 1988.
"Issues in the study of organizationalcognition", February 1988.
"Price formation and product design throughbidding", February 1988.
"The robustness of some standard auction gameforms", February 1988.
"When stationary strategies are equilibriumbidding strategy: The single-crossingproperty", February 1988.
88/12 Spyros MAKRIDAKIS
88/13 Manfred KETS DE VRIES
88/14 Alain NOEL
88/15 Anil DEOLALIKAR andLars-Hendrik ROLLER
88/16 Gabriel HAWAWINI
88/17 Michael BURDA
88/18 Michael BURDA
88/19 M.J. LAWRENCE andSpyros MAKRIDAKIS
88/20 Jean DERMINE,Damien NEVEN andJ.F. THISSE
88/21 James TEBOUL
88/22 Lars-Hendrik ROLLER
88/23 Sjur Didrik FLAMand Georges ZACCOUR
88/24 B. Espen ECKBO andHervig LANGOHR
88/25 Everette S. GARDNERand Spyros MAKRIDAKIS
88/26 Sjur Didrik FLAMand Georges ZACCOUR
88/27 Murugappa KRISHNANLars-Hendrik ROLLER
"Business firms and managers in the 21stcentury", February 1988
"Alexithyaia in organizational life: theorganization man revisited", February 1988.
"The interpretation of strategies: a study ofthe impact of CEOs on the corporation",March 1988.
"The production of and returns from industrialinnovation: an econometric analysis for adeveloping country", December 1987.
"Market efficiency and equity pricing:international evidence and implications forglobal investing", March 1988.
"Monopolistic competition, costs of adjustmentand the behavior of European employment",September 1987.
"Reflections on "Wait Unemployment" inEurope", November 1987, revised February 1988.
"Individual bias in judgements of confidence",March 1988.
"Portfolio selection by mutual funds, anequilibrium model", March 1988.
"De-industrialize service for quality",March 1988 (88/03 Revised).
"Proper Quadratic Functions with an Applicationto AT&T", May 1987 (Revised March 1988).
"Equilibres de Nash-Cournot dans le marchAeuropeen du gaz: un cas oii les solutions enboucle ouverte et en feedback coincident",Mars 1988
"Information disclosure, means of payment, andtakeover premia. Public and Private tenderoffers in France", July 1985, Sixth revision,April 1988.
"The future of forecasting", April 1988.
"Semi-competitive Cournot equilibrium inmultistage oligopolies", April 1988.
"Entry game with resalable capacity",April 1988.
88/29 Naresh K. MALHOTRA,Christian PINSON andArun K. JAIN
88/30 Catherine C. ECKELand Theo VERMAELEN
88/31 Sumantra GHOSHAL andChristopher BARTLETT
88/32 Kasra FERDOWS andDavid SACKRIDER
88/33 Mihkel M. TOMBAK
88/34 Mihkel M. TOMBAK
88/35 Mihkel M. TOMBAK
88/36 Vikas TIBREWALA andBruce BUCHANAN
88/37 Murugappa KRISHNANLars-Hendrik ROLLER
88/38 Manfred KETS DE VRIES
88/39 Manfred KETS DE FRIES
88/40 Josef LAKONISHOK andTheo VERMAELEN
88/41 Charles WYPLOSZ
88/42 Paul EVANS
88/43 B. SINCLAIR-DESCACNE
88/44 Essam MAHMOUD andSpyros MAKRIDAKIS
88/45 Robert KORAJCZYKand Claude VIALLET
88/46 Yves DOZ andAmy SHUEN
"Consumer cognitive complexity and thedimensionality of multidimensional scalingconfigurations", May 1988.
"The financial fallout from Chernobyl: riskperceptions and regulatory response", May 1988.
"Creation, adoption, and diffusion ofinnovations by subsidiaries of multinationalcorporations", June 1988.
"International manufacturing: positioningplants for success", June 1988.
"The importance of flexibility inmanufacturing", June 1988.
"Flexibility: an important dimension inmanufacturing", June 1988.
"A strategic analysis of investment in flexiblemanufacturing systems", July 1988.
"A Predictive Test of the NBD Model thatControls for Non-stationarity", June 1988.
"Regulating Price-Liability Competition ToImprove Welfare", July 1988.
"The Motivating Role of Envy : A ForgottenFactor in Management, April 88.
"The Leader as Mirror : Clinical Reflections",July 1988.
"Anomalous price behavior around repurchasetender offers", August 1988.
"Assymetry in the EMS: intentional orsystemic?", August 1988.
"Organizational development in thetransnational enterprise", June 1988.
"Group decision support systems implementBayesian rationality", September 1988.
"The state of the art and future directionsin combining forecasts", September 1988.
"An empirical investigation of internationalasset pricing", November 1986, revised August1988.
"Prom intent to outcome: a process framevorkfor partnerships", August 1988.
88/28 Sumantra CHOSHAL and "The multinational corporation as a network:C. A. BARTLETT perspectives from interorganizational theory",
May 1988.
88/47 Alain BULTEZ,Els CIJSBRECHTS,Philippe NAERT andPiet VANDEN ABEELE
88/48 Michael BURDA
88/49 Nathalie DIERKENS
88/50 Rob WEITZ andArnoud DE MEYER
"Asymmetric cannibalism between substituteitems listed by retailers", September 1988.
"Reflections on 'Vait unemployment' inEurope, II", April 1988 revised September 1988.
"Information asymmetry and equity issues",September 1988.
"Managing expert systems: from inceptionthrough updating", October 1987.
88/51 Rob WEITZ "Technology, work, and the organization: theimpact of expert systems", July 1988.