COGNITION AND ORGANIZATIONAL ANALYSIS: WHOS MINDING THE...

"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


86/24 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


86/31 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


87/09 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


87/21 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


87/33 Yves DOZ andAmy SHUEN

87/34 Kasra FERDOWS andArnoud DE MEYER

87/35 P. J. LEDERER andJ. F. THISSE


87/37 Landis GABEL


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


88/03 James TEBOUL



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.



88/14 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



88/36 Vikas TIBREWALA andBruce BUCHANAN

88/37 Murugappa KRISHNANLars-Hendrik ROLLER


88/39 Manfred KETS DE FRIES

88/40 Josef LAKONISHOK andTheo VERMAELEN


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.

Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Page 10Page 11Page 12Page 13Page 14Page 15Page 16Page 17Page 18Page 19Page 20Page 21Page 22Page 23Page 24Page 25Page 26Page 27Page 28Page 29Page 30Page 31Page 32Page 33Page 34Page 35Page 36Page 37Page 38Page 39Page 40

COGNITION AND ORGANIZATIONAL ANALYSIS: WHOS MINDING THE...

Documents

Transcript of COGNITION AND ORGANIZATIONAL ANALYSIS: WHOS MINDING THE...