Search results

Scholarly research directed toward the analysis of organizational identity and organizational identification is fragmented along disciplinary and subdisciplinary fault lines that mirror the current intellectual and social organization of the management and organization studies field. Adopting a critical realist design science perspective, the author challenges researchers to set aside their own identity concerns to embark on an ambitious program of work that capitalizes on the strengths of the alternative perspectives in play, with a view to generating insights that are truly greater than the sum of the parts. The imperative for doing so, at this critical juncture, is the need to address the pressing challenges that threaten to harm beyond repair the social harmony that is the bedrock of the world economy and society.

In recent years, there has been a growth of interest in the study of business competition from a cognitive perspective. This paper reviews this rapidly expanding literature in order to synthesize key empirical findings and identify significant theoretical and methodological issues which warrant further investigation. It is argued that the notion of "competitive enactment" and the associated "cognitive life cycle" approach recently advanced by Porac and his associates (Porac, Thomas, & Baden-Fuller, 1989; Porac & Thomas, 1990; Levenhagen, Porac, & Thomas, 1993) represent a potentially major breakthrough in our understanding of the dynamics of competition in industries and markets. However, several important propositions are derived for which the currently available empirical evidence is found wanting. Furthermore, a number of methodological hurdles are identified which have yet to be overcome if the validity of these propositions is to be investigated with an acceptable degree of rigor.

As organizations become increasingly reliant on information technology (IT) they are exposed to a growing number of risks. Surprisingly, however, very few studies to date have investigated the psychometric representation of IT risks, and none have been undertaken in the workplace. Accordingly, the present study was designed to map the judgments of a representative group of workplace IT users. Fifty‐seven participants evaluated 18 IT risk scenarios by means of 13 bipolar attribute‐rating scales. Profile proximities derived from the raw data were submitted to a weighted multidimensional scaling analysis. The results indicated that a six‐dimensional solution was required on both statistical and conceptual grounds to represent adequately the participants' judgments. The dimensions reflected the extent to which the various risk scenarios were perceived as: (1) serious or minor in nature; (2) having a high or low probability of occurrence; (3) causing a high or low degree of stress; (4) deliberate or accidental; (5) having an impact on the organization or on individuals; and (6) the product of human or technological causes. The data were also submitted to a series of hierarchical cluster analyses, using a variety of agglomeration techniques. This second approach revealed a robust structure in which the risk scenarios were grouped into two broad categories, based on whether the events depicted would be likely to have a major or minor impact. The major impact category broke down further, into two subcategories, based on whether the scenarios were seen to arise from deliberate causes or through negligence. In conclusion, we consider the implications of our findings for future research, the refinement of IT risk assessment frameworks and tools, and the training of risk management professionals.

The considerable volume of theory and research that has sought to illuminate the nature and significance of cognitive processes in strategy formulation and implementation represents but an important first step in the re-humanization of strategy research. In order to achieve the sorts of fine-grained analyses that will ultimately advance understanding of cognition in action, strategy researchers need to move beyond the static analysis of actors' cognitive maps to a deeper understanding of what lies behind the actions of strategists as they engage with particular strategy practices in their praxis. To accomplish this key goal, strategy researchers need to become more reflective in their own practices, augmenting the observational and interview techniques advocated by various leading contributors to the strategy-as-practice (s-as-p) perspective with a profiling of the cognitive characteristics of strategists, based on psychometrically robust procedures. To this end, drawing on dual-process theories from cognitive psychology and social cognition, we outline a basic two-dimensional framework to inform the investigation of the impact of individual differences in cognitive style (analytical and intuitive approaches to the processing of information) on the observed behaviours of strategy workers in strategy-making episodes and consider its implications for the advancement of theory, research and practice.

Continuing the series' tradition of providing scholarly reviews and updates of theory and research, this twenty-seventh volume surveys developments in established areas, such as stress and well-being, consumer behavior, and employee trust, as well as newer topics such as methodological issues in the development and evaluation of multiple regression models, and an examination of the psychological impact of the physical office environment.

Stimulated by the growing use of brain imaging and related neurophysiological techniques in psychology and economics, scholars have begun to debate the implications of neuroscience for management and organization studies (MOS). Currently, this debate is polarizing scholarly opinion. At one extreme, advocates are calling for a new neuroscience of organizations, which they claim will revolutionize understanding of a wide range of key processes, with significant implications for management practice. At the other extreme, detractors are decrying the relevance of neuroscience for MOS, primarily on philosophical and ethical grounds. The present article progresses this debate by outlining an intermediate, critical realist position, in which the insights of social neuroscience are one of a number of convergent building blocks that together point toward the need for a more embodied and socially situated view of cognition in management and organizations.

This policy capturing study, conducted in China, investigated the cognitive basis of managerial decisions to make a corporate charitable donation, a global issue in the context of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) research and practice. Participants (N=376) responded to a series of scenarios manipulating pressure from the five stakeholders (government, customers, competitors, employees, and shareholders) most commonly addressed by CSR research. The independent variables examined included organizational factors (industry, ownership, previous company donation, firm size, firm age and perceived CEO attitudes toward charity) and the participants' personal values. Results indicate a large positive effect of shareholder and governmental pressure on the decision with lesser positive effects from customers and competitors. Surprisingly, employee pressure had a negative effect on the decision to make a charitable donation. Further, personal values and CEO attitudes toward charity were significantly related to the decisions participants made. In line with our theorizing, the findings indicate that a combination of personal, organizational, and institutional factors are salient in the minds of decision makers.