Is strategic decision comprehensiveness beneficial for firms? Despite significant empirical attention on this research question, inconsistent findings have prevented strong insights from being formed. To help the field move forward, we address long-standing controversies surrounding whether comprehensiveness is beneficial for firms, and whether environmental dynamism enhances or diminishes its effects. We meta-analyze 37 studies and provide the most definitive evidence possible regarding the strategic value of decision comprehensiveness. Our analyses show (1) that strategic decision comprehensiveness and organizational outcomes are positively related to a meaningful degree when subjective outcome measures are used, and (2) that environmental dynamism does not have a moderating impact on this comprehensiveness–outcomes linkage. Our results indicate that measurement strategies and methodological choices may have primarily driven the effects of strategic decision comprehensiveness reported in the literature. They also suggest that long-standing ideas related to moderating effects of dynamism do not hold. We define an agenda for future research and a roadmap for empirical efforts.

Research summary: Strategic dissent represents divergence in ideas, preferences, and beliefs related to ideal and/or future strategic emphasis. Conventional wisdom in strategic management holds that such differences in managerial cognitions lead to higher-quality strategic decisions, and thus to enhanced firm performance. However, 4 decades of empirical research have not provided consistent findings or clear insights into the effects of strategic dissent. Hence, we analyze the relative validity of predictions about these effects from both social psychological theories of group behavior and information processing perspectives on decision-making. Then, we conduct a meta-analytic path analysis (MASEM) based on current empirical evidence. Synthesizing data from 78 articles, we put to rest the notion that strategic dissent leads to positive outcomes for organizations and estimate how negative its effects actually are. Managerial summary: Top management teams (TMTs) set the tone and direction for their firms in important ways. Top managers, however, often disagree over fundamental issues related to strategy. Such strategic dissent affects how important decisions are made, and thus how the firm performs. In more specific terms and contrary to popular belief, strategic dissent creates not only dysfunctional relationships among top managers, but also disrupts the process by which these managers exchange, discuss, and integrate information and ideas in making strategic decisions. In short, firms have not yet generated value through numerous perspectives, ideas, and opinions among their top managers. We discuss interventions that could prove helpful in efforts to benefit from having diverse cognitions in a TMT.

No abstract

No abstract