The purpose of this article is to describe the theoretical and methodological reasons for the inconsistent findings on the value of strategic consensus. This analysis suggests the need for (a) definitions of consensus that align the locus and content of agreement with the study context and theoretical premises; (b) measures of consensus that take account of locus as well as differences in how the content of strategy is perceived by top-, middle-, and lower-level managers; (c) research designs wherein assumptions about the locus and content of consensus govern the choice of antecedents; and (d) more consistent use of moderators.

In contrast to the contingency approach advanced by most prior work, we suggest a complementary perspective on organizational control and its relationship with performance. We argue that the simultaneous use of behavior and outcome control capitalizes on their respective advantages, and is therefore more effective than a sole reliance on either control type. Moreover, with organizational control seeking alignment between individual and organizational goals, the benefits of such a complementary approach may be more pronounced in a context characterized by high levels of organizational politics, or the pursuit of individual at the expense of organizational goals. Our analysis of strategic initiatives pursued by 184 European corporations provides support for both a complementary approach to organizational control and a contingency effect of organizational politics.Please assess the extent to which the corporate center funded your growth initiatives (1 = not at all; 7 = entirely). Resource application rules (for endogeneity tests)There existed clear procedures and rules to apply for resources (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree). SUPPORTING INFORMATION Additional supporting information may be found in the online version of this article:Appendix S1. Organizational politics: Scale validation procedure.

The social networks literature suggests that ties must be maintained to retain value. In contrast, we show that reconnecting dormant ties—former ties, now out of touch—can be extremely useful. Our research prompted Executive MBA students to consult their dormant contacts about an important work project; outcomes compared favorably to those of their current ties. In addition, reconnecting previously strong ties led to all of the four benefits that are usually associated with either weak ties (efficiency and novelty) or strong ties (trust and shared perspective). These findings suggest that dormant relationships—often overlooked or underutilized—can be a valuable source of knowledge and social capital.

No abstract

This article examines the process through which multilevel network structures translate into knowledge acquisition from alliance partners. The degree of knowledge transfer a multidivisional company achieves from its network of alliance partners is determined not only by the organization's external network structure, but also by the structure of relationships among its business units. By distinguishing two perspectives on the distribution of social capital's benefits -private versus collective -this article's approach reconciles the competing views on what types of network structures create social capital, that is, the brokerage and closure views of the social network literature. Private benefits of brokerage and centrality are more beneficial in interfirm networks, whereas collective benefits provided by network closure and low levels of centralization are more beneficial in intrafirm networks.