Designs for Crisis Decision Units

Smart, Carolyne; Vertinsky, Ilan

doi:10.2307/2392406

Cited by 284 publications

(137 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

127

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, studies regarding interdependency between organizations and their external environment (Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967;Meyer, 1978;Aldrich, 1979), studies focused on dependency of resources (Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978) and even the ownership of superior strategic resources (Barney, 1986(Barney, , 1991. Other contributions come from studies related to uncertainty (Simon, 1962;Thompson, 1967;Cohen and March, 1972) and crisis management (Smart and Vertinsky, 1977;Starbuck, Greve and Hedberg, 1978;Milburn, Schuler and Watman, 1983). Some authors consider decline to be somewhat inevitable, given that companies follow a more or less pre-determined life-cycle which, eventually, will lead to the organization's demise.…”

Section: Literature Review Defining Organizational Declinementioning

confidence: 99%

The decline of large Brazilian companies

Torres¹,

Menezes²,

Serra³

et al. 2011

COC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Literature Review Defining Organizational Declinementioning

confidence: 99%

The decline of large Brazilian companies

Torres¹,

Menezes²,

Serra³

et al. 2011

COC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One of the most frequently cited propositions in the organizational literature is that, under stress, organizations undergo a 473 constriction in control, or a centralization of authority, so that control and decision making becomes concentrated in the higher levels of an organizational hierarchy (Holsti, 1971;Milburn, Schuler, & Watman, 1983;Smart & Vertinsky, 1977). Exploring organizational dynamics, Staw et al (1981) claimed that under such conditions, organizational control is increased, decisions of dominant members in the organization may prevail more readily, and the exercise of influence becomes more centralized.…”

Section: Stress and Group Decision Makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Group decision making under stress.

Driskell¹,

Salas²

1991

Journal of Applied Psychology

216

142

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding the processes by which task groups function is a major concern of social psychologists who study small groups. Equally important to the applied group researcher is the understanding of how group processes are altered by the external environment. Research suggests that organizations respond to stress with a centralization of authority so that decision making becomes concentrated in the higher levels of an organizational hierarchy. In this study, this hypothesis was extended to the small-group level of analysis, and the effects of stress on group status and decision making were examined. Experimental results clarify and delimit the centralization-of-authority hypothesis: Rather than centralizing authority and decision making under stress, group leaders and group members become more receptive to information provided by others. Implications for group decision making are discussed.Modern complex and high-risk technologies are inherently contradictory. On one hand, they greatly extend the range of human potential; for example, military anti-air warfare (AAW) systems allow military personnel to "see" aircraft at great distances. On the other hand, these systems also increase the potential for catastrophic error; in an AAW environment, the amount and complexity of information that must be processed in a short period of time once a target has been identified is enormous. We note several characteristics of these high-technology systems: (a) They pervade the aerospace, military, petrochemical, and nuclear industries; (b) they involve complex tasks that usually require interdependent or team performance; (c) during emergency or crisis conditions, operators have to make critical decisions under extreme stress; and (d) operator error is usually cited as a primary cause of system failure (see Perrow, 1984). Thus, although the necessity for effective performance under stress has been present since our ancestors were first chased with a club, it is likely that modern systems have both increased the stress under which humans must perform, as well as the consequences of poor performance.The deleterious effects of stress on human performance are well documented and have been a focus of research in the social and behavioral sciences for a number of years. Numerous studies have demonstrated cognitive, behavioral, and emotional responses to stress at the individual level (Harris, 1981;Keinan, 1987;Taylor, Buunk, & Aspinwall, 1990). Considerably less is known about the effects of stress on group performance. This is particularly surprising for several reasons. First, the complexity and scope of modern-day tasks often require group efforts (see

show abstract

“…The first factor for this period was seminal articles of organizational decline and was composed of articles arguing that organizational decline is the subject of little research and that the explanations for the origins, responses to and effects of decline are neglected topics in the literature. According to , the works published during this period show three theoretical foundations for organizational decline: the literature on organizational environment highlights the importance of organizations having control over critical environmental resources, represented by the works of Aldrich (1979); the literature on crisis management addresses the impact of environmental discontinuities in organizations, in the works of Starbuck et al (1978) and Smart and Vertinsky (1977); and the literature on the management of uncertainty, in the works of Thompson (1967). Other works regarding this factor were Whetten (1980) on organizational life-cycles, articles on retrenchment (Whetten, 1981), the definition of a typology of decline (Zammuto & Cameron, 1985) and the difference between decline and stagnation (Bozeman & Slusher, 1979).…”

Section: -2014mentioning

confidence: 99%

Organizational Decline Research Review: Challenges and Issues for a Future Research Agenda

Serra

Pinto

Guerrazzi

et al. 2017

BAR, Braz. Adm. Rev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Organizational decline is related to the deterioration of the resource base and performance of an organization for a sustained period of time. Although some studies have been conducted, it remains an understudied phenomenon, despite its importance. The study of organizational decline is faced with challenges to improving and increasing research. In this study, we analyze the scientific field of organizational decline in business and management journals with a high impact factor. We conducted a mixed-method study: a bibliometric study of a sample of 214 articles, and a qualitative study with 41 authors. We used an analysis of citations, co-citations and factor analysis. This enabled the identification of the most influential works and their conceptual approaches. The interviews with the authors were analyzed using content analysis, which complemented our understanding of the challenges and problems facing the theme. The results show that organizational decline can be organized into three different aspects: organizational decline itself; studies on turnaround; and mortality. Specific challenges to overcome are related to a better definition, cognitive issues and other issues on decision-making and specific methodological problems. In addition, it is necessary to evaluate whether theories that explain growth are also able to explain decline.

show abstract

Designs for Crisis Decision Units

Cited by 284 publications

References 17 publications

The decline of large Brazilian companies

The decline of large Brazilian companies

Group decision making under stress.

Organizational Decline Research Review: Challenges and Issues for a Future Research Agenda

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About