Effects of Group Cohesiveness on Attitude Polarization and the Acquisition of Knowledge in a Strategic Planning Context

Whitney, John C.; Smith, Ruth Ann

doi:10.2307/3151683

Cited by 35 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It has been found that too much internal consensus may be dysfunctional. For example, reduced receptivity to information which contradicts the views of the dominant coalition may occur, despite the fact that such information may be vital for the quality of the final decision (Whitney and Smith, 1983). Thus, the pressure for consensus postulated by normative approaches to strategic DMPs may produce negative results.…”

Section: Performance and Politicization-dissensionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strategic Investment Decision Processes and Organizational Performance: An Empirical Examination

Papadakis

1998

British J of Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Organizational performance is a complex and multidimensional phenomenon at the heart of strategic management theory and practice (Venkatraman and Ramanujam, 1986). Most researchers consider performance the ultimate test of new concepts and theories (Keats, 1988; Schendel and Hofer, 1979).Much research investigates performance in relation to the content of strategy, planning and strategy formulation processes, structure, environment, leadership, and so on. Strategy content researchers usually link competitive and/or resource positioning to performance, while process researchers seem somewhat less preoccupied with performance considerations. For example, with few exceptions (e.g. Bourgeois) empirical research has not examined the relationship between organizational performance and dimensions of strategic decision-making processes (Papadakis and Barwise, 1997;Rajagopalan, Rasheed and Datta, 1993).In addition, the study of organizational performance and strategic decision-making seems to be problematic. As we discuss in greater depth in the theoretical framework, much of the research has yielded conflicting results. For example, Fredrickson (1984) suggests that comprehensive/ rational processes are related to higher economic performance in a stable environment and to lower performance in an unstable environment. On the The central question that this paper aims to answer is whether there is a relationship between organizational performance and the characteristics of strategic investment decision (SID) processes. To do so, it adopts an empirically derived nine-dimensional framework for classifying SID processes and employs a set of objective and perceptual measures of performance.The empirical results stemming from the process-performance relationship, suggest that higher performance is strongly related to more rational decision-making processes (DMPs); more financial reporting activities; broader participation both in terms of departments and in terms of hierarchical levels. Furthermore, our data suggest that long-term performance appears to be more strongly related to SID processes than short-term performance and the 'structural' characteristics of the DMPs (i.e. rationality, financial reporting) are mainly related to long-term objective performance, while such 'behavioural' characteristics of the DMPs, as problem-solving dissension, reveal some interesting associations with short-term performance. In light of these findings, implications for theory and future research are advanced.© 1998 British Academy of Management 1 The author thanks P. Barwise as well as the anonymous reviewers for comments on suggestions on earlier versions of this paper, which received valuable support from an EU Post-doctoral Fellowship.

show abstract

Section: Performance and Politicization-dissensionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strategic Investment Decision Processes and Organizational Performance: An Empirical Examination

Papadakis

1998

British J of Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(Bourgeois, 1985, p. 566) Additionally, Floyd and Wooldridge (1992) contend that overly zealous commitment or allegiance to a given course of action may inhibit an organization's ability to anticipate the need for change by censoring input and closing out alternatives. In Whitney and Smith's (1983) laboratory study, for example, highly cohesive groupsin which consensus was a desired outcomeexperienced normative pressure to conform. Information that was counter to the groups' beliefs was suppressed.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Consensus‐Performance Research: Theoretical and Empirical Extensions*

Dess¹,

Priem²

1995

J Management Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on the consensus-performance relationship has typically used correlational data to examine the simple, bivariate relationship between top management team consensus and firm performance. The results of this research are equivocal. Recent theoretical work, however, suggests a number of 'third variables' that may provide additional insight into the consensus-performance relationship through the 'process of elaboration'. This paper presents theoretical models, based on recent theory building, that may be appropriate for incorporating these additional variables in future research. CONSENSUSConsensus, defined as general agreement among all or most, is viewed as an important outcome of group decision making. Whyte (1989, p. 41) notes, for example, that 'the task, after all, of a decision making group is to produce consensus from the initial preferences of its members'. Similarly, agreement among strategy makers on a firm's goals and the competitive methods appropriate for achieving them has long been considered an important outcome of the strategy formulation process. According to the rational-normative strategy literature, for example, each step of the sequential planning process must result in top management team (TMT) consensus (Andrews, 1971; Anso6 1965). In the incrementalpolitical view, goals and methods are determined through bargaining and negotiation processes that lead to consensus regarding a course of action (Allison, 1971; Braybrooke and Lindblom, 1970; Cyert and March, 1963;Quinn, 1980). Despite its appeal from both the normative strategy literature and incremental-political perspective, the attainment of consensus by a TMT can have both positive and negative consequences for an organization. On the positive side, consensus may result from the open sharing of information and the expressing of opinions and perceptions pertaining to a firm's competitive environment, goals and strategies. Such interactions may help resolve differences and lead to both a common understanding and a strong commitment to strategy. Such favourable consequences may be facilitated by Brodwin and Bourgeois's (1 984) 'collaborative' and 'cultural' approaches to strategy formulation and implementation, or by Shrivastava and Grant's (1 985) 'systematic bureaucracy model', wherein consensus building is enhanced through problem centred interaction, shared norms, and formulating multiple problem-solving sets within a highly structured system of decision making. Despite such desirable consequences, achieving consensus may also, under certain conditions, be detrimental to an organization. For example, in interpreting his research findings, Bourgeois argued that managers should heed Janis's (1972) exhortation to avoid the perils of groupthink -that is, a firm should emphasize diversity in both vision and direction among its top managers, for in consonance comes insulation, arrogance, tunnel vision, blindness, and Watergate-style feelings of moral omnipotence. Diversity in perception, however, removes blinders, and diversity in goal...

show abstract

“…Thus, depending on its actual emergence process, a final consensus may or may not reveal private agreement of the part of group members. This dimension may also have an impact on the future implementation of the decision (Whitney and Smith, 1983), and on the organizational performance (Bourgeois, 1980). As far as the interpretation of consensus in decision-making groups is concerned, Fiol (1994) notes that the link between consensus and performance has led to conflicting results (see, for instance, Bourgeois, 1980;Schweiger et al, 1986).…”

Section: A Socio-cognitive Perspective On Decision Processes In Organmentioning

confidence: 99%

Representations and Influence Processes in Groups: Towards a Socio-Cognitive Perspective on Cognition in Organization

Allard-Poesi

1998

Scandinavian Journal of Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The cognitive approach of organizations assumes that there exists collective representations in organizations. We critically examine this assumption and propose to adopt a socio-cognitive perspective of collective cognition in organizations. This theoretical stream, that rejects the traditional individual/social dichotomy argues for the study of Social Cognition, which implies a change in the unit of analysis from the individual/social levels to interactions. A collective representation is understood as related to the socio-cognitive dynamics taken place between interacting group members. Communication and influence processes are then critical for the construction of a collective representation. The socio-cognitive perspective and the theory of social influence it proposes may offer new and important insights to everyday thinking and behaving in organizations. They requires however new methodological approaches to study organizational cognition.

show abstract

Effects of Group Cohesiveness on Attitude Polarization and the Acquisition of Knowledge in a Strategic Planning Context

Cited by 35 publications

References 0 publications

Strategic Investment Decision Processes and Organizational Performance: An Empirical Examination

Strategic Investment Decision Processes and Organizational Performance: An Empirical Examination

Consensus‐Performance Research: Theoretical and Empirical Extensions*

Representations and Influence Processes in Groups: Towards a Socio-Cognitive Perspective on Cognition in Organization

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About