Although there has been a good deal of prior research on differences between Asian (i.e., Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea) and American business practices, few studies have dealt with comparisons of approaches to decision making in the various cultures. This paper addresses how levels of openness, conflicting advice, centralized control, and disagreement across different countries may affect decision making. It may be that the “common wisdom” which suggests Japanese decision making exclusively involves cooperation ignores the existence of conflict in Japanese decisions. In fact, Japanese decision makers may be more open, resolve conflict prior to reaching consensus, and exert less centralized control than decision makers in the U.S. and Hong Kong. This could help explain their abilities to make effective business decisions in Japan.

CEO decision-making is profoundly impacted by perceptions about organizational identity. In this paper we report on the results of a study of communication patterns in letters to shareholders of a sample of firms that achieved successful turnaround. The results indicate that replacement of the CEO is a common but not essential element of successful turnaround. Results show distinctly different patterns of attribution and communication in turnaround firms that replace the CEO versus those that do not. From these results we identify patterns of communication that seem related to successful turnaround. Implications for over-identification with a firm and management reasoning are discussed.

Though some estimate that marijuana use has cost U.S. companies billions of dollars in lost productivity, the relationship between use of marijuana and job performance is far from clear. In this paper, I review studies on this topic from four different methodological perspectives and discuss models to account for their apparently contradictory findings. This discussion suggests hypotheses for future research addressing possible reasons for inconsistencies in past findings.

ABSTRACTThe cognitive aspects of strategic management and organizational learning have been receiving increasing interest from researchers (Fahey and Narayanan, 1986; Prahalad and Bettis, 1986). Researchers have called for more detailed descriptions of the ways that individual‐level cognitions contribute to organizational‐level strategies (Daft and Weick, 1984; Smircich and Stubbart, 1985). In this article, a theory of organizational knowledge structures which include core and peripheral features is presented. From this theory propositions are suggested to guide future research on organizational learning.

This article argues that the pendulum in the debate on leadership has now swung too far in the direction of the “tyranny of opinion” and that this has increased the chances of wrong decisions being taken. But if this is so, what are the practical means by which diversity and conflict can be channelled into the decision‐making process. After discussing a wide range of research, the author describes his own preferred technique of formally using a devil’s advocate to test proposals for change – but without setting out alternative proposals.

Conceptualization and research have addressed the homogeneity heterogeneity of top management teams and, independently, the effectiveness of alternative corporate governance structures. Those studies which do concurrently consider directors and management focus largely on the board’s monitoring of the CEO. The interdependencies which exist among chief executive others, top management teams, and boards of directors necessitate an integrative approach which simultaneously considers these groups of strategic leaders. In this paper, we provide a rationale whereby a firm might elect a CEO or board dominance structure as compared to more balanced governance structures. We suggest that the efficacy of such choices may depend on several attendant conditions including the portfolio exposure and globalization of the firm, its ownership patterns (e.g., five percent owners, institutional investors, positions held by other corporations), and resource dependence and information requirements.

In this study, we hypothesized that relationships among top managers' goals consensus, means consensus, demographic homogeneity and firm performance would be positive and stronger in a stable industry environment than in a dynamic one. Utilizing a more rigorous methodology, the significant findings of earlier studies could not be replicated. Although the questions remain interesting and important ones, we believe pursuing this line of inquiry further will yield results inconsistent at best and fruitless at worst. Therefore, we urge future researchers to cautiously tread the perilous methodologic minefield that led to our nonfindings.

ABSTRACTInformation technology (IT) may be defined as computer‐based technology for the storage, accessing, processing and communication of information. Many writers have suggested that the use of IT should improve strategic decisions and have developed a number of propositions about the effects of IT on strategic decision making. However, no study has yet addressed the specific effects of IT on major phases of this process. Using Mintzberg, Raisinghani and Theoret's (1976, ‘The structure of unstructured decision processes’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 2, 246–75) strategic decision‐making model, this study assessed the effects of IT on the major phases of the process through an intensive examination of eight decisions in four companies. the results of the study provide new information on the specific ways IT improves decision‐making efficiency and effectiveness at each stage of the strategic decision process.

Researchers and practitioners have long been interested in the effects of cognitive conflict techniques on individual and group decision making. One widely used and studied technique, devil's advocacy (DA), has been found to enhance decision-making performance for both individuals and groups. Devil's advocacy begins with a recommended decision, followed by a critique of the decision that questions its assumptions. Researchers have not yet examined the effects of the objectivity of the devil's advocacy comments in computer-mediated environments. This paper reports the results of a laboratory experiment that focused on this question by comparing the effects of an objective, nonemotional DA to an emotional, ''carping'' DA within individuals and groups using either computer-mediated or face-to-face communication. In a manner consistent with prior research, both DA treatments were operationalized through the use of paper-based consulting reports. The results suggest that individuals and computer-mediated groups develop and consider more solution alternatives than face-to-face groups, and that subjects given the objective DA treatment produce higher quality decisions than those given the carping DA treatment. Face-to-face groups in the carping DA treatment considered the fewest alternative solutions in their decision-making process, reached the lowest solution quality, yet reached decision consensus in the fewest voting rounds. The practical implications of the results suggest that questioning statements made by a devil's advocate should be objective, regardless of group communication condition. Carping devil's advocacy appears to stifle group decision outcomes when groups are using face-to-face communication.

Recent years have witnessed a profusion of research on aspects of the strategic decision process and factors that may affect this process. In this article I will discuss four major themes in this research which include strategic decision models and characteristics, biases in decision making, individual and organizational minds, and upper echelons. I will then identtfy three emerging research topics which should produce interesting hypotheses for future research. I conclude with some methodological considerations to address the difficulties of doing research in this area.

For more than 20 years, researchers have investigated the effects of cognitive conflict techniques on the decision making performance of groups and individuals. Past research on two techniques, devil′s advocacy and dialectical inquiry, has shown that both techniques improve group performance over nonconflictual, expert-based approaches. More recently, researchers have begun to investigate how advanced decision and communication technologies can be used to enhance group processing and outcomes. In this paper, we extend both streams of research by reporting the results of a laboratory experiment on the effects devil′s advocacy and dialectical inquiry within face-to-face and computer-mediated groups. The results suggest that groups given the devil′s advocacy treatment developed and considered more alternative solutions to a case problem and selected a higher quality recommendation than those in the dialectical inquiry and expert-based treatments. Computer-mediated groups developed and considered more solution alternatives but required more voting rounds to reach agreement than did face-to-face groups. Computer-mediated groups were more satisfied with the process than face-to-face groups; no differences were found in satisfaction with decision outcome. The implications of the results for future research and practice are discussed.

There is a long history of research that has investigated the effects of cognitive conflict on group and individual decision making. No study has simultaneously compared the effects of two techniques, devil′s advocacy and dialectical inquiry, on the performance of individuals versus groups. In this paper, we report the results of a laboratory experiment that makes this comparison. Artificial groups (groups formed by pooling individuals working independently) obtained an overall lower-quality solution for a case analysis problem than intact groups. However, there were no performance differences between intact groups and the performance of the best member of artificial groups. When artificial and intact groups were examined together, those given the devil′s advocacy treatment produced higher-quality solutions than those given the dialectical inquiry treatment and a simpler expert-based approach involving no conflict. Intact groups given the devil′s advocacy treatment produced higher-quality solutions than those given the expert treatment. Artificial groups given devil′s advocacy produced higher-quality solutions than those given the expert or dialectical inquiry treatment. Overall, the results suggest that the devil′s advocacy treatment has a slightly greater advantage over the dialectical inquiry with individuals than with groups.

Researchers have been examining the effects of formal strategic planning on small firm financial performance for more than twenty years. Reviewers of prior studies have drawn differing conclusions as to whether formal planning improves small firm performance. We have applied meta-analysis for the first time to the results of previous studies on formal strategic planning and small firm performance. The results suggest that even though the size of the effects for planning for individual studies Is not large, the overall relationship between formal planning and performance across studies Is positive and significant. Much of the variance in the size of the effects, however, Is not explained by sampling error, Indicating the potential for other variables to moderate the effects of planning on the performance of small firms. It is concluded, in general, that strategic planning is a beneficial activity for small firms.

Strategic consensus within management teams is thought to affect company performance because of its effects on the quality of team decision-making (Bourgeois, 1985, p. 571). Past research dealing with the relationship between consensus and company performance, however, has not specifically examined the effects of consensus on decision-making. The debate on the effects of strategic consensus parallels a debate on the effects of consensus-based and conflict-based decision aids (Schweiger & Finger, 1984; Schweiger, Sandberg, & Ragan, 1986; Schwenk, 1988). The experiment described in this paper is the first which deals with the effects of group consensus and conflict-based decision aids on group decision-making. The results showed that high-consensus groups generally had higher performance, suggesting that consensus improves group decision-making. Further, groups given the decision technique of devil's advocacy had higher levels of critical evaluation in decision-making but less desire to work with each other in the future, suggesting that devil's advocacy has mixed effects on decision-making groups. An interaction effect showed that devil's advocacy increased the commitment of high-consensus group members to the decisions their groups had reached but did not have a similar effect on low-consensus groups. This result demonstrates the importance of examining both consensus and decision aids simultaneously. The implications of the results for the interpretation of past research on consensus and on conflict-based decision aids are offered in the conclusion.

Several researchers have argued that executives with longer tenure in their companies may become psychologically committed to the status quo and that this commitment may reduce the quality of decision making and company performance. The study described in this paper extends prior research on Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and top management team (TMT) tenure and on attributions of responsibility for past performance by assessing the relationship between tenure, company experience and attribution patterns. The results show that CEO and TMT tenure and company experience are positively associated with self-serving attributions (taking credit for positive outcomes and laying blame on the environment for negative outcomes), which are, in turn, associated with lower subsequent financial performance. However, tenure and company experience are not directly associated with poor performance to a significant degree.These results suggest that executives with more extensive experience in a company tend to identify more strongly with the company and with current strategy and therefore attribute negative outcomes to external causes. This biased attribution pattern in turn may reduce the effectiveness of decision making, leading to poorer future performance.

Past research using managers' attributions for good and poor performance in annual reports has repeatedly demonstrated that management takes credit for good outcomes. However, there is disagreement about whether this pattern of attributions reflects attempts to manage impressions in stakeholders or biased perceptions on the part of management, and whether it is associated with increases or decreases in future performance. In this study, attributions in letters to shareholders in the annual reports of public utilities were analyzed. The results showed the same general pattern of attributions as was found in previous studies. However, the relationship between this pattern of attributions and performance (earnings per share growth) was generally negative. Implications of these results for future research are discussed.

The study discussed in this article deals with the effects of strategic and value consensus on the performance of management teams in operating units at a large multinational company. The results showed that diversity of views on objectives, competitive methods, and values are positively related to objective measures of performance but negatively related to manager's own perceptions of their operating units' performance. This suggests that diversity of views may allow managerial employees to fulfill their responsibilities more effectively by improving their units' performance. Possible explanations for these results are discussed in the concluding section of this article.

This study examines the effects of a number of perceptual variables on internal auditors' reporting of wrongdoing by employees and managers in their organizations. Survey responses of 653 Directors of Internal Auditing who observed what they perceived to be incidents of wrongdoing show that they were less likely to report these incidents when they did not feel compelled morally or by role prescription to do so, when they evaluated their job performance as below average, or when they were employed by highly bureaucratic organizations. Also, the auditors were more likely to report incidents to external agencies (as opposed to authorities within the organization) when they felt that the public or their co-workers were harmed by the wrongdoing, the wrongdoing involved theft by relatively low-level workers, there were few other observers, or the organization was highly regulated.