The DOI matches its Crossref record; 60 of the 60 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A comparison of alternative measures of organizational aspirations
Open accessAbstract
Research on organizational aspirations has used various representations of firm‐level aspirations and based those representations on various performance measures. To advance our understanding of the measurement of aspirations, we empirically compare three different aspiration models defined using six different performance measures to explain three different firm outcomes (financial misrepresentation, R&D spending, and income‐stream uncertainty). The results moderately support a model with separate historical and social aspirations over a model of aspirations that systematically switches between the two. The results strongly support both the separate and switching models over a model where aspirations constitute a weighted average of historical and social comparisons, the model associated most directly with C yert and M arch's original specification. We discuss the implications of these results and highlight directions for future research . Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
(2000) · Cited by 9,198
A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance
Tosi, H. L., Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1991) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258875 · Cited by 4,839
Tosi, H. L. (1991) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1991.4278976 · Cited by 4,145
Managerial Perspectives on Risk and Risk Taking
March, J. G., & Shapira, Z. (1987) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.33.11.1404 · Cited by 3,183
Value Maximization, Stakeholder Theory, and the Corporate Objective Function
Jensen, M. C. (2002) · Business Ethics Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3857812 · Cited by 1,974
A BEHAVIORAL THEORY OF R&D EXPENDITURES AND INNOVATIONS: EVIDENCE FROM SHIPBUILDING.
GREVE, H. R. (2003) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/30040661 · Cited by 1,494
PERFORMANCE, SLACK, AND RISK TAKING IN ORGANIZATIONAL DECISION MAKING.
Singh, J. V. (1986) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256224 · Cited by 1,477
TESTING A CAUSAL MODEL OF CORPORATE RISK TAKING AND PERFORMANCE.
Bromiley, P. (1991) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256301 · Cited by 1,453
Self-citationThe New Economics: For Industry, Government, Education
Propst, A. L. (1996) · Technometrics · doi:10.1080/00401706.1996.10484521 · Cited by 1,449
The impact of performance-based compensation on misreporting
Burns, N., & Kedia, S. (2006) · Journal of Financial Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jfineco.2004.12.003 · Cited by 1,340
Metadata
- Authors
- Bromiley, P., & Harris, J. D.
- Venue
- Strategic Management Journal
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2014-01-09
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 338-357
- ISSN
- 0143-2095 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0266
- OpenAlex
- W1632461719
- Cited by
- 276
- References
- 60
- FWCI
- 13.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A comparison of alternative measures of organizational aspirations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/smj.2191
- The paper
- Bromiley, P., & Harris, J. D. (2014). A comparison of alternative measures of organizational aspirations. Strategic Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2191
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
