Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 424

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Strategic decision making

Schwenk, C·1995·Journal of Management

Abstract

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.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0149-2063(95)90016-0

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Metadata

Authors
Schwenk, C.
Venue
Journal of Management
Published
1995
Volume
21
Issue
3
Pages
471-493
ISSN
0149-2063 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2162325363
Cited by
424
References
6
FWCI
17.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

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.