The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Flexibility in Strategic Decision Making: Informational and Ideological Perspectives
Abstract
Adaptation is a crucial challenge for organizations, and an important theme in the strategy and organization theory literature. We still have much to learn, however, about the strategic processes by which adaptation is achieved. In this paper we focus on a basic element in the adaptation process, i.e. flexibility within the strategic decision‐making process. We concentrate on strategic decisions because these choices are the most important adaptations the firm makes. We suggest that the core of all organizational adaptation is a decision‐making process. Unless the decision‐making process itself is flexible, it is unlikely the organization can be flexible enough to adapt. We derive hypotheses concerning the factors that lead to flexibility (versus rigidity) from both information processing and ideological perspectives, and test them in a study involving 57 strategic decisions in 25 companies. Our results identify three contextual factors related to both perspectives ‐‐ including competitive threat, slack and uncertainty ‐‐ that are helpful in understanding flexibility in strategy decision making. While managers appear to be more flexible when decisions are uncertain, we found that in the very conditions where managers need the most flexibility (high competitive threat and low slack), they are least likely to be flexible.
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
Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.69.1.85 · Cited by 4,774
The Adolescence of Institutional Theory
Scott, W. R. (1987) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392880 · Cited by 3,699
KEEPING AN EYE ON THE MIRROR: IMAGE AND IDENTITY IN ORGANIZATIONAL ADAPTATION.
Dutton, J. E., & Dukerich, J. M. (1991) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256405 · Cited by 2,931
The Escalation of Commitment To a Course of Action
Staw, B. M. (1981) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1981.4285694 · Cited by 1,693
Switching Cognitive Gears: From Habits of Mind to Active Thinking
Louis, M. R., & Sutton, R. I. (1991) · Human Relations · doi:10.1177/001872679104400104 · Cited by 769
Designs for Crisis Decision Units
Smart, C., & Vertinsky, I. (1977) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392406 · Cited by 323
Cited by
ORGANIZATIONAL ACTIONS IN RESPONSE TO THREATS AND OPPORTUNITIES.
Chattopadhyay, P., Glick, W. H., & Huber, G. P. (2001) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/3069439 · Cited by 648
Laureiro‐Martínez, D., & Brusoni, S. (2018) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.2774 · Cited by 298
Erratic strategic decisions: when and why managers are inconsistent in strategic decision making
Robert Mitchell, J., Shepherd, D. A., & Sharfman, M. P. (2011) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.905 · Cited by 289
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Sharfman, M. P., & Dean Jr, J. W.
- Venue
- Journal of Management Studies
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1997-03
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 191-217
- ISSN
- 0022-2380 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-6486
- OpenAlex
- W1963573125
- Cited by
- 189
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 2.30
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Flexibility in Strategic Decision Making: Informational and Ideological Perspectives. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/1467-6486.00048
- The paper
- Sharfman, M. P., & Dean Jr, J. W. (1997). Flexibility in Strategic Decision Making: Informational and Ideological Perspectives. Journal of Management Studies. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00048
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.