The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Managerial Discretion: An Empirical Review and Focus on Future Research Directions
Open accessAbstract
Scholars have long been interested in when and to what degree managers are able to exert control over their organizations. In this review, we examine managerial discretion, or the latitude of action available to managers. Since its introduction, scholars have attempted to explain when managers will have discretion, what discretion means for organizational outcomes, and how discretion may differentially influence organizational outcomes when it enables or constrains leaders. Our review indicates that while a significant number of studies have examined discretion, few have attempted to validate the prescriptions of the managerial discretion construct. Furthermore, studies to date have primarily focused on the industry task environment as a measure of discretion, with less attention focused on the manager’s characteristics and the internal organization. We then assess construct validity and the measurement of managerial discretion, offering recommendations to future researchers for improving the operationalization of this construct. Finally, we consider how discretion forces may interact as either complements or substitutes and how such interactions may have both organizational- and individual-level consequences.
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
Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change
Bandura, A. (1977) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.84.2.191 · Cited by 43,925
Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement.
Rotter, J. B. (1966) · Psychological Monographs: General and Applied · doi:10.1037/h0092976 · Cited by 21,937
Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors
(1980) · Journal of Sustainable Competitive Intelligence · doi:10.24883/iberoamericanic.v2i2.38 · Cited by 16,592
Top executive commitment to the status quo: Some tests of its determinants
Hambrick, D. C., Geletkanycz, M. A., & Fredrickson, J. W. (1993) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.4250140602 · Cited by 1,058
Cited by
A Multi-Level Process Model for Understanding Diversity Practice Effectiveness
Nishii, L. H., Khattab, J., Shemla, M., & Paluch, R. M. (2018) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/annals.2016.0044 · Cited by 233
Servant leadership influencing store-level profit: The mediating effect of employee flourishing
Giolito, V. J., Liden, R. C., van Dierendonck, D., & Cheung, G. W. (2021) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-020-04509-1 · Cited by 87
Lythreatis, S., El-Kassar, A.-N., Smart, P., & Ferraris, A. (2024) · Asia Pacific Journal of Management · doi:10.1007/s10490-022-09856-3 · Cited by 31
What we talk about when we talk about stakeholders
Johnson-Cramer, M. E., Phillips, R. A., Fadlallah, H., Berman, S. L., & Elms, H. (2022) · Business & Society · doi:10.1177/00076503211053005 · Cited by 31
Metadata
- Authors
- Wangrow, D. B., Schepker, D. J., & Barker, V. L.
- Venue
- Journal of Management
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2014-10-14
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 99-135
- ISSN
- 0149-2063 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-1211
- OpenAlex
- W2137413766
- Cited by
- 311
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 29.61
- 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: Managerial Discretion: An Empirical Review and Focus on Future Research Directions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0149206314554214
- The paper
- Wangrow, D. B., Schepker, D. J., & Barker, V. L. (2015). Managerial Discretion: An Empirical Review and Focus on Future Research Directions. Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314554214
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.