The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Cognition in Organizational Analysis: Who's Minding the Store?
Abstract
Research on cognition in organizations has focused primarily on managers and how they think while performing a variety of managerial tasks. This approach limits our understanding of cognition at the collective level and the interactive effects across levels of analysis. We propose a framework of cognition — based on structure, process, and style — which can be applied to the individual, group and organizational levels of analysis. By mapping the territory, we observe certain well-travelled routes, while other terrain remains relatively unexplored. This map also identifies theoretical and methodological road blocks which suggest a number of future research directions.
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
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124 · Cited by 28,810
Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1997) · Reis · doi:10.2307/40183951 · Cited by 11,113 · cited 7×
“Adaptive organizations need to be constantly self-critical and to create ’learning how to learn’ routines, referred to as deutero-learning (Argyris and Schon 1978).”
BackgroundInfluentialThe Adolescence of Institutional Theory
Scott, W. R. (1987) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392880 · Cited by 3,699
Organization design: an information processing view
Galbraith, J. R. (1974) · Interfaces · doi:10.1287/inte.4.3.28 · Cited by 2,451
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
Glick, W. H. (1985) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1985.4279045 · Cited by 1,286
Deviation, rejection and communication
Schachter, S. (1951) · The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0062326 · Cited by 1,165
Churchland, P. M., & Churchland, P. S. (1990) · Scientific American · doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0190-32 · Cited by 363 · cited 1×
“Whether the presence of humans is at all necessary for a unit to possess cognition is the subject of intense debate in the context of artificial intelligence (see Churchland and Churchland 1990; Searle 1990).”
BackgroundDeveloping a process model of problem recognition
Cowan, D. A. (1986) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258395 · Cited by 257
Network Position and Cognition in a Computer Software Firm
Walker, G. (1985) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392814 · Cited by 129
Cited by
Social Theory of International Politics
Wendt, A. (1999) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511612183 · Cited by 7,664
Managerial cognitive capabilities and the microfoundations of dynamic capabilities
Helfat, C. E., & Peteraf, M. A. (2015) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.2247 · Cited by 2,056
Metadata
- Authors
- Schneider, S. C., & Angelmar, R.
- Venue
- Organization Studies
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1993-05
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 347-374
- ISSN
- 0170-8406 (ISSN-L)
- 1741-3044
- OpenAlex
- W2108512642
- Cited by
- 193
- References
- 10
- FWCI
- 3.65
- 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: Cognition in Organizational Analysis: Who's Minding the Store? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/017084069301400302
- The paper
- Schneider, S. C., & Angelmar, R. (1993). Cognition in Organizational Analysis: Who's Minding the Store? Organization Studies. https://doi.org/10.1177/017084069301400302
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.
