The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Cognition and Hierarchy: Rethinking the Microfoundations of Capabilities’ Development
Abstract
This article identifies gaps in the microfoundations of capabilities research, particularly in work that is based on the framework of evolutionary economics. It argues that such research has focused excessively on the quasi-automatic, routine-based aspects of capability development, and largely neglected the roles played by cognition and organizational hierarchy. By deriving a model of search that jointly considers how routine-based and cognitive logics of action coexist within an organizational hierarchy to affect capability development, this article offers three contributions. First, it delineates the traits of a microfoundational structure for research on capabilities that begins to address these gaps. Second, based on this structure, it highlights previously neglected causal mechanisms that contribute to our understanding of how capabilities develop. The model shows that managers’ cognitive representations of their strategic decision problem fundamentally drive organizational search, and therefore the accumulation of capabilities. Furthermore, it shows that the accuracy of the representations a manager chooses might vary according to where she is situated in the organizational hierarchy. This more refined perspective leads to a set of propositions regarding how different hierarchical arrangements influence capability development and organizational performance. Finally, the paper sets an agenda for future 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.
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
Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm
Szulanski, G. (1996) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.4250171105 · Cited by 7,839
Understanding dynamic capabilities
Winter, S. G. (2003) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.318 · Cited by 5,315
The dynamic resource‐based view: capability lifecycles
Helfat, C. E., & Peteraf, M. A. (2003) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.332 · Cited by 4,553
Schema induction and analogical transfer
Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/0010-0285(83)90002-6 · Cited by 3,010 · cited 1×
“Rather than attempting to focus on all imaginable regimes, I consider three prominent archetypes (Greenwood and Hinings 1993, Siggelkow and Rivkin 2004) of organizational forms that recur in prior typologies of design. My development of archetypes is similar to that of Siggelkow and Rivkin (2004), who consider the all…”
BackgroundDisrupted Routines: Team Learning and New Technology Implementation in Hospitals
Edmondson, A. C., Bohmer, R. M., & Pisano, G. P. (2001) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3094828 · Cited by 1,729
Organizational routines are stored as procedural memory: Evidence from a laboratory study
Cohen, M. D., & Bacdayan, P. (1994) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.5.4.554 · Cited by 1,393
The Organizational and Interorganizational Development of Disasters
Turner, B. A. (1976) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2391850 · Cited by 876
Cited by
Eggers, J. P., & Kaplan, S. (2009) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1080.0401 · Cited by 774
Levinthal, D., & Rerup, C. (2006) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1060.0197 · Cited by 744
A Behavioral Theory of the Firm—40 Years and Counting: Introduction and Impact
Argote, L., & Greve, H. R. (2007) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1070.0280 · Cited by 606
Cognitive Processes of Opportunity Recognition: The Role of Structural Alignment
Grégoire, D. A., Barr, P. S., & Shepherd, D. A. (2010) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1090.0462 · Cited by 582
Sharma, R., Mithas, S., & Kankanhalli, A. (2014) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1057/ejis.2014.17 · Cited by 516
Metadata
- Authors
- Gavetti, G.
- Venue
- Organization Science
- Published
- 2005-12
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 599-617
- ISSN
- 1047-7039 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5455
- OpenAlex
- W2099556230
- Cited by
- 730
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 51.29
- 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 and Hierarchy: Rethinking the Microfoundations of Capabilities’ Development. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1287/orsc.1050.0140
- The paper
- Gavetti, G. (2005). Cognition and Hierarchy: Rethinking the Microfoundations of Capabilities’ Development. Organization Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0140
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.