The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Framing Contests: Strategy Making Under Uncertainty
Abstract
I develop a model of framing contests to elucidate how cognitive frames influence organizational strategy making. By using ethnographic techniques to study the day-to-day practices of strategy making in one firm, I examine the ways actors attempted to transform their own cognitive frames of a situation into predominant frames through a series of interactions. Frames are the means by which managers make sense of ambiguous information from their environments. Actors each had cognitive frames about the direction the market was taking and about what kinds of solutions would be appropriate. Where frames about a strategic choice were not congruent, actors engaged in highly political framing practices to make their frames resonate and to mobilize action in their favor. Those actors who most skillfully engaged in these practices shaped the frame that prevailed in the organization. This framing perspective suggests that frames are not only instrumental tools for the ex post justification of actions taken through power, but rather are an ex ante part of the political process that produces decisions. Uncertainty opens up the possibility for new actors to gain power, and contesting frames is a way of changing the power structures in the organization. A principal contribution of the framing contests model is to locate a middle ground between cognitive and political models of strategy making, one in which frames are both constraints and resources and outcomes can be shaped by purposeful action and interaction to make meaning.
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
Building Theories from Case Study Research
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258557 · Cited by 17,455
Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors
(1980) · Journal of Sustainable Competitive Intelligence · doi:10.24883/iberoamericanic.v2i2.38 · Cited by 16,592
Organizing and the process of sensemaking
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1050.0133 · Cited by 6,943
Orlikowski, W. J. (2000) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.11.4.404.14600 · Cited by 4,760
Technological frames: making sense of information technology in organizations
Orlikowski, W. J., & Gash, D. C. (1994) · ACM Transactions on Information Systems · doi:10.1145/196734.196745 · Cited by 1,736
Cognitive change, strategic action, and organizational renewal
Barr, P. S., Stimpert, J. L., & Huff, A. S. (1992) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.4250131004 · Cited by 1,290
Fading Memories: A Process Theory of Strategic Business Exit in Dynamic Environments
Burgelman, R. A. (1994) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393493 · Cited by 1,018
Choice under Conflict: The Dynamics of Deferred Decision
Tversky, A., & Shafir, E. (1992) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00047.x · Cited by 1,013
Creed, W. E. D., Scully, M. A., & Austin, J. R. (2002) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.13.5.475.7814 · Cited by 614
Cited by
Algorithms at Work: The New Contested Terrain of Control
Kellogg, K. C., Valentine, M. A., & Christin, A. (2020) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/annals.2018.0174 · Cited by 2,732
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
Sensemaking in organizations: Taking stock and moving forward
Maitlis, S., & Christianson, M. (2014) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520.2014.873177 · Cited by 1,764
Theorizing Practice and Practicing Theory
Feldman, M. S., & Orlikowski, W. J. (2011) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1100.0612 · Cited by 1,753
Schnackenberg, A. K., & Tomlinson, E. C. (2016) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206314525202 · Cited by 762
Metadata
- Authors
- Kaplan, S.
- Venue
- Organization Science
- Published
- 2008-10
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 729-752
- ISSN
- 1047-7039 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5455
- OpenAlex
- W2156464206
- Cited by
- 1,176
- References
- 9
- FWCI
- 48.82
- 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.