The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Hoping for A to Z While Rewarding Only A: Complex Organizations and Multiple Goals
Open accessAbstract
This paper explores the trade-offs inherent in the pursuit and fulfillment of multiple performance goals in complex organizations. We examine two related research questions: (1) What are the organizational implications of pursuing multiple performance goals? (2) Are local and myopic (as opposed to global) goal prioritization strategies effective in dealing with multiple goals? We employ a series of computational experiments to examine these questions. Our results from these experiments both formalize the intuition behind existing wisdom and provide new insights. We show that imposing a multitude of weakly correlated performance measures on even simple organizations (i.e., an organization comprised of independent employees) leads to a performance freeze in that actors are not able to identify choices that enhance organizational performance across the full array of goals. This problem increases as the degree of interdependence of organizational action increases. We also find that goal myopia, spatial differentiation of performance goals, and temporal differentiation of performance goals help rescue organizations from this status quo trap. In addition to highlighting a new class of organizational problems, we argue that in a world of boundedly rational actors, incomplete guides to action in the sense of providing only a subset of underlying goals prove more effective at directing and coordinating behavior than more complete representations of underlying objectives. Management, in the form of the articulation of a subset of goals, provides a degree of clarity and focus in a complex world.
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
The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information.
Miller, G. A. (1956) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0043158 · Cited by 17,812
The Provision of Incentives in Firms
Prendergast, C. (1999) · Journal of Economic Literature · doi:10.1257/jel.37.1.7 · Cited by 3,338
“Clinical versus Actuarial Judgment.”
Dawes, R. M., Faust, D., & Meehl, P. E. (1989) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.2648573 · Cited by 2,298 · cited 3×
“…for this include the difficulty of reducing diverse goals to a common baseline that permits seamless aggregation, the difficulty that people have in distinguishing valid and invalid variables, and the development of false beliefs regarding the associations among variables (Dawes et al. 1989).”
Balancing Search and Stability: Interdependencies Among Elements of Organizational Design
Rivkin, J. W., & Siggelkow, N. (2003) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.49.3.290.12740 · Cited by 900
The Social Meaning of Money: "Special Monies"
Zelizer, V. A. (1989) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/229272 · Cited by 809
Cited by
Content and process: Organizational conflict and decision making
Gaba, V., & Joseph, J. (2023) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1227966 · Cited by 5
Metadata
- Authors
- Ethiraj, S. K., & Levinthal, D.
- Venue
- Organization Science
- Published
- 2009-02
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 4-21
- ISSN
- 1047-7039 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5455
- OpenAlex
- W2117085835
- Cited by
- 282
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 18.03
- 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
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.