The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Attention to Attention
Abstract
Organizational theory and research has increased attention to the determinants and consequences of attention in organizations. Attention is not, however, a unitary concept but is used differently in various metatheories: the behavioral theory of the firm, managerial cognition, issue selling, attention-based view, and ecology. At the level of the brain, neuroscientists have identified three varieties of attention: selective attention, executive attention, and vigilance. Attention is shaped by both top-down (i.e., schema-driven) and bottom-up (i.e., stimulus-driven) processes. Inspired by neuroscience research, I classify and compare three varieties of attention studied in organization science: attentional perspective (top-down), attentional engagement (combining top-down and bottom-up executive attention and vigilance), and attentional selection (the outcome of attentional processes). Based on research findings, I develop five propositions on how the varieties of attention in organization provide a theoretical alternative to theories of structural determinism or strategic choice, with a particular focus on the role of attention in explaining organizational adaptation and change.
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
Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain
Corbetta, M., & Shulman, G. L. (2002) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn755 · Cited by 12,881
Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development
Leonard-Barton, D. (1992) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.4250131009 · Cited by 6,477
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
Eggers, J. P., & Kaplan, S. (2009) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1080.0401 · Cited by 774
An organizational memory approach: To information management
Anand, V., Manz, C. C., & Glick, W. H. (1998) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/259063 · Cited by 454
Cited by
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
Unlocking the hidden value of concepts: A cognitive approach to business model innovation
Martins, L. L., Rindova, V. P., & Greenbaum, B. E. (2015) · Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal · doi:10.1002/sej.1191 · Cited by 581
Examining workplace mindfulness and its relations to job performance and turnover intention
Dane, E., & Brummel, B. J. (2014) · Human Relations · doi:10.1177/0018726713487753 · Cited by 568
Mindfulness in organizations: a cross-level review
Sutcliffe, K. M., Vogus, T. J., & Dane, E. (2016) · Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-041015-062531 · Cited by 428
Metadata
- Authors
- Ocasio, W.
- Venue
- Organization Science
- Published
- 2011-10
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1286-1296
- ISSN
- 1047-7039 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5455
- OpenAlex
- W2033292790
- Cited by
- 1,208
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 34.01
- 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.