The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Opening up Decision Making: The View from the Black Stool
Abstract
Set on its current course thirty years ago by Herbert Simon’s notions of bounded rationality and sequential stages, the research literature of organizational decision making is claimed in this paper to have suffered from three major limitations labeled reification, dehumanization, and isolation. In particular, it has been stuck along a continuum between the cerebral rationality of the stage theories at one end and the apparent irrationality of the theory of organized anarchies at the other. This paper seeks to open up decision making in three respects. First, the concept of “decision” is opened up to the ambiguities that surround the relationship between commitment and action. Second, the decision maker is opened up to history and experience, to affect and inspiration, and especially to the critical role of insight in transcending the bounds of cerebral rationality. Third, the process of decision making is opened up to a host of dynamic linkages, so that isolated traces of single decisions come to be seen as interwoven networks of issues. The paper concludes with a plea to open up research itself to the development of richer theory on these important processes.
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
Knee-deep in the big muddy: a study of escalating commitment to a chosen course of action
Staw, B. M. (1976) · Organizational Behavior and Human Performance · doi:10.1016/0030-5073(76)90005-2 · Cited by 2,061
Leonard-Barton, D. (1990) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1.3.248 · Cited by 1,360
Cited by
Strategies for Theorizing from Process Data
Langley, A. (1999) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1999.2553248 · Cited by 7,008
Self-citationIntegrating Theories of Motivation
Steel, P., & König, C. J. (2006) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2006.22527462 · Cited by 776
Hong, Q. N., Pluye, P., Bujold, M., & Wassef, M. (2017) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-017-0454-2 · Cited by 754
Drop Your Tools: An Allegory for Organizational Studies
Weick, K. E. (1996) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393722 · Cited by 578
Evidence-based health policy: context and utilisation
Dobrow, M. J., Goel, V., & Upshur, R. E. G. (2004) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(03)00166-7 · Cited by 476
Metadata
- Authors
- Langley, A., Mintzberg, H., Pitcher, P., Posada, E., & Saint-Macary, J.
- Venue
- Organization Science
- Published
- 1995-06
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 260-279
- ISSN
- 1047-7039 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5455
- OpenAlex
- W2040611239
- Cited by
- 544
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 6.95
- 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: Opening up Decision Making: The View from the Black Stool. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1287/orsc.6.3.260
- The paper
- Langley, A., Mintzberg, H., Pitcher, P., Posada, E., & Saint-Macary, J. (1995). Opening up Decision Making: The View from the Black Stool. Organization Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.6.3.260
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.