Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 682

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Corporate Attributions as Strategic Illusions of Management Control

Salancik, Gerald R., Meindl, James R.·1984·Administrative Science Quarterly
DOI 10.2307/2393176
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Gerald R. Salancik and James R. Meindl This paper examines the reasons given by CEOs to explain their firms' performance in annual stockholder reports over an 18-year period, comparing firms with stable and unstable performance. We argue that the managements of unstable firms, lacking real control over organizational outcomes, strategically manipulate causal attributions to manage impressions of their control. As evidence of this, these managements claim responsibility for both positive and negative outcomes more than do the managements of firms with stable performance, and, contrary to psychological theories, seem reluctant to attribute poor performance to uncontrollable environmental events. When environmental effects are cited, they are coupled with announcements of executive changes, thus implying to readers that management is taking steps to wrestle with its unruly environment. Evidence also indicates that these attributional strategies resulted in better future performance for the firms employing them.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/2393176

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Salancik, G. R., & Meindl, J. R.
Venue
Administrative Science Quarterly
Publisher
JSTOR
Published
1984-06
Volume
29
Issue
2
Pages
238
ISSN
0001-8392 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.2307/2393176
OpenAlex
W2035546773
Cited by
682
References
0
FWCI
48.47
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.