The DOI matches its Crossref record; 87 of the 87 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Capability Traps and Self-Confirming Attribution Errors in the Dynamics of Process Improvement
Abstract
To better understand the factors that support or inhibit internally focused change, we conducted an inductive study of one firm's attempt to improve two of its core business processes. Our data suggest that the critical determinants of success in efforts to learn and improve are the interactions between managers' attributions about the cause of poor organizational performance and the physical structure of the workplace, particularly delays between investing in improvement and recognizing the rewards. Building on this observation, we propose a dynamic model capturing the mutual evolution of those attributions, managers' and workers' actions, and the production technology. We use the model to show how managers' beliefs about those who work for them, workers' beliefs about those who manage them, and the physical structure of the environment can coevolve to yield an organization characterized by conflict, mistrust, and control structures that prevent useful change of any type.
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 Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research.
Wagner, H. R., Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1968) · Social Forces · doi:10.2307/2575405 · Cited by 46,361
Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning
March, J. G. (1991) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.71 · Cited by 21,942
(1984) · Cited by 21,166
Building Theories from Case Study Research
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258557 · Cited by 17,455
(2008) · Biostatistics and Microbiology: A Survival Manual · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-77282-0_6 · Cited by 17,371
Research in Organizational Behavior.
Grimes, A. J., Cummings, L. L., & Staw, B. M. (1986) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392975 · Cited by 10,899
(1969) · Virtual Defense Library (Ministerio de Defensa) · Cited by 10,735
Social Theory and Social Structure
Ross, E. J., & Merton, R. K. (1958) · The American Catholic Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/3709394 · Cited by 10,315
(2000) · University of Maribor digital library (University of Maribor) · Cited by 9,354
Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases
(1982) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511809477 · Cited by 8,240
Cited by
Entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities: a review, model and research agenda
Zahra, S. A., Sapienza, H. J., & Davidsson, P. (2006) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00616.x · Cited by 3,152
Organizational Learning: From Experience to Knowledge
Argote, L., & Miron-Spektor, E. (2011) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1100.0621 · Cited by 1,917
Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. (2002) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3094913 · Cited by 1,457
Research on Innovation: A Review and Agenda for Marketing Science
Hauser, J., Tellis, G. J., & Griffin, A. (2006) · Marketing Science · doi:10.1287/mksc.1050.0144 · Cited by 1,077
Schreyögg, G., & Kliesch‐Eberl, M. (2007) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.613 · Cited by 1,036
Metadata
- Authors
- Repenning, N. P., & Sterman, J. D.
- Venue
- Administrative Science Quarterly
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 2002-06
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 265-295
- ISSN
- 0001-8392 (ISSN-L)
- 1930-3815
- OpenAlex
- W3122062862
- Cited by
- 482
- References
- 87
- FWCI
- 10.93
- 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: Capability Traps and Self-Confirming Attribution Errors in the Dynamics of Process Improvement. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/3094806
- The paper
- Repenning, N. P., & Sterman, J. D. (2002). Capability Traps and Self-Confirming Attribution Errors in the Dynamics of Process Improvement. Administrative Science Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.2307/3094806
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.
