CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 5Conflict Management and NegotiationTeam Dynamics and PerformanceManagement Theory and Practice

Content and process: Organizational conflict and decision making

Open access
Gaba, Vibha, Joseph, John·2023·Frontiers in Psychology
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1227966PMC PMC10681961
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The foundational work in the Carnegie perspective established conflict as endemic to organizations and a driver of organizing behavior and decision making. Organizations as a system of coordinated action among interdependent individuals and groups with different preferences, interests, information, or knowledge create the potential for pervasive and ongoing latent goal conflict. At the same time, extant psychology research has devoted considerable attention to identifying the content and intensity of conflict, focusing on the relationship between different types of conflict and their impact on group outcomes. The Carnegie perspective also assumes that the need for joint decision-making and the differences in goals or perception of reality are never fully resolved. As a result, it has paid attention to the processes through which conflict is addressed - by attending sequentially to goals, decentralizing information, accumulating excess resources, and forming coalitions rather than formal mediating procedures. The assessment of the psychology and organizational theory research also suggests that future work focusing on organizational conflict as latent, situated, and dynamic would enable greater clarity on how organizations make decisions.

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 · 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1227966

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Communication and mediation can establish coalitions.

    “They devolve into the processes of mediation: emotional control defuses tensions (Celestin and Vanitha, 2020); ethical decision-making facilitates equity (Owie, 2017); communication and mediation can establish coalitions (Gaba and Joseph, 2023; Naqvi and Anjum, 2024); and stakeholder inclusion fosters inclusiveness.”

    From The Role of Conscious Leadership in Resolving Inter-Organizational Conflict: A Systematic Review and Conceptual Model (2025) · cites this paper as Gaba and Joseph, 2023

    The ‘Processes of conflict resolution’ section says the focus is not on explicit mediation procedures; it describes forming coalitions as an alternative way to address conflicting goals. The ‘Conflict as latent, contextual, and dynamic’ section discusses communication’s role in how conflict is expressed, not in establishing coalitions. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Naqvi and Anjum and Gaba and Joseph both attributed improved alignment and cooperative resolution across organizational boundaries to decentralized, participative mediation processes.

    “Naqvi and Anjum (2024) and Gaba and Joseph (2023) both attributed improved alignment and cooperative resolution across organizational boundaries to decentralized, participative mediation processes.”

    From The Role of Conscious Leadership in Resolving Inter-Organizational Conflict: A Systematic Review and Conceptual Model (2025) · cites this paper as Gaba and Joseph, 2023

    In “Processes of conflict resolution” (page unavailable), Gaba and Joseph say conflict may be ameliorated by decentralizing information, but explicitly say the focus is not on mediation procedures and that true goal alignment does not occur. They describe temporary compromises within organizations, not improved alignment and cooperative resolution across organizational boundaries through participative mediation. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Self-awareness facilitates perceptual alignment in cases of goal discrepancies.

    “It facilitates perceptual alignment in cases of goal discrepancies (Gaba and Joseph, 2023)”

    From The Role of Conscious Leadership in Resolving Inter-Organizational Conflict: A Systematic Review and Conceptual Model (2025) · cites this paper as Gaba and Joseph, 2023

    In “Differences in perceptions” (page unavailable), the paper says that similar perceptions make cooperation easier. “Differences in goals” discusses divergent goals, but neither section says that self-awareness facilitates perceptual alignment when goals differ; that mechanism is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 122

  1. Ahn J. M. Minshall T. Mortara L. (2017). Understanding the human side of openness: the fit between open innovation modes and CEO characteristics. R&D Manag. 47, 727– 740. doi: 10.1111/radm.12264 · DOI
  2. Alexy O. Poetz K. Puranam P. Reitzig M. (2021). Adaptation or persistence? Emergence and revision of organization designs in new ventures. Organ. Sci. 32, 1439– 1472. doi: 10.1287/orsc.2021.1431, PMID: 37853523 · DOI
  3. Argote L. Greve H. R. (2007). A behavioral theory of the firm—40 years and counting: introduction and impact. Organ. Sci. 18, 337– 349. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1070.0280 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Arrfelt M. Wiseman R. M. Hult G. T. M. (2013). Looking backward instead of forward: aspiration-driven influences on the efficiency of the capital allocation process. Acad. Manag. J. 56, 1081– 1103. doi: 10.5465/amj.2010.0879 · DOI
  5. Audia P. G. Brion S. (2007). Reluctant to change: self-enhancing responses to diverging performance measures. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 102, 255– 269. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.01.007 · DOI
  6. Audia P. G. Brion S. Greve H. R. (2015). Self-assessment, self-enhancement, and the choice of comparison organizations for evaluating organizational performance, cognition and strategy, vol. 32. Bingley, United Kingdom: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 89– 118.
  7. Audia P. G. Greve H. R. (2021). Organizational learning from performance feedback: a behavioral perspective on multiple goals: a multiple goals perspective. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
  8. Barnard C. I. (1938). The functions of the executive. London, England, UK: Harvard university press.
  9. Baum J. A. Dahlin K. B. (2007). Aspiration performance and railroads’ patterns of learning from train wrecks and crashes. Organ. Sci. 18, 368– 385. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1060.0239 · DOI
  10. Baum J. A. Rowley T. J. Shipilov A. V. Chuang Y.-T. (2005). Dancing with strangers: aspiration performance and the search for underwriting syndicate partners. Adm. Sci. Q. 50, 536– 575. doi: 10.2189/asqu.50.4.536 · DOI
  11. Baumann O. Eggers J. Stieglitz N. (2019). Colleagues and competitors: how internal social comparisons shape organizational search and adaptation. Adm. Sci. Q. 64, 275– 309. doi: 10.1177/0001839218766310 · DOI
  12. Berchicci L. Tarakci M. (2022). Aspiration formation and attention rules. Strateg. Manag. J. 43, 1575– 1601. doi: 10.1002/smj.3371, PMID: 16334024 · DOI
  13. Birkinshaw J. Lingblad M. (2005). Intrafirm competition and charter evolution in the multibusiness firm. Organ. Sci. 16, 674– 686. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1050.0142 · DOI
  14. Blagoeva R. R. Mom T. J. Jansen J. J. George G. (2020). Problem-solving or self-enhancement? A power perspective on how CEOs affect R&D search in the face of inconsistent feedback. Acad. Manag. J. 63, 332– 355. doi: 10.5465/amj.2017.0999, PMID: 37851617 · DOI
  15. Bourgeois L. J. III. (1981). On the measurement of organizational slack. Acad. Manag. Rev. 6, 29– 39. doi: 10.2307/257138, PMID: 37715162 · DOI
  16. Bromiley P. (2009). The behavioral foundations of strategic management. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
  17. Carver C. S. Scheier M. F. (1990). Origins and functions of positive and negative affect: a control-process view. Psychol. Rev. 97: 19. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.97.1.19 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Chen (2008). Determinants of firms' backward-and forward-looking R&D search behavior. Organ. Sci. 19, 609– 622. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1070.0320 · DOI
  19. Chen W. R. Miller K. D. (2007). Situational and institutional determinants of firms' R&D search intensity. Strateg. Manag. J. 28, 369– 381. doi: 10.1002/smj.594 · DOI
  20. Cheng L. Xie E. Fang J. Mei N. (2022). Performance feedback and firms’ relative strategic emphasis: the moderating effects of board independence and media coverage. J. Bus. Res. 139, 218– 231. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.09.021 · DOI
  21. Cohen M. D. (1984). Conflict and complexity: goal diversity and organizational search effectiveness. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 78, 435– 451. doi: 10.2307/1963374, PMID: 37033017 · DOI
  22. Cohen M. D. March J. G. Olsen J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Adm. Sci. Q. 17, 1– 25. doi: 10.2307/2392088, PMID: 35858864 · DOI
  23. Cronin M. A. Bezrukova K. (2019). Conflict management through the lens of system dynamics. Acad. Manag. Ann. 13, 770– 806. doi: 10.5465/annals.2017.0021, PMID: 37780162 · DOI
  24. Csaszar F. A. Ostler J. (2020). A contingency theory of representational complexity in organizations. Organ. Sci. 31, 1198– 1219. doi: 10.1287/orsc.2019.1346, PMID: 25426036 · DOI
  25. Cyert R. M. March J. G. (1992). A behavioral theory of the firm (2nd Ed.): Blackwell, Oxford.
  26. De Dreu C. K. (1997). Productive conflict: the importance of conflict management and conflict issue. Using Conf. Organ. 9: 22.
  27. De Dreu C. K. (2006). When too little or too much hurts: evidence for a curvilinear relationship between task conflict and innovation in teams. J. Manag. 32, 83– 107. doi: 10.1177/0149206305277795, PMID: 37851522 · DOI
  28. De Wit F. R. Greer L. L. Jehn K. A. (2012). The paradox of intragroup conflict: a meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 97: 360. doi: 10.1037/a0024844, PMID: 21842974 · DOI
  29. Desai V. M. (2016). The behavioral theory of the (governed) firm: corporate board influences on organizations’ responses to performance shortfalls. Acad. Manag. J. 59, 860– 879. doi: 10.5465/amj.2013.0948 · DOI
  30. Dutt N. Joseph J. (2019). Regulatory uncertainty, corporate structure, and strategic agendas: evidence from the US renewable electricity industry. Acad. Manag. J. 62, 800– 827. doi: 10.5465/amj.2016.0682 · DOI
  31. Dye K. C. Eggers J. Shapira Z. (2014). Tradeoffs in a tempest: stakeholder influence on hurricane evacuation decisions. Organ. Sci. 25, 1009– 1025. doi: 10.1287/orsc.2013.0890 · DOI
  32. Eggers J. P. Kaplan S. (2013). Cognition and capabilities: a multi-level perspective. Acad. Manag. Ann. 7, 295– 340. doi: 10.5465/19416520.2013.769318, PMID: 37207842 · DOI
  33. Eggers J. Kaul A. (2018). Motivation and ability? A behavioral perspective on the pursuit of radical invention in multi-technology incumbents. Acad. Manag. J. 61, 67– 93. doi: 10.5465/amj.2015.1123 · DOI
  34. Eisenhardt K. M. Schoonhoven C. B. (1990). Organizational growth: linking founding team, strategy, environment, and growth among US semiconductor ventures, 1978-1988. Adm. Sci. Q. 35, 504– 529. doi: 10.2307/2393315 · DOI
  35. Eisenhardt K. M. Zbaracki M. J. (1992). Strategic decision making. Strateg. Manag. J. 13, 17– 37. doi: 10.1002/smj.4250130904 · DOI
  36. Ethiraj S. K. Levinthal D. (2004). Bounded rationality and the search for organizational architecture: an evolutionary perspective on the design of organizations and their evolvability. Adm. Sci. Q. 49, 404– 437. doi: 10.2307/4131441 · DOI
  37. Ethiraj S. K. Levinthal D. (2009). Hoping for A to Z while rewarding only a: complex organizations and multiple goals. Organ. Sci. 20, 4– 21. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1080.0358 · DOI
  38. Fang C. Kim J. (2018). The power and limits of modularity: a replication and reconciliation. Strateg. Manag. J. 39, 2547– 2565. doi: 10.1002/smj.2918 · DOI
  39. Gaba V. Greve H. R. (2019). Safe or profitable? The pursuit of conflicting goals. Organ. Sci. 30, 647– 667. doi: 10.1287/orsc.2018.1280, PMID: 37852758 · DOI
  40. Gaba V. Joseph J. (2013). Corporate structure and performance feedback: aspirations and adaptation in M-form firms. Organ. Sci. 24, 1102– 1119. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1120.0788 · DOI
  41. Gaba V. Lee S. Meyer-Doyle P. Zhao-Ding A. (2023). Prior experience of managers and maladaptive responses to performance feedback: evidence from mutual funds. Organ. Sci. 34, 894– 915. doi: 10.1287/orsc.2022.1605 · DOI
  42. Gamache D. L. McNamara G. Mannor M. J. Johnson R. E. (2015). Motivated to acquire? The impact of CEO regulatory focus on firm acquisitions. Acad. Manag. J. 58, 1261– 1282. doi: 10.5465/amj.2013.0377 · DOI
  43. Gavetti G. (2005). Cognition and hierarchy: rethinking the microfoundations of capabilities’ development. Organ. Sci. 16, 599– 617. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1050.0140 · DOI
  44. Gavetti G. Greve H. R. Levinthal D. A. Ocasio W. (2012). The behavioral theory of the firm: assessment and prospects. Acad. Manag. Ann. 6, 1– 40. doi: 10.5465/19416520.2012.656841, PMID: 37008857 · DOI
  45. George G. (2005). Slack resources and the performance of privately held firms. Acad. Manag. J. 48, 661– 676. doi: 10.5465/amj.2005.17843944 · DOI
  46. Greve H. R. (2003). A behavioral theory of R&D expenditures and innovations: evidence from shipbuilding. Acad. Manag. J. 46, 685– 702. doi: 10.2307/30040661, PMID: 37853516 · DOI
  47. Greve H. R. (2008). A behavioral theory of firm growth: sequential attention to size and performance goals. Acad. Manag. J. 51, 476– 494. doi: 10.5465/amj.2008.32625975 · DOI
  48. Greve H. R. Zhang C. M. (2017). Institutional logics and power sources: merger and acquisition decisions. Acad. Manag. J. 60, 671– 694. doi: 10.5465/amj.2015.0698 · DOI
  49. Gulati R. Puranam P. Tushman M. (2012a). Meta-organization design: rethinking design in interorganizational and community contexts. Strateg. Manag. J. 33, 571– 586. doi: 10.1002/smj.1975 · DOI
  50. Gulati R. Wohlgezogen F. Zhelyazkov P. (2012b). The two facets of collaboration: cooperation and coordination in strategic alliances. Acad. Manag. Ann. 6, 531– 583. doi: 10.5465/19416520.2012.691646 · DOI · Paper page
  51. Hayward M. L. Boeker W. (1998). Power and conflicts of interest in professional firms: evidence from investment banking. Adm. Sci. Q. 43, 1– 22. doi: 10.2307/2393589 · DOI
  52. Hickson D. J. Hinings C. R. Lee C. A. Schneck R. E. Pennings J. M. (1971). A strategic contingencies' theory of intraorganizational power. Adm. Sci. Q. 16, 216– 229. doi: 10.2307/2391831 · DOI
  53. Higgins E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle, advances in experimental social psychology, vol. 30. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier, 1– 46.
  54. Hirsch P. M. (1986). From ambushes to golden parachutes: corporate takeovers as an instance of cultural framing and institutional integration. Am. J. Sociol. 91, 800– 837. doi: 10.1086/228351 · DOI
  55. Hu S. Bettis R. A. (2018). Multiple organization goals with feedback from shared technological task environments. Organ. Sci. 29, 873– 889. doi: 10.1287/orsc.2018.1207 · DOI
  56. Hu S. He Z. L. Blettner D. P. Bettis R. A. (2017). Conflict inside and outside: social comparisons and attention shifts in multidivisional firms. Strateg. Manag. J. 38, 1435– 1454. doi: 10.1002/smj.2556 · DOI
  57. Jehn K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Adm. Sci. Q. 40, 256– 282. doi: 10.2307/2393638 · DOI · Paper page
  58. Jehn K. A. Bendersky C. (2003). Intragroup conflict in organizations: a contingency perspective on the conflict-outcome relationship. Res. Organ. Behav. 25, 187– 242. doi: 10.1016/S0191-3085(03)25005-X · DOI
  59. Jehn K. A. Greer L. Levine S. Szulanski G. (2008). The effects of conflict types, dimensions, and emergent states on group outcomes. Group Decis. Negot. 17, 465– 495. doi: 10.1007/s10726-008-9107-0 · DOI
  60. Jehn K. A. Mannix E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: a longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Acad. Manag. J. 44, 238– 251. doi: 10.2307/3069453 · DOI · Paper page
  61. Jensen M. C. (2002). Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Bus. Ethics Q. 12, 235– 256. doi: 10.2307/3857812 · DOI
  62. Jensen M. C. Meckling W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. J. Financ. Econ. 3, 305– 360. doi: 10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X · DOI · Paper page
  63. Jordan A. H. Audia P. G. (2012). Self-enhancement and learning from performance feedback. Acad. Manag. Rev. 37, 211– 231. doi: 10.5465/amr.2010.0108, PMID: 29979211 · DOI
  64. Joseph J. Baumann O. Burton R. M. Srikanth K. (2018). Organization design. Bingley, United Kingdom: Emerald Group Publishing.
  65. Joseph J. Gaba V. (2015). The fog of feedback: ambiguity and firm responses to multiple aspiration levels. Strateg. Manag. J. 36, 1960– 1978. doi: 10.1002/smj.2333 · DOI
  66. Joseph J. Gaba V. (2020). Organizational structure, information processing, and decision-making: a retrospective and road map for research. Acad. Manag. Ann. 14, 267– 302. doi: 10.5465/annals.2017.0103 · DOI
  67. Joseph J. Wilson A. J. (2018). The growth of the firm: an attention-based view. Strateg. Manag. J. 39, 1779– 1800. doi: 10.1002/smj.2715 · DOI
  68. Kacperczyk A. Beckman C. M. Moliterno T. P. (2015). Disentangling risk and change: internal and external social comparison in the mutual fund industry. Adm. Sci. Q. 60, 228– 262. doi: 10.1177/0001839214566297 · DOI
  69. Kaplan S. (2008). Framing contests: strategy making under uncertainty. Organ. Sci. 19, 729– 752. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1070.0340, PMID: 32827199 · DOI
  70. Keum D. D. Eggers J. (2018). Setting the bar: the evaluative and allocative roles of organizational aspirations. Organ. Sci. 29, 1170– 1186. doi: 10.1287/orsc.2018.1224 · DOI
  71. Kim H. Kim H. Lee P. M. (2008). Ownership structure and the relationship between financial slack and R&D investments: evidence from Korean firms. Organ. Sci. 19, 404– 418. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1080.0360 · DOI
  72. Kostopoulos K. Syrigos E. Kuusela P. (2023). Responding to inconsistent performance feedback on multiple goals: the contingency role of decision maker's status in introducing changes. Long Range Plan. 56: 102269. doi: 10.1016/j.lrp.2022.102269 · DOI
  73. Kotlar J. Chrisman J. J. (2019). Point: how family involvement influences organizational change. J. Chang. Manag. 19, 26– 36. doi: 10.1080/14697017.2017.1419804 · DOI
  74. Kuusela P. Keil T. Maula M. (2017). Driven by aspirations, but in what direction? Performance shortfalls, slack resources, and resource-consuming vs. resource-freeing organizational change. Strateg. Manag. J. 38, 1101– 1120. doi: 10.1002/smj.2544 · DOI
  75. Lawrence P. R. Lorsch J. W. (1967). Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Adm. Sci. Q. 12, 1– 47. doi: 10.2307/2391211, PMID: 37842573 · DOI · Paper page
  76. Leiponen A. Helfat C. E. (2010). Innovation objectives, knowledge sources, and the benefits of breadth. Strateg. Manag. J. 31, 224– 236. doi: 10.1002/smj.807, PMID: 30016812 · DOI · Paper page
  77. Leonardi P. M. (2011). Innovation blindness: culture, frames, and cross-boundary problem construction in the development of new technology concepts. Organ. Sci. 22, 347– 369. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1100.0529 · DOI
  78. Lim E. Audia P. G. (2020). Problem-solving or self-enhancing? Influences of diversification and bright spot on corporate resource allocation responses to performance shortfalls. Strategy Sci. 5, 348– 368. doi: 10.1287/stsc.2020.0117, PMID: 37851617 · DOI
  79. Lucas G. J. Knoben J. Meeus M. T. (2018). Contradictory yet coherent? Inconsistency in performance feedback and R&D investment change. J. Manag. 44, 658– 681. doi: 10.1177/0149206315584821 · DOI
  80. Lungeanu R. Stern I. Zajac E. J. (2016). When do firms change technology-sourcing vehicles? The role of poor innovative performance and financial slack. Strateg. Manag. J. 37, 855– 869. doi: 10.1002/smj.2371 · DOI
  81. Lv D. D. Chen W. Zhu H. Lan H. (2019). How does inconsistent negative performance feedback affect the R&D investments of firms? A study of publicly listed firms. J. Bus. Res. 102, 151– 162. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.04.045 · DOI
  82. March J. G. Shapira Z. (1992). Variable risk preferences and the focus of attention. Psychol. Rev. 99: 172. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.99.1.172, PMID: 37759168 · DOI
  83. March J. G. Simon H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
  84. Martignoni D. Menon A. Siggelkow N. (2016). Consequences of misspecified mental models: contrasting effects and the role of cognitive fit. Strateg. Manag. J. 37, 2545– 2568. doi: 10.1002/smj.2479 · DOI
  85. Minsky M. (1961). Steps toward artificial intelligence. Proc. IRE 49, 8– 30. doi: 10.1109/JRPROC.1961.287775, PMID: 37847140 · DOI
  86. Morrill C. Zald M. N. Rao H. (2003). Covert political conflict in organizations: challenges from below. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 29, 391– 415. doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.29.010202.095927 · DOI
  87. Mount M. P. Baer M. (2022). CEOs’ regulatory focus and risk-taking when firms perform below and above the bar. J. Manag. 48, 1980– 2008. doi: 10.1177/01492063211016029 · DOI
  88. Nohria N. Gulati R. (1996). Is slack good or bad for innovation? Acad. Manag. J. 39, 1245– 1264. doi: 10.2307/256998, PMID: 37831097 · DOI
  89. Obloj T. Sengul M. (2020). What do multiple objectives really mean for performance? Empirical evidence from the French manufacturing sector. Strateg. Manag. J. 41, 2518– 2547. doi: 10.1002/smj.3198 · DOI
  90. Ocasio W. (1999). Institutionalized action and corporate governance: the reliance on rules of CEO succession. Adm. Sci. Q. 44, 384– 416. doi: 10.2307/2667000 · DOI
  91. Okhuysen G. A. Bechky B. A. (2009). Coordination in organizations: an integrative perspective. Acad. Manag. Ann. 3, 463– 502. doi: 10.5465/19416520903047533, PMID: 37843830 · DOI · Paper page
  92. Osiyevskyy O. Dewald J. (2015). Explorative versus exploitative business model change: the cognitive antecedents of firm-level responses to disruptive innovation. Strateg. Entrep. J. 9, 58– 78. doi: 10.1002/sej.1192 · DOI
  93. Pfeffer J. Salancik G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: a resource dependence perspective. Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press.
  94. Pitelis C. N. (2007). A behavioral resource-based view of the firm: the synergy of Cyert and March (1963) and Penrose (1959). Organ. Sci. 18, 478– 490. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1060.0244 · DOI
  95. Pondy L. R. (1967). Organizational conflict: concepts and models. Adm. Sci. Q. 12, 296– 320. doi: 10.2307/2391553, PMID: 37835114 · DOI
  96. Pondy L. R. (1992). Reflections on organizational conflict. J. Organ. Behav. 13, 257– 261. doi: 10.1002/job.4030130305, PMID: 37852709 · DOI
  97. Porac J. F. Thomas H. (1990). Taxonomic mental models in competitor definition. Acad. Manag. Rev. 15, 224– 240. doi: 10.2307/258155 · DOI
  98. Posen H. E. Keil T. Kim S. Meissner F. D. (2018). Renewing research on problemistic search—a review and research agenda. Acad. Manag. Ann. 12, 208– 251. doi: 10.5465/annals.2016.0018 · DOI
  99. Rhee L. Ocasio W. Kim T.-H. (2019). Performance feedback in hierarchical business groups: the cross-level effects of cognitive accessibility on R&D search behavior. Organ. Sci. 30, 51– 69. doi: 10.1287/orsc.2018.1237 · DOI
  100. Rivkin J. W. Siggelkow N. (2007). Patterned interactions in complex systems: implications for exploration. Manag. Sci. 53, 1068– 1085. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.1060.0626, PMID: 37788767 · DOI
  101. Rowley T. I. Shipilov A. V. Greve H. R. (2016). Board reform versus profits: the effect of rankings on the adoption of governance practices. Strateg. Manag. J. 38, 815– 833. doi: 10.1002/smj.2545 · DOI
  102. Salvato C. Rerup C. (2018). Routine regulation: balancing conflicting goals in organizational routines. Adm. Sci. Q. 63, 170– 209. doi: 10.1177/0001839217707738, PMID: 35696598 · DOI
  103. Saraf N. Dasgupta S. Blettner D. P. (2022). How do managerial perceptions of performance feedback affect innovation? Strateg. Organ. 20, 451– 480. doi: 10.1177/14761270211019484, PMID: 23564664 · DOI
  104. Shinkle G. A. (2012). Organizational aspirations, reference points, and goals: building on the past and aiming for the future. J. Manag. 38, 415– 455. doi: 10.1177/0149206311419856 · DOI
  105. Siggelkow N. (2002). Misperceiving interactions among complements and substitutes: organizational consequences. Manag. Sci. 48, 900– 916. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.48.7.900.2820 · DOI
  106. Simon H. A. (1964). On the concept of organizational goal. Adm. Sci. Q. 9, 1– 22. doi: 10.2307/2391519, PMID: 37819083 · DOI
  107. Stevens R. Moray N. Bruneel J. Clarysse B. (2015). Attention allocation to multiple goals: the case of for-profit social enterprises. Strateg. Manag. J. 36, 1006– 1016. doi: 10.1002/smj.2265 · DOI
  108. Stieglitz N. Heine K. (2007). Innovations and the role of complementarities in a strategic theory of the firm. Strateg. Manag. J. 28, 1– 15. doi: 10.1002/smj.565 · DOI
  109. Sundaram A. K. Inkpen A. C. (2004). The corporate objective revisited. Organ. Sci. 15, 350– 363. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1040.0068 · DOI
  110. Tarakci M. Ates N. Y. Porck J. P. van Knippenberg D. Groenen P. J. de Haas M. (2014). Strategic consensus mapping: a new method for testing and visualizing strategic consensus within and between teams. Strateg. Manag. J. 35, 1053– 1069. doi: 10.1002/smj.2151 · DOI
  111. Thompson J. D. (1967). Organizations in action: New York: McGraw-Hill.
  112. Titus V. Jr. O’Brien J. P. Dixit J. (2022). Does performance breed slack? Ownership as a contingency to the performance feedback and slack relationship. J. Manag. 48, 1270– 1298. doi: 10.1177/01492063211014263 · DOI
  113. Useem M. (1984). The inner circle: Large corporations and the rise of business political activity in the US and UK. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
  114. Van Kleef G. A. Cote S. (2018). Emotional dynamics in conflict and negotiation: individual, dyadic, and group processes. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psych. Organ. Behav. 5, 437– 464. doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104714, PMID: 18951625 · DOI
  115. Vissa B. Greve H. R. Chen W.-R. (2010). Business group affiliation and firm search behavior in India: responsiveness and focus of attention. Organ. Sci. 21, 696– 712. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1090.0475 · DOI
  116. Voss G. B. Sirdeshmukh D. Voss Z. G. (2008). The effects of slack resources and environmentalthreat on product exploration and exploitation. Acad. Manag. J. 51, 147– 164. doi: 10.5465/amj.2008.30767373 · DOI
  117. Weick K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Adm. Sci. Q. 21, 1– 19. doi: 10.2307/2391875, PMID: 31553938 · DOI
  118. Weingart L. R. Behfar K. J. Bendersky C. Todorova G. Jehn K. A. (2015). The directness and oppositional intensity of conflict expression. Acad. Manag. Rev. 40, 235– 262. doi: 10.5465/amr.2013.0124 · DOI
  119. Westphal J. D. Khanna P. (2003). Keeping directors in line: social distancing as a control mechanism in the corporate elite. Adm. Sci. Q. 48, 361– 398. doi: 10.2307/3556678 · DOI
  120. Ye Y. Yu W. Nason R. (2021). Performance feedback persistence: comparative effects of historical versus peer performance feedback on innovative search. J. Manag. 47, 1053– 1081. doi: 10.1177/0149206320916225 · DOI
  121. Zald M. N. (1962). Power balance and staff conflict in correctional institutions. Adm. Sci. Q. 7, 22– 49. doi: 10.2307/2390632 · DOI
  122. Zhang C. M. Greve H. R. (2019). Dominant coalitions directing acquisitions: different decision makers, different decisions. Acad. Manag. J. 62, 44– 65. doi: 10.5465/amj.2017.0323 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gaba, V., & Joseph, J.
Affiliations
  • INSEAD (AE)
  • University of California, Irvine (US)
Corresponding author
Joseph, John
ORCID
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2023-11-14
Volume
14
Pages
1227966-1227966
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1227966
PMC
PMC10681961
OpenAlex
W4388671640
Cited by
5
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1
FWCI
0.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Conflict Management and Negotiation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management Theory and Practice
Keywords
organizational conflict, decision-making, goal conflict, shared decision-making, conflict processes, coalitions, organizational theory, group outcomes

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