Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,138

The DOI matches its OpenAlex record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Strategizing Throughout the Organization: Managing Role Conflict in Strategic Renewal

Steven W. Floyd, Peter J. Lane·2000·Academy of Management Review

Abstract

Strategic renewal consists of three subprocesses (competence definition, deployment, and modification). Within each subprocess, the roles of top-, middle- and operating-level managers differ in their time horizon, information requirements, and core values. Dissensus in managers' perceptions about the need for change creates strategic role conflicts within individual managers and between managerial roles. In this article we explain when and where strategic role conflict occurs and how organizational controls may be used to alleviate it.

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

OpenAlex · 10.5465/amr.2000.2791608

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 13 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Floyd, S. W., & Lane, P. J.
Venue
Academy of Management Review
Publisher
Academy of Management
Published
2000-01-01
Volume
25
Issue
1
Pages
154-177
ISSN
0363-7425 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2115671451
Cited by
1,138
References
13
FWCI
26.76
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.