Abstract Versus Concrete: How Managers’ Construal Influences Organizational Control Systems and Problem Solving

References

• Andersson U, Björkman I, Forsgren M (2005) Managing subsidiary knowledge creation: The effect of control mechanisms on subsidiary local embeddedness. Internat. Bus. Rev. 14(5):521–538.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Andriopoulos C, Lewis MW (2009) Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organ. Sci. 20(4):696–717.Link, Google Scholar
• Anthony RN (1965) Planning and Control Systems: A Framework for Analysis (Harvard Business School Publishing, Brighton, MA).Google Scholar
• Arora A, Gambardella A (1994) The changing technology of technological change: general and abstract knowledge and the division of innovative labour. Res. Policy 23(5):523–532.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baer M, Dirks KT, Nickerson JA (2013) Microfoundations of strategic problem formulation. Strategic Management J. 34(2):197–214.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Becker GS, Murphy KM (1992) The division of labor, coordination costs, and knowledge. Quart. J. Econom. 107(4):1137–1160.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bednar MK (2012) Watchdog or lapdog? A behavioral view of the media as a corporate governance mechanism. Acad. Management J. 55(1):131–150.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Boeker W (1997) Strategic change: The influence of managerial characteristics and organizational growth. Acad. Management J. 40(1):152–170.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bresman H (2010) External learning activities and team performance: A multimethod field study. Organ. Sci. 21(1):81–96.Link, Google Scholar
• Brysbaert M, Warriner AB, Kuperman V (2014) Concreteness ratings for 40 thousand generally known English word lemmas. Behav. Res. Methods 46(3):904–911.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Camillus JC (1986) Strategic Planning and Management Control: Systems for Survival and Success (Lexington Books, Lanham, MD).Google Scholar
• Cardinal LB (2001) Technological innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: The use of organizational control in managing research and development. Organ. Sci. 12(1):19–36.Link, Google Scholar
• Cardinal LB, Kreutzer M, Miller CC (2017) An aspirational view of organizational control research: Re-invigorating empirical work to better meet the challenges of 21st century organizations. Acad. Management Ann. 11(2):559–592.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cardinal LB, Sitkin SB, Long CP (2004) Balancing and rebalancing in the creation and evolution of organizational control. Organ. Sci. 15(4):411–431.Link, Google Scholar
• Cho TS, Hambrick DC (2006) Attention as the mediator between top management team characteristics and strategic change: The case of airline deregulation. Organ. Sci. 17(4):453–469.Link, Google Scholar
• Cho E, Kim S (2015) Cronbach’s coefficient alpha: Well known but poorly understood. Organ. Res. Methods 18(2):207–230.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cohen W, Levinthal D (1990) Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Admin. Sci. Quart. 35(1):128–152.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cojuharenco I, Patient D, Bashshur MR (2011) Seeing the “forest” or the “trees” of organizational justice: Effects of temporal perspective on employee concerns about unfair treatment at work. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Process 116(1):17–31.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cortina JM (1993) What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. J. Appl. Psych. 78(1):98–104.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Crossan MM, Lane HW, White RE (1999) An organizational learning framework: From intuition to institution. Acad. Management Rev. 24(3):522–537.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cyert RM, March JG (1963) A Behavioral Theory of the Firm (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).Google Scholar
• Damanpour F (1991) Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Acad. Management J. 34(3):555–590.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dutton JE, Dukerich JM (1991) Keeping an eye on the mirror: Image and identity in organizational adaptation. Acad. Management J. 34(3):517–554.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eisenhardt KM (1985) Control: Organizational and economic approaches. Management Sci. 31(2):134–149.Link, Google Scholar
• Felin T, Zenger TR (2014) Closed or open innovation? Problem solving and the governance choice. Res. Policy 43(5):914–925.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fujita K, Henderson MD, Eng J, Trope Y, Liberman N (2006) Spatial distance and mental construal of social events. Psych. Sci. 17(4):278–282.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gamache DL, McNamara G (2019) Responding to bad press: How CEO temporal focus influences the sensitivity to negative media coverage of acquisitions. Acad. Management J. 62(3):918–943.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gavetti G, Levinthal D (2000) Looking forward and looking backward: Cognitive and experiential search. Admin. Sci. Quart. 45(1):113–137.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gibson C, Birkinshaw J (2004) The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Acad. Management J. 47(2):209–226.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gupta A, Wowak AJ (2017) The elephant (or donkey) in the boardroom: How board political ideology affects CEO pay. Admin. Sci. Quart. 62(1):1–30.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Haas MR (2006) Acquiring and applying knowledge in transnational teams: The roles of cosmopolitans and locals. Organ. Sci. 17(3):367–384.Link, Google Scholar
• Haas MR, Hansen MT (2007) Different knowledge, different benefits: toward a productivity perspective on knowledge sharing in organizations. Strategic Management J. 28(11):1133–1153.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hajro A, Gibson CB, Pudelko M (2017) Knowledge exchange processes in multicultural teams: Linking organizational diversity climates to teams’ effectiveness. Acad. Management J. 60(1):345–372.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hambrick DC (1989) Guest editor’s introduction: Putting top managers back in the strategy picture. Strategic Management J. 10:5–15.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hansen J, Alves H, Trope Y (2016) Psychological distance reduces literal imitation: Evidence from an imitation-learning paradigm. J. Experiment. Psych. Human Percept. Perform. 42(3):320–330.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hansen M, Nohria N, Tierney T (1999) What’s your strategy for managing knowledge. Harvard Bus. Rev. 77(2):106–116.Google Scholar
• He ZL, Wong PK (2004) Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organ. Sci. 15(4):481–494.Link, Google Scholar
• Hoang HA, Rothaermel FT (2010) Leveraging internal and external experience: exploration, exploitation, and R&D project performance. Strategic Management J. 31(7):734–758.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hodgkinson GP, Healey MP (2008) Cognition in organizations. Annual Rev. Psych. 59:387–417.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hoyle RH (1995) Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues, and Applications (SAGE, Inc., Washington, DC).Google Scholar
• Huang N, Burtch G, Hong Y, Polman E (2016) Effects of multiple psychological distances on construal and consumer evaluation: A field study of online reviews. J. Consumer Psych. 26(4):474–482.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Huber G (1991) Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures. Organ. Sci. 2(1):88–115.Link, Google Scholar
• Jensen M, Meckling W (1976) Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. J. Financial Econom. 3(4):305–360.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Johnson-Grey KM, Boghrati R, Wakslak CJ, Dehghani M (2020) Measuring abstract mind-sets through syntax: Automating the linguistic category model. Soc. Psych. Personality Sci. 11(2):217–225.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jung DI, Avolio BJ (1999) Effects of leadership style and followers’ cultural orientation on performance in group and individual task conditions. Acad. Management J. 42(2):208–218.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Junni P, Sarala RM, Taras VAS, Tarba SY (2013) Organizational ambidexterity and performance: A meta-analysis. Acad. Management Perspect. 27(4):299–312.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kane GC, Alavi M (2008) Casting the net: A multimodal network perspective on user-system interactions. Inform. Systems Res. 19(3):253–272.Link, Google Scholar
• Kang S, Morris S, Snell S (2007) Relational archetypes, organizational learning, and value creation: Extending the human resource architecture. Acad. Management Rev. 32(1):236–256.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kirsch LJ, Ko DG, Haney MH (2010) Investigating the antecedents of team-based clan control: Adding social capital as a predictor. Organ. Sci. 21(2):469–489.Link, Google Scholar
• Lance CE, Butts MM, Michels LC (2006) The sources of four commonly reported cutoff criteria: What did they really say? Organ. Res. Methods 9(2):202–220.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ledgerwood A, Trope Y, Liberman N (2015) Construal Level Theory and Regulatory Scope (Wiley, Hoboken, NJ).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Liberman N, Trope Y, Wakslak C (2007) Construal level theory and consumer behavior. J. Consumer Psych. 17(2):113–117.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Long CP, Burton RM, Cardinal LB (2002) Three controls are better than one: A computational model of complex control systems. Comput. Math. Organ. Theory 8(3):197–220.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Long CP, Sitkin SB, Cardinal LB, Burton RM (2015) How controls influence organizational information processing: Insights from a computational modeling investigation. Comput. Math. Organ. Theory 21(4):406–436.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Magee JC, Milliken FJ, Lurie AR (2010) Power differences in the construal of a crisis: The immediate aftermath of September 11, 2001. Pers. Soc. Psych. Bull. 36(3):354–370.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Makhija M, Ganesh U (1997) The relationship between control and partner learning in learning-related joint ventures. Organ. Sci. 8(5):508–527.Link, Google Scholar
• Makhija MV, Stewart AC (2002) The effect of national context on perceptions of risk: a comparison of planned vs. free-market managers. J. Internat. Bus. Stud. 33(4):737–756.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mani A, Mullainathan S, Shafir E, Zhao J (2013) Poverty impedes cognitive function. Science 341(6149):976–980.Crossref, Google Scholar
• March J (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ. Sci. 2(1):71–87.Link, Google Scholar
• March JG, Shapira Z (1987) Managerial perspectives on risk and risk taking. Management Sci. 33(11):1404–1418.Link, Google Scholar
• McGrath RG (2001) Exploratory learning, innovative capacity, and managerial oversight. Acad. Management J. 44(1):118–131.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Miller KD, Chen WR (2004) Variable organizational risk preferences: Tests of the March-Shapira model. Acad. Management J. 47(1):105–115.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Morris SS, Zhong B, Makhija M (2015) Going the distance: The pros and cons of expanding employees’ global knowledge reach. J. Internat. Bus. Stud. 46(5):552–573.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mount MP, Baer M, Lupoli MJ (2021) Quantum leaps or baby steps? Expertise distance, construal level, and the propensity to invest in novel technological ideas. Strategic Management J. 2021(42):1490–1515.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Myers CG (2020) Performance benefits of reciprocal vicarious learning in teams. Acad. Management J. 64(3):926–947.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nickerson JA, Zenger TR (2004) A knowledge-based theory of the firm–The problem-solving perspective. Organ. Sci. 15(6):617–632.Link, Google Scholar
• Nickerson JA, Silverman BS, Zenger TR (2007) The problem of creating and capturing value. Strategic Organ. 5(3):211–225.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ocasio W (1997) Toward an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management J. 18(S1):187–206.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Orr RJ, Scott WR (2008) Institutional exceptions on global projects: a process model. J. Internat. Bus. Stud. 39(4):562–588.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ouchi W (1979) A conceptual framework for the design of organizational control mechanisms. Management Sci. 25(9):833–848.Link, Google Scholar
• Ouchi WG (1977) The relationship between organizational structure and organizational control. Admin. Sci. Quart. 22(1):95–113.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ouchi WG, Maguire MA (1975) Organizational control: Two functions. Admin. Sci. Quart. 20(4):559–569.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Papadakis VM, Lioukas S, Chambers D (1998) Strategic decision-making processes: The role of management and context. Strategic Management J. 19(2):115–147.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pfeffer J, Salancik GR (1977) Organizational context and the characteristics and tenure of hospital administrators. Acad. Management J. 20(1):74–88.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee J, Podsakoff NP (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psych. 88(5):879–903.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Raith M (2008) Specific knowledge and performance measurement. RAND J. Econom. 39(4):1059–1079.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reyt JN, Wiesenfeld BM (2015) Seeing the forest for the trees: Exploratory learning, mobile technology, and knowledge workers’ role integration behaviors. Acad. Management J. 58(3):739–762.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reyt JN, Wiesenfeld BM, Trope Y (2016) Big picture is better: The social implications of construal level for advice taking. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Process 135:22–31.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rosen CC, Koopman J, Gabriel AS, Johnson RE (2016) Who strikes back? A daily investigation of when and why incivility begets incivility. J. Appl. Psych. 101(11):1620–1634.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schmeichel BJ, Vohs KD, Duke SC (2011) Self-control at high and low levels of mental construal. Soc. Psych. Personality Sci. 2(2):182–189.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schneider M (2002) A stakeholder model of organizational leadership. Organ. Sci. 13(2):209–220.Link, Google Scholar
• Seih YT, Beier S, Pennebaker JW (2017) Development and examination of the linguistic category model in a computerized text analysis method. J. Lang. Soc. Psych. 36(3):343–355.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Semin GR, Fiedler K (1988) The cognitive functions of linguistic categories in describing persons: Social cognition and language. J. Pers. Soc. Psych. 54(4):558–568.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Semin GR, Fiedler K (1991) The linguistic category model, its bases, applications and range. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psych. 2(1):1–30.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shieh G (2016) Choosing the best index for the average score intraclass correlation coefficient. Behav. Res. Methods 48(3):994–1003.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simon H (1976) Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making in Administrative Organization (Free Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Smith KG, Collins CJ, Clark KD (2005) Existing knowledge, knowledge creation capability, and the rate of new product introduction in high-technology firms. Acad. Management J. 48(2):346–357.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Snell SA (1992) Control theory in strategic human resource management: The mediating effect of administrative information. Acad. Management J. 35(2):292–327.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Snell S, Morris S (2019) Time for realignment: The HR ecosystem. Acad. Management Perspect. 35(2):219–236.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Snell SA, Youndt MA (1995) Human resource management and firm performance: Testing a contingency model of executive controls. J. Management 21(4):711–737.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Steinbach AL, Gamache DL, Johnson RE (2019) Don’t get it misconstrued: Executive construal-level shifts and flexibility in the upper echelons. Acad. Management Rev. 44(4):871–895.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Su ZX, Wright PM, Ulrich MD (2018) Going beyond the SHRM paradigm: Examining four approaches to governing employees. J. Management 44(4):1598–1619.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tetlock PE, Vieider FM, Patil SV, Grant AM (2013) Accountability and ideology: When left looks right and right looks left. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Process 122(1):22–35.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thagard P (2013) Cognitive science. Curd M, Stathis P, eds. The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Science (Routledge, New York), 629–640.Google Scholar
• Thompson J (1967) Organizations in Action: Social Science Bases of Administrative Theory (Routledge, New York).Google Scholar
• Todorov A, Goren A, Trope Y (2007) Probability as a psychological distance: Construal and preferences. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 43(3):473–482.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Toutanova K, Manning CD (2000) Enriching the Knowledge Sources Used in a Maximum Entropy Part-of-Speech Tagger (Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg PA), 63–70.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Trope Y, Liberman N (2003) Temporal construal. Psych. Rev. 110(3):403.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Trope Y, Liberman N (2010) Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psych. Rev. 117(2):440–463.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Turcotte WE (1974) Control systems, performance, and satisfaction in two state agencies. Admin. Sci. Quart. 19:60–73.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Turner K, Makhija M (2006) The role of organizational controls in managing knowledge. Acad. Management Rev. 31(1):197–217.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Turner KL, Makhija MV (2012) The role of individuals in the information processing perspective. Strategic Management J. 33(6):661–680.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tushman ML, Nadler DA (1978) Information processing as an integrating concept in organizational design. Acad. Management Rev. 3(3):613–624.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Van de Ven AH, Delbecq AL, Koenig R (1976) Determinants of coordination modes within organizations. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 41(2):322–338.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Vera D, Crossan M (2004) Strategic leadership and organizational learning. Acad. Management Rev. 29(2):222–240.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Walsh JP (1988) Selectivity and selective perception: An investigation of managers’ belief structures and information processing. Acad. Management J. 31(4):873–896.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Walsh JP (1995) Managerial and organizational cognition: Notes from a trip down memory lane. Organ. Sci. 6(3):280–321.Link, Google Scholar
• Wang P, Van De Vrande V, Jansen JJ (2017) Balancing exploration and exploitation in inventions: Quality of inventions and team composition. Res. Policy 46(10):1836–1850.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wiesenfeld BM, Reyt JN, Brockner J, Trope Y (2017) Construal level theory in organizational research. Annual Rev. Organ. Psych. Organ. Behav. 4(1):367–400.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Williams R, Allison PD, Moral-Benito E (2018) Linear dynamic panel-data estimation using maximum likelihood and structural equation modeling. Stata J. 18(2):293–326.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wilson J, Crisp CB, Mortensen M (2013) Extending construal-level theory to distributed groups: Understanding the effects of virtuality. Organ. Sci. 24(2):629–644.Link, Google Scholar
• Wooldridge B, Schmid T, Floyd SW (2008) The middle management perspective on strategy process: Contributions, synthesis, and future research. J. Management 34(6):1190–1221.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wong SS (2004) Distal and local group learning: Performance trade-offs and tensions. Organ. Sci. 15(6):645–656.Link, Google Scholar
• Wright P, Essman S (2019) Carrots, sticks, and performance: is it commitment, or commitment plus control? Acad. Management Perspect. 35(2):208–218.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zhong BJ, Gong Y, Shenkar O, Luo Y, Xiao Z, Zhao S (2021) Managing the hearts of boundary spanners: CEO organizational identification and international joint venture performance. Asia Pac. J. Management, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-021-09780-y.Crossref, Google Scholar