The Dual Function of Organizational Structure: Aggregating and Shaping Individuals’ Votes

References

• Aadland E, Cattani G, Ferriani S (2019) Friends, gifts, and cliques: Social proximity and recognition in peer-based tournament rituals. Acad. Management J. 62(3):883–917.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Agarwal R, Croson R, Mahoney JT (2010) The role of incentives and communication in strategic alliances: An experimental investigation. Strategic Management J. 31(4):413–437.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Aguinis H, Bradley KJ (2014) Best practice recommendations for designing and implementing experimental vignette methodology studies. Organ. Res. Methods 17(4):351–371.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ali SN, Goeree JK, Kartik N, Palfrey TR (2008) Information aggregation in standing and ad hoc committees. Amer. Econom. Rev. 98(2):181–186.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Andrei AG, Van Oosterhout J, Sauerwald S (2022) Symbolic shareholder democracy: Toward a behavioral understanding of the role of shareholder voting in CEO dismissals. Organ. Sci., ePub ahead of print November 17, https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2022.1641.Link, Google Scholar
• Arend RJ, Bromiley P (2009) Assessing the dynamic capabilities view: Spare change, everyone? Strategic Organ. 7(1):75–90.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Austen-Smith D, Banks JS (1996) Information aggregation, rationality, and the Condorcet jury theorem. Amer. Political Sci. Rev. 90(1):34–45.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Austen-Smith D, Banks JS (1999) Positive Political Theory (University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI).Google Scholar
• Austen-Smith D, Banks JS (2005) Positive Political Theory II: Strategy and Structure (University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Austen-Smith D, Feddersen TJ (2009) Information aggregation and communication in committees. Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. London B Biol. Sci. 364(1518):763–769.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baltz S (2022) How strategic are most voters? Evidence from simulations. Working paper, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Bardolet D, Fox CR, Lovallo D (2011) Corporate capital allocation: A behavioral perspective. Strategic Management J. 32(13):1465–1483.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barney J, Felin T (2013) What are microfoundations? Acad. Management Perspect. 27(2):138–155.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Battaglini M, Morton RB, Palfrey TR (2010) The swing voter’s curse in the laboratory. Rev. Econom. Stud. 77(1):61–89.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bernstein E, Bunch J, Canner N, Lee M (2016) Beyond the holacracy hype: The overwrought claims—and actual promise—of the next generation of self-managed teams. Harvard Bus. Rev. 94(7–8):38–49.Google Scholar
• Bettis RA, Helfat CE, Shaver JM (2016) The necessity, logic, and forms of replication. Strategic Management J. 37(11):2193–2203.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bhattacharya S, Duffy J, Kim S (2017) Voting with endogenous information acquisition: Experimental evidence. Games Econom. Behav. 102:316–338.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Billinger S, Srikanth K, Stieglitz N, Schumacher TR (2021) Exploration and exploitation in complex search tasks: How feedback influences whether and where human agents search. Strategic Management J. 42(2):361–385.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Billinger S, Benincasa S, Baumann O, Kretschmer T, Schumacher TR (2023) Learning to search collaboratively: How dyads overcome complexity and misaligned incentives in imperfect modular decompositions. Indust. Corporate Change. Forthcoming.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bitektine A, Lucas JW, Schilke O (2018) Institutions under a microscope: Experimental methods in institutional theory. Bryman A, Buchanan DA, eds. Unconventional Methodology in Organization and Management Research (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK), 147–167.Google Scholar
• Bitektine A, Lucas J, Schilke O, Aeon B (2022) Experiments in organization and management research. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Business and Management. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190224851.013.284.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bolinger MT, Josefy MA, Stevenson R, Hitt MA (2022) Experiments in strategy research: A critical review and future research opportunities. J. Management 48(1):77–113.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bottazzi L, Da Rin M, Hellmann T (2016) The importance of trust for investment: Evidence from venture capital. Rev. Financial Stud. 29(9):2283–2318.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Boudreau KJ, Guinan EC, Lakhani KR, Riedl C (2016) Looking across and looking beyond the knowledge frontier: Intellectual distance, novelty, and resource allocation in science. Management Sci. 62(10):2765–2783.Link, Google Scholar
• Bromley P, Sharkey A (2017) Casting call: The expanding nature of actorhood in U.S. firms, 1960–2010. Accounting Organ. Soc. 59:3–20.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burton RM, Obel B (2018) The science of organizational design: Fit between structure and coordination. J. Organ. Design. 7(1):1–13.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Camerer CF, Ho T-H, Chong JK (2015) A psychological approach to strategic thinking in games. Current Opinion Behav. Sci. 3:157–162.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Christensen M, Knudsen T (2009) The architecture of knowledge organization. Foss NJ, Michailova S, eds. Knowledge Governance: Processes and Perspectives (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK), 47–80.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Christensen M, Knudsen T (2010) Design of decision-making organizations. Management Sci. 56(1):71–89.Link, Google Scholar
• Christensen M, Dahl CM, Knudsen T, Warglien M (2021) Context and aggregation: An experimental study of bias and discrimination in organizational decisions. Organ. Sci., ePub ahead of print October 21, https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2021.1502.Link, Google Scholar
• Coleman JS (1974) Power and the Structure of Society (Norton, New York).Google Scholar
• Coleman JS (1990) Foundations of Social Theory (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Colquitt JA (2008) Publishing laboratory research in AMJ: A question of when, not if. Acad. Management J. 51(4):616–620.Google Scholar
• Condorcet Md (1785) Essai sur l'application de l'analyse a la probabilité des decisions rendues a la probabilité des voix (De l'imprimerie royale, Paris).Google Scholar
• Coughlan PJ (2000) In defense of unanimous jury verdicts: Mistrials, communication, and strategic voting. Amer. Political Sci. Rev. 94(2):375–393.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cowen AP, Rink F, Cuypers IRP, Grégoire DA, Weller I (2022) Applying Coleman’s boat in management research: Opportunities and challenges in bridging macro and micro theory. Acad. Management J. 65(1):1–10.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Criscuolo P, Dahlander L, Grohsjean T, Salter A (2017) Evaluating novelty: The role of panels in the selection of R&D projects. Acad. Management J. 60(2):433–460.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Croson R, Anand J, Agarwal R (2007) Using experiments in corporate strategy research. Eur. Management Rev. 4(3):173–181.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Csaszar FA (2012) Organizational structure as a determinant of performance: Evidence from mutual funds. Strategic Management J. 33(6):611–632.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Csaszar FA (2013) An efficient frontier in organization design: Organizational structure as a determinant of exploration and exploitation. Organ. Sci. 24(4):1083–1101.Link, Google Scholar
• Csaszar FA (2018) Limits to the wisdom of the crowd in idea selection. Adv. Strategic Management 40:275–297.Google Scholar
• Csaszar FA, Eggers JP (2013) Organizational decision making: An information aggregation view. Management Sci. 59(10):2257–2277.Link, Google Scholar
• Csaszar FA, Enrione A (2015) When consensus hurts the company. MIT Sloan Management Rev. 56(3):17–21.Google Scholar
• Csaszar FA, Laureiro-Martínez D (2018) Individual and organizational antecedents of strategic foresight: A representational approach. Strategy Sci. 3(3):513–532.Link, Google Scholar
• Csaszar FA, Steinberger T (2022) Organizations as artificial intelligences: The use of artificial intelligence analogies in organization theory. Acad. Management Ann. 16(1):1–37.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cyert RM, Feigenbaum EA, March JG (1959) Models in a behavioral theory of the firm. Behav. Sci. 4(2):81–95.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Davis JP, Aggarwal VA (2020) Knowledge mobilization in the face of imitation: Microfoundations of knowledge aggregation and firm-level innovation. Strategic Management J. 41(11):1983–2014.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Di Stefano G, Gutierrez C (2019) Under a magnifying glass: On the use of experiments in strategy research. Strategic Organ. 17(4):497–507.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Di Stefano G, Micheli MR (2022) To stem the tide: Organizational climate and the locus of knowledge transfer. Organ. Sci. ePub ahead of print February 3, https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2021.1551.Link, Google Scholar
• Dittmann I, Kübler D, Maug E, Mechtenberg L (2014) Why votes have value: Instrumental voting with overconfidence and overestimation of others’ errors. Games Econom. Behav. 84:17–38.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Duffy J, Tavits M (2008) Beliefs and voting decisions: A test of the pivotal voter model. Amer. J. Political Sci. 52(3):603–618.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eisenhardt KM (1989) Agency theory: An assessment and review. Acad. Management Rev. 14(1):57–74.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Emsley R, Liu H (2013) PARAMED: Stata module to perform causal mediation analysis using parametric regression models. Statistical Software Components S457581, Boston College Department of Economics. https://ideas.repec.org/c/boc/bocode/s457581.html.Google Scholar
• Esponda I, Vespa E (2014) Hypothetical thinking and information extraction in the laboratory. Amer. Econom. J. Microeconom. 6(4):180–202.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Falk A, Heckman JJ (2009) Laboratory experiments are a major source of knowledge in the social sciences. Science 326(5952):535–538.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Feddersen TJ, Pesendorfer W (1996) The swing voter’s curse. Amer. Econom. Rev. 86(3):408–424.Google Scholar
• Feddersen TJ, Pesendorfer W (1998) Convicting the innocent: The inferiority of unanimous jury verdicts under strategic voting. Amer. Political Sci. Rev. 92(1):23–35.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Felin T, Powell TC (2016) Designing organizations for dynamic capabilities. Calif. Management Rev. 58(4):78–96.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Felin T, Foss NJ, Ployhart RE (2015) The microfoundations movement in strategy and organization theory. Acad. Management Ann. 9(1):575–632.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Freeman J (1999) Efficiency and rationality in organizations. Admin. Sci. Quart. 44(1):163–175.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Galinsky AD, Gruenfeld DH, Magee JC (2003) From power to action. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 85(3):453–466.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Garg S (2013) Venture boards: Distinctive monitoring and implications for firm performance. Acad. Management Rev. 38(1):90–108.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gavetti G, Levinthal D, Ocasio W (2007) Neo-Carnegie: The Carnegie school’s past, present, and reconstructing for the future. Organ. Sci. 18(3):523–536.Link, Google Scholar
• Gibbons RS, Grieder M, Herz H, Zehnder C (2021) Building an equilibrium: Rules vs. principles in relational contracts. Organ. Sci., ePub ahead of print November 5, https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2021.1503.Link, Google Scholar
• Gompers PA, Lerner J (2004) The Venture Capital Cycle (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Greve HR (2013) Microfoundations of management: Behavioral strategies and levels of rationality in organizational action. Acad. Management Perspect. 27(2):103–119.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Guarnaschelli S, McKelvey RD, Palfrey TR (2000) An experimental study of jury decision rules. Amer. Political Sci. Rev. 94(02):407–423.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Guo L (2016) Contextual deliberation and preference construction. Management Sci. 62(10):2977–2993.Link, Google Scholar
• Halgin DS, Glynn MA, Rockwell D (2018) Organizational actorhood and the management of paradox: A visual analysis. Organ. Stud. 39(5–6):645–664.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hallen BL, Cohen SL, Bingham CB (2020) Do accelerators work? If so, how? Organ. Sci. 31(2):378–414.Link, Google Scholar
• Hambrick DC, Cho TS, Chen M-J (1996) The influence of top management team heterogeneity on firms’ competitive moves. Admin. Sci. Quart. 41:659–684.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hayes AF (2017) Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach, 2nd ed. (Guilford Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Helfat CE, Finkelstein S, Mitchell W, Peteraf MA, Singh H, Teece DJ, Winter SG (2007) Dynamic Capabilities: Understanding Strategic Change in Organizations (Blackwell, Malden, MA).Google Scholar
• Hergueux J, Jacquemet N (2015) Social preferences in the online laboratory: A randomized experiment. Experiment. Econom. 18(2):251–283.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Holt CA, Laury SK (2002) Risk aversion and incentive effects. Amer. Econom. Rev. 92(5):1644–1655.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hu S, Gu Q, Xia J (2022) Problemistic search of the embedded firm: The joint effects of performance feedback and network positions on venture capital firms’ risk taking. Organ. Sci. 33(5):1889–1908.Link, Google Scholar
• Huang L, Pearce JL (2015) Managing the unknowable: The effectiveness of early-stage investor gut feel in entrepreneurial investment decisions. Admin. Sci. Quart. 60(4):634–670.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Johnson MD, Awtrey E, Ong WJ (2022) Verdicts, elections, and counterterrorism: When groups take unofficial votes. Acad. Management Discoveries. ePub ahead of print September 28, https://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2021.0099.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Joseph J, Gaba V (2020) Organizational structure, information processing, and decision-making: A retrospective and road map for research. Acad. Management Ann. 14(1):267–302.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kawai K, Watanabe Y (2013) Inferring strategic voting. Amer. Econom. Rev. 103(2):624–662.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Keum DD, Eggers JP (2018) Setting the bar: The evaluative and allocative roles of organizational aspirations. Organ. Sci. 29(6):1170–1186.Link, Google Scholar
• Keum DD, See KE (2017) The influence of hierarchy on idea generation and selection in the innovation process. Organ. Sci. 28(4):653–669.Link, Google Scholar
• King BG, Felin T, Whetten DA (2010) Finding the organization in organizational theory: A meta-theory of the organization as a social actor. Organ. Sci. 21(1):290–305.Link, Google Scholar
• Klingebiel R (2022) Motivating innovation: Tunnels vs. funnels. Strategy Sci. 7(4):300–316.Link, Google Scholar
• Knudsen T, Levinthal DA (2007) Two faces of search: Alternative generation and alternative evaluation. Organ. Sci. 18(1):39–54.Link, Google Scholar
• Knudsen T, Marchiori D, Warglien M (2018) Hierarchical decision-making produces persistent differences in learning performance. Sci. Rep. 8(1):15782.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Krause R, Whitler KA, Semadeni M (2014) Power to the principals! An experimental look at shareholder say-on-pay voting. Acad. Management J. 57(1):94–115.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Krishnan R, Cook KS, Kozhikode R, Schilke O (2021) An interaction ritual theory of social resource exchange: Evidence from a Silicon Valley accelerator. Admin. Sci. Quart. 66(3):659–710.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ladha K, Miller G, Oppenheimer J (1999) Information aggregation by majority rule: Theory and experiments. Working paper, Washington University, St. Louis.Google Scholar
• Lane JN, Teplitskiy M, Gray G, Ranu H, Menietti M, Guinan EC, Lakhani KR (2022) Conservatism gets funded? A field experiment on the role of negative information in novel project evaluation. Management Sci. 68(6):4478–4495.Link, Google Scholar
• Lee S (2022) The myth of the flat start-up: Reconsidering the organizational structure of start-ups. Strategic Management J. 43(1):58–92.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lee S, Csaszar FA (2020) Cognitive and structural antecedents of innovation: A large-sample study. Strategy Sci. 5(2):71–97.Link, Google Scholar
• Lee M, Huang L (2018) Gender bias, social impact framing, and evaluation of entrepreneurial ventures. Organ. Sci. 29(1):1–16.Link, Google Scholar
• Levine SS, Bernard M, Nagel R (2017) Strategic intelligence: The cognitive capability to anticipate competitor behavior. Strategic Management J. 38(12):2390–2423.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Li W, Krause R, Qin X, Zhang J, Zhu H, Lin S, Xu Y (2018) Under the microscope: An experimental look at board transparency and director monitoring behavior. Strategic Management J. 39(4):1216–1236.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Liu C, Vlaev I, Fang C, Denrell J, Chater N (2017) Strategizing with biases: Making better decisions using the Mindspace approach. Calif. Management Rev. 59(3):135–161.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Loch C, Mähring M, Sommer S (2017) Supervising projects you don’t (fully) understand: Lessons for effective project governance by steering committees. Calif. Management Rev. 59(2):45–67.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lonati S, Quiroga BF, Zehnder C, Antonakis J (2018) On doing relevant and rigorous experiments: Review and recommendations. J. Oper. Management 64:19–40.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Maciejovsky B, Budescu DV (2020) Too much trust in group decisions: Uncovering hidden profiles by groups and markets. Organ. Sci. 31(6):1497–1514.Link, Google Scholar
• Mack DZ, Szulanski G (2017) Opening up: How centralization affects participation and inclusion in strategy making. Long Range Planning 50(3):385–396.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mallin C (2012) Institutional investors: The vote as a tool of governance. J. Management Governance 16(2):177–196.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Margolis H (2001) Pivotal voting. J. Theoret. Politics 13(1):111–116.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Maug E, Rydqvist K (2008) Do shareholders vote strategically? Voting behavior, proposal screening, and majority rules. Rev. Finance 13(1):47–79.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Molina M, Nee V, Holm H (2022) Cooperation with strangers: Spillover of community norms. Organ. Sci., ePub ahead of print March 25, https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2021.1521.Link, Google Scholar
• Myatt DP (2007) On the theory of strategic voting. Rev. Econom. Stud. 74(1):255–281.Crossref, Google Scholar
• O’Connor KM (1997) Groups and solos in context: The effects of accountability on team negotiation. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 72(3):384–407.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Oraiopoulos N, Kavadias S (2020) Is diversity (un-)biased? Project selection decisions in executive committees. Manufacturing Service Oper. Management 22(5):906–924.Link, Google Scholar
• Palfrey TR (2016) Experiments in political economy. Kagel JH, Roth AE, eds. Handbook of Experimental Economics, vol. 2 (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ), 347–434.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Phadnis S, Caplice C, Sheffi Y, Singh M (2015) Effect of scenario planning on field experts’ judgment of long-range investment decisions. Strategic Management J. 36(9):1401–1411.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Piezunka H, Dahlander L (2015) Distant search, narrow attention: How crowding alters organizations’ filtering of suggestions in crowdsourcing. Acad. Management J. 58(3):856–880.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Piezunka H, Aggarwal VA, Posen HE (2022) The aggregation-learning tradeoff. Organ. Sci. 33(3):1094–1115.Link, Google Scholar
• Piketty T (1999) The information-aggregation approach to political institutions. Eur. Econom. Rev. 43(4):791–800.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Preacher KJ, Hayes AF (2004) SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 36(4):717–731.Google Scholar
• Puranam P (2014) Managing without authority: Notes on the romance and reality of ‘boss-less’ firms. Working paper, INSEAD.Google Scholar
• Puranam P (2018) The Microstructure of Organizations (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rabe-Hesketh S, Skrondal A (2012) Multilevel and Longitudinal Modeling Using Stata, 3rd ed. (Stata Press Publication, College Station, TX).Google Scholar
• Rao H, Sivakumar K (1999) Institutional sources of boundary-spanning structures: The establishment of investor relations departments in the Fortune 500 industrials. Organ. Sci. 10(1):27–42.Link, Google Scholar
• Raveendran M, Puranam P, Warglien M (2016) Object salience in the division of labor: Experimental evidence. Management Sci. 62(7):2110–2128.Link, Google Scholar
• Reitzig M, Maciejovsky B (2015) Corporate hierarchy and vertical information flow inside the firm—A behavioral view. Strategic Management J. 36(13):1979–1999.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sah RK, Stiglitz JE (1986) The architecture of economic systems: Hierarchies and polyarchies. Amer. Econom. Rev. 76(4):716–727.Google Scholar
• Sahlman WA (1990) The structure and governance of venture-capital organizations. J. Financial Econom. 27(2):473–521.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schilke O (2014) On the contingent value of dynamic capabilities for competitive advantage: The nonlinear moderating effect of environmental dynamism. Strategic Management J. 35(2):179–203.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schilke O (2018) A micro-institutional inquiry into resistance to environmental pressures. Acad. Management J. 61(4):1431–1466.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schilke O, Lumineau F (2022) The organizationality of trust in interorganizational relationships. Presentation March 11, 2022, FINT Workshop on Trust Within and Between Organizations, Charleston, SC.Google Scholar
• Schilke O, Hu S, Helfat CE (2018) Quo vadis, dynamic capabilities? A content-analytic review of the current state of knowledge and recommendations for future research. Acad. Management Ann. 12(1):390–439.Crossref, Google Scholar
• See KE (2009) Reactions to decisions with uncertain consequences: Reliance on perceived fairness vs. predicted outcomes depends on knowledge. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 96(1):104–118.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sengul M, Costa AA, Gimeno J (2019) The allocation of capital within firms. Acad. Management Ann. 13(1):43–83.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sharapov D, Dahlander L (2022) Selection regimes and selection errors: A multi-method study. Proc. Acad. Management 2022(1):16536.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Snyder M (1974) Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 30(4):526–537.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Spencer SJ, Zanna MP, Fong GT (2005) Establishing a causal chain: Why experiments are often more effective than mediational analyses in examining psychological processes. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 89(6):845–851.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Steele CW, King BG (2011) Collective intentionality in organizations: A meta-ethnography of identity and strategizing. Adv. Group Process 28:59–95.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Surowiecki J (2004) The Wisdom of Crowds (Doubleday, New York).Google Scholar
• Teece DJ (2007) Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management J. 28(13):1319–1350.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Turco CJ (2016) The Conversational Firm: Rethinking Bureaucracy in the Age of Social Media (Columbia University Press, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• van ’t Veer AE, Giner-Sorolla R (2016) Pre-registration in social psychology—A discussion and suggested template. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 67:2–12.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Westphal JD, Fredrickson JW (2001) Who directs strategic change? Director experience, the selection of new CEOs, and change in corporate strategy. Strategic Management J. 22(12):1113–1137.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wu A (2016) Organizational decision-making and information: Angel investments by venture capital partners. Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings, 189–194. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2016.4.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zelditch M (1980) Can you really study an army in a laboratory? Etzioni A, Lehman EW, eds. A Sociological Reader on Complex Organizations (Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York), 528–539.Google Scholar
• Zucker LG, Schilke O (2020) Toward a theory of micro-institutional processes: Forgotten roots, links to social-psychological research, and new ideas. Res. Sociol. Organ. 65B:371–389.Google Scholar