Revisiting the Unitary Actor Assumption: Toward Realistic Aggregation of Individual Preferences in Strategy Research

References

• Adamowicz W, Hanemann M, Swait J, Johnson R, Layton D, Regenwetter M, Reimer T, Sorkin R (2005) Decision strategy and structure in households: A ‘groups’ perspective. Marketing Lett. 16(3–4):387–399.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Aime F, Johnson S, Ridge JW, Hill AD (2009) The routine may be stable but the advantage is not: Competitive implications of key employee mobility. Strategic Management J. 31(1):75–87.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Arora N, Allenby GM (1999) Measuring the influence of individual preference structures in group decision making. J. Marketing Res. 36(4):476–487. Crossref, Google Scholar
• Arrow KJ (1951) Social Choice and Individual Values (Yale University Press, New Haven, CT).Google Scholar
• Barney J, Felin T (2013) What are microfoundations? Acad. Management Perspect 27(2):138–155.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bingham CB, Howell T, Ott TE (2019) Capability creation: Heuristics as microfoundations. Strategic Entrepreneurship J. 13(2):121–153.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Binmore K (2009) Interpersonal comparison of utility. Ross D, Kincaid H, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Economics, chapter 20 (Oxford University Press, New York), 540–559.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Black D (1958) The Theory of Committees and Elections (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Google Scholar
• Boyd SP, Vandenberghe L (2004) Convex Optimization (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Christensen CM, Bower JL (1996) Customer power, strategic investment, and the failure of leading firms. Strategic Management J. 17(3):197–218.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Christensen M, Knudsen T (2010) Design of decision making-organizations. Management Sci. 56(1):71–89.Link, Google Scholar
• Clemen RT (1989) Combining forecasts: A review and annotated bibliography. Internat. J. Forecast 5(4):559–583.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Coase RH (1937) The nature of the firm. Economica 4(16):386–405.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Coase RH (1988) The nature of the firm: Origin. J. Law, Econom., & Organ. 4(1):3–17.Google Scholar
• Condorcet JAN (1785/1994) Foundations of Social Choice and Political Theory. Translated and edited by McLean I, Hewitt F (E. Elgar, Brookfield, VT).Google Scholar
• Cournot AA (1838/1971) Researches into the Mathematical Principles of the Theory of Wealth (A. M. Kelley, New York).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
• 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, Eggers JP (2013) Organizational decision making: An information aggregation view. Management Sci. 59(10):2257–2277.Link, Google Scholar
• Cyert RM, March JG (1963) A Behavioral Theory of the Firm (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ). Google Scholar
• Davis JH (1973) Group decision and social interaction: Theory of social decision schemes. Psychol. Rev. 80(2):97–125.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eggers JP, Park KF (2018) Incumbent adaptation to technological change: The past, present, and future of research on heterogeneous incumbent response. Acad. Management Ann. 12(1):357–389.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eisenhardt KM, Kahwajy JL, Bourgeois LJ (1997) Conflict and strategic choice: How top management teams disagree. California Management Rev. 39(2):42–62.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Englmaier F, Foss NJ, Knudsen T, Kretschmer T (2019) Organization design and firm heterogeneity: Towards an integrated research agenda for strategy. Adv. Strategic Management 40:229–252.Google Scholar
• Fechner GT (1860) Elemente Der Psychophysik (Breitkopf und Härtel, Leipzig).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
• Finkelstein S, Hambrick DC, Cannella AA (2009) Strategic Leadership: Theory and Research on Executives, Top Management Teams, and Boards (Oxford University Press, New York). Google Scholar
• Friedkin NE, Johnsen EC (2011) Social Influence Network Theory: A Sociological Examination of Small Group Dynamics (Cambridge University Press, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gaba V, Greve HR (2019) Safe or profitable? The pursuit of conflicting goals. Organ. Sci. 30(4):647–667.Link, Google Scholar
• Gavetti G, Levinthal DA, 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
• Grossman SJ, Hart OD (1986) The costs and benefits of ownership: A theory of vertical and lateral integration. J. Political Econom. 94(4):691–719.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Haleblian J, Devers CE, McNamara G, Carpenter MA, Davison RB (2009) Taking stock of what we know about mergers and acquisitions: A review and research agenda. J. Management 35(3):469–502.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hambrick DC, Mason PA (1984) Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Acad. Management Rev. 9(2):193–206.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hammond PJ (1991) Interpersonal comparisons of utility: Why and how they are and should be made. Elster J, Roemer JE, eds. Interpersonal Comparisons of Well-Being, chapter 7 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK), 200–225.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hart O (1995) Corporate governance: Some theory and implications. Econom. J. 105(430):678–689.Google Scholar
• Hastie R, Kameda T (2005) The robust beauty of majority rules in group decisions. Psychol. Rev. 112(2):494–508.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Helfat CE, Peteraf MA (2015) Managerial cognitive capabilities and the microfoundations of dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management J. 36(6):831–850.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hess S, Daly AJ (2014) Handbook of Choice Modelling (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hess AM, Rothaermel FT (2011) When are assets complementary? Star scientists, strategic alliances, and innovation in the pharmaceutical industry. Strategic Management J. 32(8):895–909.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hogarth RM (1978) A note on aggregating opinions. Organ. Behav. Human Performance 21(1):40–46.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Holmstrom B (1979) Moral hazard and observability. Bell J. Econom. 10(1):74–91.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jensen MC, Meckling WH (1976) Theory of firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. J. Financial Econom. 3(4):305–360.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
• Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2):263–291.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Sibony O, Sunstein CR (2021) Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment (Little, Brown Spark, New York).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
• Leiblein MJ, Reuer JJ, Zenger TR (2018) What makes a decision strategic? Strategy Sci. 3(4):558–573.Link, Google Scholar
• Levinthal DA (1997) Adaptation on rugged landscapes. Management Sci. 43(7):934–950.Link, Google Scholar
• Lim ENK, McCann BT (2014) Performance feedback and firm risk taking: The moderating effects of CEO and outside director stock options. Organ. Sci. 25(1):262–282.Link, Google Scholar
• Loon M, Otaye-Ebede L, Stewart J (2020) Thriving in the new normal: The HR microfoundations of capabilities for business model innovation—An integrated literature review. J. Management Stud. 57(3):698–726.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Luce RD (1959) Individual Choice Behavior (John Wiley and Sons, New York).Google Scholar
• Lugosch L (2020) A contemplation of logsumexp. Accessed March 28, 2025, https://lorenlugosch.github.io/posts/2020/06/logsumexp/.Google Scholar
• Manski CF (1977) The structure of random utility models. Theory Decision 8(3):229–254.Crossref, Google Scholar
• March JG (1962) The business firm as a political coalition. J. Politics 24(4):662–678.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Marchand A (2014) Joint consumption challenges in groups. J. Consumer Marketing 31(6/7):483–493.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Marschak J, Radner R (1972) Economic Theory of Teams (Yale University Press, New Haven, CT).Google Scholar
• McFadden D (1974) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Zarembka P, ed. Frontiers in Econometrics, chapter 4 (Academic Press, New York), 105–142.Google Scholar
• Menasco MB, Curry DJ (1989) Utility and choice: An empirical study of wife/husband decision making. J. Consumer Res. 16(1):87–97.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Meyer-Doyle P, Lee S, Helfat CE (2019) Disentangling the microfoundations of acquisition behavior and performance. Strategic Management J. 40(11):1733–1756.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mithani MA, O’Brien JP (2020) So what exactly is a ‘coalition’ within an organization? A review and organizing framework. J. Management 47(1):171–206.Google Scholar
• Nag R, Hambrick DC, Chen MJ (2007) What is strategic management, really? Inductive derivation of a consensus definition of the field. Strategic Management J. 28(9):935–955.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Obloj T, Sengul M (2020) What do multiple objectives really mean for performance? Empirical evidence from the French manufacturing sector. Strategic Management J. 41(13):2518–2547.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Piezunka H, Schilke O (2023) The dual function of organizational structure: Aggregating and shaping individuals’ votes. Organ. Sci. 34(5):1914–1937.Link, Google Scholar
• Piezunka H, Aggarwal VA, Posen HE (2022) The aggregation–Learning trade-off. Organ. Sci. 33(3):1094–1115.Link, Google Scholar
• Porter ME (1985) Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance (Free Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Rothschild M, Stiglitz J (1976) Equilibrium in competitive insurance markets: An essay on the economics of imperfect information. Quart J. Econom. 90(4):629–649.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
• Sah RK, Stiglitz JE (1988) Committees, hierarchies and polyarchies. Econom. J. 98(391):451–470.Google Scholar
• Soll JB, Larrick RP (2009) Strategies for revising judgment: How (and how well) people use others’ opinions. J. Experiment. Psych. Learn. Memory Cognition 35(3):780–805.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thurstone LL (1927) A law of comparative judgment. Psychol. Rev. 34(4):273–286.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tirole J (1988) The Theory of Industrial Organization (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Tuschke A, Sanders WMG, Hernandez E (2013) Whose experience matters in the boardroom? The effects of experiential and vicarious learning on emerging market entry. Strategic Management J. 35(3):398–418.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Williamson OE (1975) Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications (Free Press, New York). Google Scholar
• Wright P, Kroll M, Krug JA, Pettus M (2007) Influences of top management team incentives on firm risk taking. Strategic Management J. 28(1):81–89.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zhang CM, Greve HR (2019) Dominant coalitions directing acquisitions: Different decision makers, different decisions. Acad. Management J. 62(1):44–65.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zhu DH, Chen G (2015) Narcissism, director selection, and risk-taking spending: Narcissism, director selection, and risk-taking spending. Strategic Management J. 36(13):2075–2098.Crossref, Google Scholar