Environmental Context, Managerial Cognition, and Strategic Action: An Integrated View

By Sucheta Nadkarni, Pamela S. Barr. 2008

709 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Management Science and Operations Research, Safety Research, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0a4d859cb2a4ab9c8684b0ba6aa0dd086d8081ac

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Management Science and Operations Research

In Safety Research

In Strategy and Management

Citations in the corpus

Attention allocation to multiple goals: The case of for‐profit social enterprises (2015, background): “…have examined how characteristics of the industry such as the level of uncertainty (Daft, Sormunen, and Parks, 1988), turbulence (Angriawan and Abebe, 2011), and velocity (Nadkarni and Barr, 2008) as well as changes in institutional logics (Thornton and Ocasio, 1999) affect the focus of attention.”
Motivation and Ability? A Behavioral Perspective on the Pursuit of Radical Invention in Multi-Technology Incumbents (2017, neutral): “…in adapting to radical inventions by others, such as complementary assets (Rothaermel, 2001; Rothaermel & Hill, 2005; Sosa, 2009, 2011; Taylor & Helfat, 2009; Tripsas, 1997), cognition (Eggers & Kaplan, 2009; Kaplan, 2008; Nadkarni & Barr, 2008), and external stakeholders (Benner, 2007, 2010).”
Dynamic Managerial Capabilities (2015, background): “In addition, Nadkarni and Barr (2008) found in four industries that managerial beliefs regarding the cause-effect relationship between the environment and firm strategy (termed “causal logics”) completely mediated the relationship between industry velocity and speed of firm response to shifts in the”
Managerial Risk Taking (2016, neutral): “…popular approach to measuring team cognition, many studies have more directly captured this variable by examining the role of TMTs’ shared mental models in risk taking (e.g., Barr, 1998; Barr, Stimpert, & Huff, 1992; Kaplan, Murray, & Henderson, 2003; Milliken & Lant, 1991; Nadkarni & Barr, 2008).”
Attention to Attention (2011, background): “Nigam and Ocasio (2010) examine how attentional engagement (at the level of the organizational field) generates sensemaking activities.”
The Behavioral Theory of the Firm: Assessment and Prospects (2012, background): “Overall research has found that executive attention, as reflected in letters to shareholders, affects multiple outcome variables including technological responsiveness to competitors (Eggers & Kaplan, 2009 ), technological innovations (Kaplan, 2008 ), and speed of response to sector and task chang”
Proactive R&D management and firm growth: A punctuated equilibrium model (2011, background): “y newer, superior forms (Williams, 1994; Fines, 1998; Eisenhardt nd Martin, 2000; Nadkarni and Barr, 2008).”
Paying Attention to Mindfulness and Its Effects on Task Performance in the Workplace (2011, background): “Dynamic environments abound in high-velocity industries—those that involve intense competition and rapid change (Bourgeois & Eisenhardt, 1988; Nadkarni & Barr, 2008)—and they often exist where individuals interact or compete in an interdependent manner.”
Leaders' sensemaking under crises: Emerging cognitive consensus over time within management teams (2015, methodology): “This research agenda did not allow us to use documentary evidencewhich has been used as a longitudinal data source in some prior studies (e.g. Barr et al., 1992; Nadkarni & Barr, 2008; Nadkarni & Narayanan, 2007).”
A Multidimensional Conceptualization of Environmental Velocity (2010, background): “More generally, research on velocity has shown that it affects how managers interpret their environments (Nadkarni & Barr, 2008; Nadkarni & Narayanan, 2007a), further highlighting the effects of environmental dynamism on key organizational members (Dess & Beard, 1984).”
Cognition and Capabilities: A Multi-Level Perspective (2013, background): “The insight here was that these interpretations did not lead to a shift in resource deployment until the environmental shift was seen to have a meaningful impact on performance (see also Nadkarni & Barr, 2008).”