Cognitive Underpinnings of Institutional Persistence and Change: A Framing Perspective

By Elizabeth George, Prithviraj Chattopadhyay, Sim B. Sitkin, Jeffrey Q. Barden. 2006

421 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Management Science and Operations Research, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e1b1d6c716e6a7c9f3d24771e468b7a04c9b7d13

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 Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Managerial Risk, Innovation, and Organizational Decline (2009, methodology): “Following previous studies on the decline–innovation link (Chattopadhyay et al., 2001; George et al., 2006; Mone et al., 1998), we adopt a contingency approach wherein the impact of organizational decline on firm innovation is not an either/or proposition but rather a relationship that varies…”
Prologue: Stability and change* (2011, methodology): “Successful examples of this include Elsbach’s (1994) use of impression management theory and George et al.’s (2006) use of prospect theory. Weber and Glynn (2006) and Powell and Colyvas (2008) point to the potential of the sensemaking perspective to inform institutional theory and vice versa, whilst”
Framing Controversial Actions: Regulatory Focus, Source Credibility, and Stock Market Reaction to Poison Pill Adoption (2014, methodology): “To develop our arguments, we have drawn on prior work in social psychology—particularly regulatory focus theory and the literature on source credibility—thus connecting to prior calls for a closer engagement with the micro-mechanisms underlying framing effects (e.g., George et al., 2006).”
Storm Clouds and Silver Linings: Responding to Disruptive Innovations Through Cognitive Resilience (2010, result): “Our findings also contrast with George et al. (2006) who focused on responses to potential gains and losses of resources as opposed to control.”
Difference in Degrees: CEO Characteristics and Firm Environmental Disclosure (2014, positive): “In this article, we argue that managerial characteristics influence how institutional pressures are perceived and interpreted (George et al., 2006).”
The role of institutional pressures and organizational culture in the firm's intention to adopt internet‐enabled supply chain management systems (2010, background): “Due to these uncertainties, managers have to deal with large amounts of ambiguous information related to eSCM adoption (George et al., 2006).”
Thinking About Entrepreneurial Decision Making (2015, neutral): “Environment as entrepreneurial decision context Bamford et al., 2000 Dahl & Sorenson, 2012 Dorado & Ventresca, 2013 George et al., 2006 Holt, 1997 Lévesque et al., 2009 Lévesque & Shepherd, 2004 Lim et al., 2010 Lu & Tao, 2010 Mullins, 1996 Van Auken et al., 2009 Van Horn & Harvey, 1998 Table 1…”