A cognitive organization theory (COT) of organizational change

Abstract

Purpose In this paper, the authors develop a cognitive organization theory (COT) of organizational change. COT was developed in the 2000s, by taking insights from cognitive psychology and anthropology to rebuild the foundation of organizational ecology (OE), grounding macro processes of organizational legitimation, inertia and mortality in micro processes of appeal and engagement. COT also explored the micro-level process of organizational change, arguing that four features (i.e. asperity, intricacy, opacity, and viscosity) of an organization's texture impact the appeal of organizational change. However, to data, empirical studies of a COT of organizational change are absent. An important reason is that many of the new COT constructs are not linked to empirical measures. The purpose of this paper is to develop reliable and valid survey measures of COT's key constructs. Design/methodology/approach The authors follow a three-step procedure to develop reliable and valid survey measures of COT's key constructs. First, the authors construct survey measures by using existing organizational behavior (OB) scales and develop new scales in consultation with COT experts. Second, the authors apply factor analysis to evaluate convergent and discriminant validity and use Cronbach's α to determine the reliability of the scales. Third, the authors estimate a structural equation model to determine external validity, by exploring whether the measures have the effect hypothesized in COT. Findings The authors find that existing OB scales can be used to proxy for COT's key constructs of appeal and engagement. The authors also find that two organizational texture variables (i.e., asperity and opacity) are significantly associated with the appeal of organizational change, further confirming the validity of applying a COT to organization change. The results are promising, proving evidence as to the criterion-related validity of the measures of COT constructs. From the total of 39 coefficients of COT-inspired independent and control variables, 22 are significant. Research limitations/implications The authors’ findings illustrate that micro OB and macro OE can be effectively combined in a COT of organizational change. However, the authors' contribution is only a first step, requiring further theoretical and methodological refinement. Theoretically, OB and OE can be integrated further, by linking together more concepts and constructs from the two streams of literature. Methodologically, the link between constructs and empirical measures can be refined, by adding extra scales and items, and collecting more data to validate them. Originality/value In this paper, the authors develop a COT of organizational change and link its central constructs to empirical measures, by connecting them to existing OB constructs and developing new scales and items. This opens the door to empirical studies on a COT of organizational change, hereby providing a stepping-stone for further integration of micro OB and macro OE.

Organizational Ecology Theory: Review Past for Directing the Future Development

“…With the benefit of hindsight, Amburgey and Rao (1996) argued that the increased emphasis on theoretical development was a necessary consequence of the shift from a purely ecological perspective toward an emphasis on evolution. While OET hence became the dominant theoretical perspective for exploring the relationships between organizations and the environment, in its early years, the stereotypical argument made by some strategists was that OET denies strategic choice by managers and does not admit the possibility of organizational change (Oord et al, 2017); therefore, ecological thinking is fundamentally incompatible with strategy (Singh 2006). However, even when such criticism was at its height, an extant minority opinion suggested the inherent complementarity of strategy and ecology and called for an integration of those research agendas (Singh 2006).…”

“…In 2007, Hannan, Pólos and Carroll (2007) published their landmark formal work on OET. Following that publication, OET shifted away from its original reliance on ecology toward sourcing ideas from the social sciences, particularly anthropology, sociology and psychology (Xu et al 2021), and then took a cognitive turn, emphasizing subtle microlevel processes emerging within organizations and their populations, taking insights from cognitive psychology and anthropology to reconstruct the foundation or core of OET, and grounding macro-level processes of organizational legitimation, inertia and mortality in micro-level processes of appeal and engagement (Oord et al 2017).…”