Comparing Aspiration Models: The Role of Selective Attention

Washburn, Mark; Bromiley, Philip

doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2011.01033.x

Cited by 110 publications

(64 citation statements)

References 42 publications

(78 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Mezias et al (2002) used branch bank budget targets. Washburn and Bromiley (2012) use internal targets from an auto manufacturer to compare alternative aspiration models, but the implications of their results for aggregate studies on archival data are unclear. While these papers make important contributions, an explicit comparison of different aspiration models employing the kind of historical data most studies use is long overdue.…”

Section: Randd Spendingmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of alternative measures of organizational aspirations

Bromiley

Harris

2014

Strategic Management Journal

Self Cite

211

155

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on organizational aspirations has used various representations of firm-level aspirations and based those representations on various performance measures. To advance our understanding of the measurement of aspirations, we empirically compare three different aspiration models defined using six different performance measures to explain three different firm outcomes (financial misrepresentation, R&D spending, and income-stream uncertainty INTRODUCTIONHow do managers evaluate their own firm's performance? Some theoretical paradigms, such as the behavioral theory of the firm (or BTOF;Cyert and March [1963] 1992) tackle this question explicitly. Other approaches largely ignore how managers assess success, implicitly assuming they use either accounting or capital market performance measures. Yet, paradigms that attempt to explain strategic behavior must make some assumptions about how managers evaluate firm performance; even profit-maximizing models implicitly assume firms know their profits and understand how it compares to optimal profits. The BTOF argues that managers compare expected firm performance to aspiration levels that depend on prior aspirations, prior performance, and the performance of comparable firms. A large literature demonstrates that performance relative to aspirations (or "attainment discrepancy") influences risk taking (Bromiley, 1991;Fiegenbaum, 1990;March and Shapira, 1987;Miller and Chen, 2004;Miller and Leiblein, 1996;Singh, 1986). Attainment discrepancy also influences research and development (R&D) spending (Antonelli, 1989;Bromiley and Washburn, 2011;Chen and Miller, 2007;Palmer and Wiseman, 1999), capital structure (Miller and Bromiley, 1990), actual and intended firm growth (Greve, 2008;Wicklund and Shepherd, 2003), large-scale organizational change (Greve, 1998) (Iyer and Miller, 2008), and organizational misconduct (Harris and Bromiley, 2007).Despite abundant research using attainment discrepancy to explain firm behavior, differences in measuring aspirations demonstrate an insufficient level of theoretical and empirical understanding of organizational aspirations leading to two major problems. First, aspirations studies adopt one of several functional forms for aspirations without discussing the theoretical assumptions or methodological merits of the alternative forms. Second, most studies examining organizational aspirations measure performance using one measure without considering other performance measures. To address these problems, we compare functional forms for aspirations measures defined using a number of different performance measures.The issue we address, comparing a set of measures, differs from the standard measurement issue of validating or assessing the reliability of a single measure. The many extant studies employing one of these three measures collectively demonstrate nomological validity but do not resolve the problem of having several competing measures for the same construct, especially when each measure embodies a slightly different theoretical nuance about...

show abstract

Section: Randd Spendingmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of alternative measures of organizational aspirations

Bromiley

Harris

2014

Strategic Management Journal

Self Cite

211

155

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…By differentiating between the intentions of employing climate change targets, we shed new light on the efficacy and limitations of non-financial target setting and the circumstances in which they are most likely to improve performance. Thus, we extend the very limited body of research on targets, which has long been constrained because prior research has seldom been able to directly observe outcomes of target-setting processes, instead drawing from patterns in prior organizational performance to make inferences regarding levels of, and likely changes to, firms' organizational aspirations (Bromiley and Harris 2014;Washburn and Bromiley 2012). We extend theory on target setting and begin to grow empirical research on the efficacy of climate change targets by critiquing their use in circumstances where firms seek to gain purely symbolic benefits, and provide evidence of the impacts of targets on environmental performance (Hahn et al 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing Carbon Aspirations: The Influence of Corporate Climate Change Targets on Environmental Performance

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some studies provide evidence to support the concept of risk taking through R&D spending in the presence of an attainment discrepancy (Antonelli, 1989;Chen & Miller, 2007;Greve, 1998). Others argue that firms respond instead through cost adjustment rather than more risky options (Washburn & Bromiley, 2012).…”

Section: Aspirationsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…When firms fall below their aspirations, more risk taking occurs (Bromiley, 1991;Lant & Montgomery, 1987;Miller & Chen, 2004;Washburn & Bromiley, 2012;Wiseman & Bromiley, 1996), and innovation search and R&D spending are examples of this risk taking. Some studies provide evidence to support the concept of risk taking through R&D spending in the presence of an attainment discrepancy (Antonelli, 1989;Chen & Miller, 2007;Greve, 1998).…”

Section: Aspirationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

UK evidence for the determinants of R&D intensity from a panel fsQCA

Guedes

Gonçalves

Soares

et al. 2016

Journal of Business Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigates whether configurations of situational determinants impact R&D intensity. Using a qualitative comparative analysis (QCA), the study assesses the consistency and coverage, both cross-sectionally and over time, of these configurations. The global solution presents four alternative combinations conducive to R&D intensity and concludes that situational determinants matter. The way managers use their aspirations, the proximity of bankruptcy, and the availability of slack affects the propensity to engage in R&D. Further, the results show that firms are not all alike and highlight the differences in how these determinants combine to impact R&D intensity.

show abstract

Comparing Aspiration Models: The Role of Selective Attention

Cited by 110 publications

References 42 publications

A comparison of alternative measures of organizational aspirations

A comparison of alternative measures of organizational aspirations

Managing Carbon Aspirations: The Influence of Corporate Climate Change Targets on Environmental Performance

UK evidence for the determinants of R&D intensity from a panel fsQCA

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About