Group Approaches for Improving Strategic Decision Making: A Comparative Analysis of Dialectical Inquiry, Devil's Advocacy, and Consensus.

Schweiger, David M.; Sandberg, William C.; Ragan, James W.

doi:10.2307/255859

Cited by 531 publications

(240 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

231

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…There is a general consensus that the growth in the field of SM study has reflected a tradition of theoretical pluralism (Bowman 1990) through the influence and learnings abut concepts and theories from other scientific fields (economics, psychology, political science, Table 3 continued 5 Day (1994) 17 Powell (1992) 89 Day and Nedungadi (1994) 99 Powell (1995) 95 Dean and Sharfman (1996) 7 Ring and Vandeven (1992) 67 Galunic and Rodan (1998) 59 Roberts and Dowling (2002) 33 Hall (1992) 94 Rugman and Verbeke (2001) 98 Hoskisson et al (1999) 84 Scherer and Palazzo (2007) 36 Lado and Wilson (1994) 73 Schweiger et al (1986) 91 Lavie (2006) 74 Schwenk (1984) 4 60 Shah and Ward (2003) 23 Mata et al (1995) 56 Smircich and Stubbart (1985) 28 Melville et al (2004) 25 Tsoukas (1996) 42 Subramaniam and Youndt (2005) 12 Waddock and Graves (1997) 43 Wade and Hulland (2004) 20 Walsh (1995) 41 Wright et al (2001) 39 Zaheer and Venkatraman (1995) 86 Zbaracki (1998) Scientometrics Scientometrics sociology and among others) and evolved in its concepts and approaches in accordance with changes in management styles and practices. Strategic field researchers provide a broad variety of alternative strategic models (Gluck et al 1980;Chaffee 1985;Bowman 1990;Porter 1996;McKinsey 2000).…”

Section: Research Findings and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A co-citation bibliometric analysis of strategic management research

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Strategic management remains a recent field of research that is dynamic and changing with the global business economy. Given the sheer importance of research on this field of business management, this paper aims to conduct a co-citation bibliometric analysis of strategic management research. We map the authors and the most relevant approaches as well as detailing the new theoretical perspectives to strategic management theory. The analysis conducted uses three multivariate statistical analysis techniques in addition to the co-citation matrix to shed light on these issues. By incorporating all the citations that are included in the Science Citation Index and the Social Science Citation Index, we analyze co-citation patterns of the strategic management field during the period 1971-2014 and identify six subfields (clusters) that constitute the intellectual structure and investigate their mutual relationships. The main findings of the factor analysis suggest that there is a clear division between strategic entrepreneurship and corporate entrepreneurship. In addition, the concept of strategic behavior affects most strategic management research as evidenced by the co-citation analysis. A debate of future directions on the strategic management literature is discussed, which highlights the importance of combining more of a strategic entrepreneurship perspective based on behavioral intentions to the emerging research.

show abstract

Section: Research Findings and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A co-citation bibliometric analysis of strategic management research

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Acrimony, however, attenuates consensus (Guth & MacMillan, 1986;Priem, 1990). Indeed, researchers have found that techniques that improve a decision's quality, such as dialectical inquiry and devil's advocacy, also seem to reduce understanding of and commitment to that decision (Schweiger et al, 1986;Schwenk, 1990). As a consequence, while the team may produce a highquality decision, the benefits of that decision are not likely to be realized because the acrimony will undermine the consensus needed for the decision's successful implementation.…”

Section: Strategic Decision Making and The Conundrum Of Conflictmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF EXETER At 01: 25 15 July 2015 (PT) produce higher quality strategic decisions than teams that do not (Schweiger et al, 1986.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Resolving the Paradox of Conflict, Strategic Decision Making, and Organizational Performance

Amason

Schweiger

1994

International Journal of Conflict Management

282

157

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.Strategic decision making influences organizational performance. However, close examination of this relationship reveals a subtle paradox. It appears that the products of strategic decision making, all of which are necessary for enhanced organizational performance, do not peacefully coexist. Conflict seems to be the crux of this conundrum. As such, a better understanding of conflict's effects on strategic decision making is needed This paper integrates a multidimensional conceptualization of conflict Into a model of strategic decision making and organizational performance and develops propositions to guide empirical study of the effects of conflict on strategic decision making.

show abstract

“…In this respect, the principle of informed consent stimulates the kind of team spirit and mutual respect that has proved to be very effective in industrial and corporate settings (Romme & Barrett, 2010;Schweiger, Sandberg, & Ragan, 1986) and, as such, tends to emerge rather spontaneously in many taskoriented groups and teams (Johnson & Johnson, 1989). In the practice of democratic governance, however, majority rule tends to promote the formation of coalitions and majority-minority ploys and, as such, undermines the natural tendency toward consent-based collaboration.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%