DEVIL'S ADVOCACY IN MANAGERIAL DECISION-MAKING

There is some debate about the potential value of using devil's advocates in top-level organizational decision-making. In this paper, the contrasting views on this question are summarized briefly and the field and laboratory research on the devil's advocate and related techniques is discussed. This research is then used as the basis for detailed suggestions on the effective use of devil's advocates in improving managerial decisions.     

LINKING COGNITIVE, ORGANIZATIONAL AND POLITICAL FACTORS IN EXPLAINING STRATEGIC CHANGE

Much recent research on strategic decision-making and strategic change from many different perspectives challenges the view that decision outcomes are the product of rational choice. Allison's (1971) classification scheme is used to categorize recent strategic decision research within three different perspectives. Discussions of research on cognitive, organizational and political perspectives are followed by an integrative discussion showing how these three perspectives can be combined to deal with the full complexity of strategic decisions and the strategic change process.     

The performance edge: Strategic and value dissensus

The study discussed in this article deals with the effects of strategic and value consensus on the performance of management teams in operating units at a large multinational company. The results showed that diversity of views on objectives, competitive methods, and values are positively related to objective measures of performance but negatively related to manager's own perceptions of their operating units' performance. This suggests that diversity of views may allow managerial employees to fulfill their responsibilities more effectively by improving their units' performance. Possible explanations for these results are discussed in the concluding section of this article.     

Self-serving attributions,managerial cognition,and company performance

Past research using managers' attributions for good and poor performance in annual reports has repeatedly demonstrated that management takes credit for good outcomes. However, there is disagreement about whether this pattern of attributions reflects attempts to manage impressions in stakeholders or biased perceptions on the part of management, and whether it is associated with increases or decreases in future performance. In this study, attributions in letters to shareholders in the annual reports of public utilities were analyzed. The results showed the same general pattern of attributions as was found in previous studies. However, the relationship between this pattern of attributions and performance (earnings per share growth) was generally negative. Implications of these results for future research are discussed.     

THE EFFECTS OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ON STRATEGIC DECISION MAKING

Information technology (IT) may be defined as computer-based technology for the storage, accessing, processing and communication of information. Many writers have suggested that the use of IT should improve strategic decisions and have developed a number of propositions about the effects of IT on strategic decision making. However, no study has yet addressed the specific effects of IT on major phases of this process. Using Mintzberg, Raisinghani and Theoret's (1976, ‘The structure of unstructured decision processes’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 2, 246–75) strategic decision-making model, this study assessed the effects of IT on the major phases of the process through an intensive examination of eight decisions in four companies. the results of the study provide new information on the specific ways IT improves decision-making efficiency and effectiveness at each stage of the strategic decision process.     

A meta-analysis on the comparative effectiveness of devil's advocacy and dialectical inquiry

The use of meta-analysis allows us to draw stronger inferences from past research than are possible from traditional literature. In this paper the general purpose of meta-analysis is discussed, and it is used to resolve a dispute regarding a collection of studies in strategic management dealing with devil's advocacy and dialectical inquiry. The use of meta-analysis leads to different conclusions from those drawn in an earlier review of these studies. At the end of the paper the limitations and potential uses of meta-analysis in strategic management are discussed.     

THE COGNITIVE PERSPECTIVE ON STRATEGIC DECISION MAKING

Strategic management researchers are showing increased interest in the cognitions of strategic decision-makers. In this article, the importance of strategic cognitions is discussed and research on a number of major topics within the cognitive perspective is summarized. the paper concludes with an integrative model of cognitions in strategic decision making. This model provides the basis for questions for future research.     

Why sacrifice rigour for relevance? A proposal for combining laboratory and field research in strategic management

Two of the most common objections to laboratory research in strategic management are presented and critically evaluated. Commonly accepted normative models of the research process in strategic management are based on the assumption that field research is appropriate in an emerging field and that laboratory research is only appropriate after sufficient field research has been done. The alternative normative model for research in strategic management presented in this paper involves the simultaneous use of laboratory and field methodologies.     

The Case for 'Weaker' Leadership

This article argues that the pendulum in the debate on leadership has now swung too far in the direction of the "tyranny of opinion" and that this has increased the chances of wrong decisions being taken. But if this is so, what are the practical means by which diversity and conflict can be channelled into the decision-making process. After discussing a wide range of research, the author describes his own preferred technique of formally using a devil's advocate to test proposals for change – but without setting out alternative proposals.