364-1013-00L Managerial Cognition
|Semester||Autumn Semester 2017|
|Lecturers||D. Laureiro Martinez, S. Brusoni|
|Periodicity||yearly recurring course|
|Language of instruction||English|
|Abstract||The primary objective of this module is to introduce some of the major theoretical threads and controversies in the field of managerial cognition. A secondary objective is to help|
understand the process of empirical research that has the potential to make an impact on research and management practice.
|Objective||The module will seek to provide:|
1) Exposure to key theoretical streams in the area.
2) Familiarity with the issues, methods, findings and gaps in the area.
3) Skills in finding insight in the literature.
4) Skills in critiquing the literature, defining research problems and proposing empirical
research in this area.
|Content||Session 1 - Introduction to the field of managerial cognition|
Session 2 - Methods to study managerial cognition
Session 3 - Sensemaking, Mindfulness and Attention
|Literature||Session 1: Introduction|
1. March, James G., and Herbert Simon. 1958. Organizations. McGraw-Hill, Ch. 6, Cognitive Limits on Rationality. [CONSTANTIN, SONJA &GEORG]
Short: Cyert, Richard and James G. March. 1963. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Prentice-Hall, Ch. 6: A Summary of Basic Concepts, pp. 114-127. [CONSTANTIN, SONJA &GEORG]
2. Walsh, J. P. 1995. Managerial and organizational cognition: Notes from a trip down memory lane. Organization Science, 6 (3): 280-322. [MAREIKE, DENIS & DOMINIC]
3. Gerard P. Hodgkinson and Mark P. Healey. 2008. Cognition in Organizations Annual Review of Psychology Vol. 59 : 387-417 [BARBARA, GENG & FELIX]
4. Maier, G. W., Prange, C., & Von Rosenstiel, L. 2001. Psychological perspectives of organizational learning. In M. Dierkes, S. B. Antal, J. Child, & I. Nonaka (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge: 14-34. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press. [JAN & ECATERINA& ANASTASSJIA]
5. Neale, M. A., Tenbrunsel, A. E., Galvin, T., & Bazerman, M. H. 2006. A decision perspective on organizations: social cognition, behavioral decision theory and the psychological links to micro- and macro-organizational behavior. In S. R. Clegg & C. Hardy & T. B. Lawrence & W. R. Nord (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Organization Studies, 2nd ed.: 485-519. London: Sage Publications. [ANNEGRET, AMULYA, TOBIAS]
Session 2: Some methods to study managerial cognition
1. Porac, J. F. Thomas, H., Wilson, F., Paton, D., & Kanfer, A. 1995. Rivalry and the Industry Model of Scottish Knitwear Producers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 203-227. [BARBARA, GENG & FELIX]
2. Gioia, D. A. and K. Chittipeddi. 1991. Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation, Strategic Management Journal, 12. [ANNEGRET, AMULYA, TOBIAS]
3. Amabile, T. M., Barsade, S. G., & Mueller, J.S. 2005. Affect and Creativity at Work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3): 367-403. [MAREIKE, DENIS & DOMINIC]
6. Busenitz, L.W., Barney, J.W., 1997. Differences between entrepreneurs and managers in large organizations: biases and heuristics in strategic decision-making. Journal of Business Venturing 12 (6), 9-30. [JAN & ECATERINA& ANASTASSJIA]
4. Weick, K. E. & Roberts, K. H. 1993. Collective Mind in Organizations: Heedful Interrelating on Flight Decks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38: 357-381. [CONSTANTIN, SONJA &GEORG]
Session 3: Sensemaking, Mindfulness and Attention
1. Daft & Weick. 1984. Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems. Academy of Management Review, 9, 284-295. [MAREIKE, DENIS & DOMINIC]
2. Thomas, J. B., Clark, S. M., & Gioia, D. A. 1993. Strategic Sensemaking and Organizational Performance: Linkages among Scanning, Interpretation, Action and Outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 36: 239-270. [CONSTANTIN, SONJA &GEORG]
3. Weick, K. E., K. M. Sutcliffe and D. Obstfeld. 2005. Organizing and the process of sensemaking, Organization Science, 16 (4). [ANNEGRET, AMULYA, TOBIAS]
Weick & Sutcliffe. 2006. Mindfulness and the Quality of Organizational Attention. Organization Science July/August 17:514-524 [Suggested but not required. Daniella will discuss it.]
4. Ocasio, W. 1997. Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 18 summer: 187-206. [JAN & ECATERINA& ANASTASSJIA]
5. Hoffman, A. J. & Ocasio, W. 2001. Not all events are attended equally: Toward a middle-range theory of industry attention of external events. Organization Science, 12 (4): 414-434. [BARBARA, GENG & FELIX]
Gavetti, G., D. Levinthal, and W. Ocasio. 2007. Neo-Carnegie: The Carnegie School's Past, Present, and Reconstructing for the Future. Organization Science 18:523-36. [Suggested but not required. Daniella will discuss it.]
|Prerequisites / Notice||The module consists only of three (3) sessions. Active participation during each full session is critical for achieving the course objectives.|
Attendance is therefore compulsory and there are no exceptions. If you can not join on one of the dates, please refrain from enrolling the course.
Assignments: At the beginning of each session, students must distribute copies of their critique of the assigned reading (please see your names at the end of each reference). The critique should be brief, extending to a maximum of one printed page. The critique is meant to serve as a starting point for the student to lead the class in a discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the paper. For each session, students should emphasize the following topics in their critique:
summarize the research problem or question
summarize the central framework/ theory that is proposed
list the strengths of the paper (you can use bulletpoints)
list the weaknesses of the paper (you can use bulletpoints)
Same as for session 1 with particular emphasis on the pros and cons of the method used
Propose at least one alternative methodology and explain why you think the alternative method(s)would have been better suited
three bullet points summarizing the paper strengths
three bullet points summarizing the paper weaknesses
prepare a one-page research idea: what would be a new research question? how would you extend the paper? what could be counterintuitive results?