Angela Greco, Thomas Long and Gjalt de Jong
The aim of this research is to investigate the relationship between (dual) organizational identity and individual heuristics – simple rules and biases – in the process of strategy…
Abstract
Purpose
The aim of this research is to investigate the relationship between (dual) organizational identity and individual heuristics – simple rules and biases – in the process of strategy change. This paper offers a theory on identity reflexivity as a cognitive mechanism of strategy change in the context of organizational hybridity.
Design/methodology/approach
The authors draw on a 2-year ethnographic study at a Dutch social housing association dealing with the process of strategy change. The empirical data comprises of in-depth semi-structured interviews, ethnographic observations as well as secondary sources.
Findings
Conflicting identities at the organizational level influence heuristics at the individual level, since members tend to identify with their department's identity. Despite conflicting interpretations, paths of cognitive shortcuts – that the authors define as internal and external identity reflexivity – are shared by the conflicting identities.
Research limitations/implications
The findings of this research are subject to limitations typical of a qualitative case-study, such as possibly being context dependent. The authors argue that this research contributes to the understanding of how individual heuristics relate to organizational heuristics, and suggest that the process of identity reflexivity can contribute to the alignment of conflicting identities enabling strategy formation in the context of a dual-identity organization.
Practical implications
Understanding how managers with conflicting identities achieve agreements is important to help organizational leaders to pursue sustainability-oriented strategy change.
Social implications
Given the pressure experienced by mission-driven organizations to integrate multiple sustainability demands in their mission, understanding managers' decision-making mechanism when adapting to new, often conflicting, sustainability demands is important to accelerate societal sustainability transitions.
Originality/value
This paper addresses the process of new strategy design in the context of a socially driven business. This context fundamentally differs from the one addressed by the existing heuristics literature with respect to organizational environment and role, and specific competing demands.
Details
Keywords
– The purpose of this study is to analyse whether, and if so, how, personal background and intellectual assets determine individual cooperation.
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to analyse whether, and if so, how, personal background and intellectual assets determine individual cooperation.
Design/methodology/approach
The purpose of this paper is to analyse whether, and if so, how, social and human capital determine cooperation.
Findings
The empirical results show that variations in human and social capital offer a substantial explanation for the likelihood of cooperative behaviour in people involved in social dilemma situations.
Research limitations/implications
Testing the model in an international setting with non-student subjects (managers, policymakers) would allow us to explore the consequences of cross-national differences in various forms of capital.
Practical implications
Successful implementation of strategic change requires leaders who are able to effectively communicate and motivate employees. The study highlights what factors makes some leaders more cooperative and, hence, potentially more successful in supervising corporate change than others.
Social implications
For sustainable growth, countries need leaders who are willing and able to collaborate not only with other international leaders but also within their public administration. This paper offers explanations why some political leaders more than others are able to successfully collaborate with their political opponents.
Originality/value
The added value of mainstream economics to understand key elements of international business is limited due to their stringent behavioural assumptions. The research is original in that it shows that individuals make decisions not like rational machines but like real human beings.