Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-fqc5m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T17:33:45.611Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

7 - Attention and control

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

Franz Wohlgezogen
Affiliation:
Northwestern University
Sim B. Sitkin
Affiliation:
Duke University, North Carolina
Laura B. Cardinal
Affiliation:
University of Houston
Katinka M. Bijlsma-Frankema
Affiliation:
Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
Get access

Summary

Many an exasperated parent, trying to get a fidgety child to listen and follow instructions, has utilized the phrase “pay attention” with a big exclamation mark at the end. Coaches, teachers, and mentors, willing their hopefuls to realize their full potential and to forsake distractions and temptations (and to make their guardians proud), implore them to “focus, focus, focus …” Attempts to influence and control others' behavior work through attention. If individuals' attention is not directed at what needs to be done, chances are very low that it will ever get done.

What is true for the interpersonal context holds true for the organizational context: the structuring and management of attention is central to control processes in organizations. An organization must succeed at directing members' minds or it never will manage to direct their actions. Many definitions of organizational control implicitly or explicitly stress the role of cognitive processes and especially attention.

For example, control has been characterized as “measurement and control systems [which] focus attention and cause persons in the organization to orient their efforts to succeeding on the measured dimension” (Pfeffer,1982: 131); and have more recently been defined as “any mechanism that managers use to direct attention, motivate, and energize organizational members to act in desired ways to meet an organization's objectives” (Long et al., 2003).

Although it appears that it is true by definition that controls affect attention, it is important to examine in detail how different types of control affect attention in different ways.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allison, G. T. 1969. Conceptual models and the Cuban missile crisis. The American Political Science Review, 63 (3): 689–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arendt, H. 1965. Eichmann in Jerusalem: a report on the banality of evil (revised edn.). New York, NY: Viking Compass.Google Scholar
Bakan, J. 2004. The corporation: the pathological pursuit of profit and power. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
Barnett, M. L. 2003. Falling off the fence? A realistic appraisal of a real options approach to corporate strategy. Journal of Management Inquiry, 12 (2): 185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, M. L. 2005. Paying attention to real options. R&D Management, 35 (1): 61–72.Google Scholar
Browning, L. D. and Folger, R. 1994. Communication under conditions of communication risk: a grounded theory of plausible deniability in the Iran-contra affair. In Sitkin, S. B. and Bies, R. J. (eds.), The legalistic organization:251–280. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Cardinal, L. 2001. Technological innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: the use of organizational control in managing research and development. Organization Science, 12 (1): 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardinal, L. B., Sitkin, S. B., and Long, C. P. 2004. Balancing and rebalancing in the creation and evolution of organizational control. Organization Science, 15 (4): 411–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chakrabarti, A., Singh, K., and Mahmood, I. 2007. Diversification and performance: evidence from East Asian firms. Strategic Management Journal, 28 (2): 101–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cho, T. S. and Hambrick, D. C. 2006. Attention as the mediator between top management team characteristics and strategic change: the case of airline deregulation. Organization Science, 17 (4): 453–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., and Olsen, J. P. 1972. A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17 (1): 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cyert, R. M. and March, J. G. 1963. A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Deal, T. E. and Kennedy, A. A. 1982. Corporate culture. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
DiMaggio, P. 1997. Culture and cognition. Annual Review of Sociology, 23: 262–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durand, R. 2003. Predicting a firm's forecasting ability: the roles of organizational illusion of control and organizational attention. Strategic Management Journal, 24 (9): 821–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenhardt, K. M. 1985. Control: organizational and economic approaches. Management Science, 31 (2): 134–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, P. B. 1975. Multiple hierarchies and organizational control. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20 (2): 250–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiske, S. T. and Linville, P. W. 1980. What does the schema concept buy us?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6 (4): 543–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fligstein, N. 1990. Transformation of corporate control. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gioia, D. A. and Chittipeddi, K. 1991. Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12 (6): 433–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gittel, J. H. 2000. The paradox of coordination and control. California Management Review, 42 (3): 101–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hannerz, U. 1969. Soulside: inquiries into ghetto culture and community. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Hatch, M. J. 1997. Organization theory: modern, symbolic, and postmodern perspectives. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hung, S. C. 2005. The plurality of institutional embeddedness as a source of organizational attention differences. Journal of Business Research, 58 (11): 1,543–1,551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
John, G. and Weitz, B. 1989. Salesforce compensation: an empirical investigation of factors related to use of salary versus incentive compensation. Journal of Marketing Research, 26 (1): 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinchla, R. A. 1992. Attention. Annual Review of Psychology, 43 (1): 711–742.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kreps, G. L. 1986. Organizational communication – theory and practice. New York, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
Lewin, K. 1951. Field theory in social science. New York, NY: Harper.Google Scholar
Long, C. P., Burton, R. M., and Cardinal, L. B. 2003. Creating control configurations during organizational foundings. Academy of Management Best Conference Paper: 6.Google Scholar
Louis, M. R. 1983. Organizations as culture-bearing milieux. In Pondy, L. R., Frost, P., Morgan, G., and Dandridge, T. (eds.), Organizational symbolism:39–54. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Manning, P. K. 1977. Police work: the social organization of policing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
March, J. G. and Olsen, J. P. 1976. Ambiguity and choice in organizations. Bergen, Norway: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
March, J. G. and Simon, H. A. 1958. Organizations. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Mischel, W. 1977. The interaction of person and situation. In Magnusson, D. and Endler, N. S. (eds.), Personality at the crossroads: current issues in interactional psychology:333–352. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Moray, N. 1967. Where is attention limited? A survey and a model. Acta Psychologica, 27: 84–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ocasio, W. 1997. Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 18 (Summer Special Issue): 187–206.3.3.CO;2-B>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ocasio, W. and Joseph, J. 2006. Governance channels at General Electric: 1950–2001. In Burton, R. M., Eriksen, B., Haakonsson, D. D., and Snow, C. C. (eds.), Organizational design: the dynamics of adaptation and change. Boston, MA: Springer.Google Scholar
Ouchi, W. G. 1977. The relationship between organizational structure and organizational control. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22 (1): 95–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ouchi, W. G. 1978. The transmission of control through organizational hierarchy. Academy of Management Journal, 21 (2): 173–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ouchi, W. G. 1979. A conceptual framework for the design of organizational control mechanisms. Management Science, 25 (9): 833–848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parasurman, R. 1998. The attentive brain: issues and prospects. In Parasurman, R. (ed.), The attentive brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Parsons, T. 1937. The structure of social action. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Parsons, T. and Shils, E. A. 1951. Toward a general theory of action–theoretical foundations for the social sciences. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, T. J. and Waterman, R. H. 1984. In search of excellence. New York, NY: Warner Books.
Pfeffer, J. 1982. Organizations and organization theory. Boston, MA: Pitman.Google Scholar
Pfeffer, J. 1998. Understanding organizations: concepts and controversies. In Gilbert, D., Fiske, S., and Lindzey, G. (eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4th edn.), 2: 733–777. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Posner, M. I. and Rothbart, M. K. 2007. Research on attention networks as a model for the integration of psychological science. Annual Review of Psychology, 58: 1–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ridgeway, V. F. 1956. Dysfunctional consequences of performance measurement. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1: 240–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, L. and Nisbett, R. E. 1994. The person and the situation: perspectives of social psychology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Schein, E. 1983. The role of founder in organizational culture. Organizational Dynamics, 12: 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schreyogg, G. and Steinmann, H. 1987. Strategic control: a new perspective. Academy of Management Review, 12 (1): 91–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siehl, C. and Martin, J. 1981. Learning organizational culture. Graduate School of Business, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. 1957. Administrative behavior. New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Sitkin, S. B., Sutcliffe, K. M., and Barrios-Choplin, J. R. 1992. A dual-capacity model of communication media choice in organizations. Human Communication Research, 18: 563–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sitkin, S. B., Sutcliffe, K. M., and Schroeder, R. G. 1994. Distinguishing control room learning in total quality management: a contingency perspective. Academy of Management Review, 19: 537–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smircich, L. 1983. Concepts of culture and organizational analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28: 339–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smyth, R. C. 1968. Financial incentives for salesmen. Harvard Business Review, 46 (January/February): 109–117.Google Scholar
Sutcliffe, K. M. and McNamara, G. 2001. Controlling decision-making practice in organizations. Organization Science, 12 (4): 484–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutcliffe, K. M., Sitkin, S., and Browning, L. 1999. Tailoring process management to situational requirements. In Cole, R. and Scott, W. (eds.), The quality movement and organization theory:315–330. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Swets, J. A. and Kristofferson, A. B. 1970. Attention. Annual Review of Psychology, 21 (1): 339–366.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Swidler, A. 1986. Culture in action: symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review, 51: 273–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, J. D. 1967. Organizations in action–social science bases of administrative theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Thornton, P. H. and Ocasio, W. 1999. Institutional logics and the historical contingency of power in organizations: executive succession in the higher education publishing industry, 1958–1990. American Journal of Sociology, 105 (3): 801–843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maanen, J. 1975. Police socialization: a longitudinal examination of job attitudes in an urban police department. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20 (2): 207–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maanen, J. 1991. The smile factory: work at Disneyland. In Frost, P., Moore, L., Louis, M. R., Lundberg, C., and Martin, J. (eds.), Reframing organizational culture:58–76. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Weber, M. 1948 [1916]. The social psychology of world religions. In Gerth, H. H. and Mills, C. W. (eds.), From Max Weber: 267–301. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Weber, M. 1978 [1928]. Bureaucracy. In Roth, R. and Wittich, C. (eds.), Economy and society: 956–980. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Weick, K. E. and Roberts, K. H. 1993. Collective mind in organizations: heedful interrelating on flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38: 357–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, O. E. 1970. Corporate control and business behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Wirth, L. 1940. The urban society and civilization. American Journal of Sociology, 45 (5): 743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yadav, M. S., Prabhu, J. C., and Chandy, R. K. 2007. Managing the future: CEO attention and innovation outcomes. Journal of Marketing, 71 (4): 84–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yu, J., Engleman, R. M., and Ven, A. H. 2005. The integration journey: an attention-based view of the merger and acquisition integration process. Organization Studies, 26 (10): 1,501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×