Page 1 of 18
ANZAM 2012
Towards A Metacognitive View of Strategic Choice
Zahra Sadeghinejad
Macquarie Graduate School of Management, Sydney, Australia
Email: [email protected]
Arash Najmaei
Macquarie Graduate School of Management, Sydney, Australia
Email: [email protected]
ANZAM 2012
Abstract
Building upon recent advancements on metacognition and following the works of Haynie and Shapherd
and colleagues (2009, 2010, 2012) this study proposes a metacognitive view of strategic choice. It posits
that executives’ metacognition in the form of their ability to control their cognitive components (i.e.
knowledge and experience) impacts to a great extent, their behavior including choice making and
accordingly offers valuable insights into the cognitive side of strategic choice making. The findings
provide significant implications for research in the strategic management which will be presented as the
final section of the research.
Keywords: Strategic Choice, Executives’ Cognition, Metacognitive Abilities
INTRODUCTION
Strategic management scholars have sought to explain why behavior of firms varies (Child, 1997;
Augier and Teece, 2008). Strategic choice perspective purports to offer insights into this inquiry. It
generally assumes that a firm’s behavior, to a great extent, is influenced by choices its executives make.
Over the past few decades since the influential works of Herbert Simon (1947, 1957) scholars have
increasingly paid attention to cognitive drivers of executives’ choice making. This stream of research
posits that executives’ cognition generally defined as their information processing, drives their choice
making behavior (Simon, 1952; Tversky and Kahneman, 1986). So, in order to decipher the heterogeneity
in firms’ behavior, the information processing of executives and in particular top management team has
been investigated by scholars (e.g. Hambrick and Mason, 1984). However, information processing is a
perplexing aspect of human behavior and management literature unveils numerous factors involved in this
phenomenon. For instance, executives’ knowledge and experience (Hambrick, 2007) and tendency to rely
on rationality or intuition (Taggart and Valenzi, 1990) have been argued to play significant roles in their
information processing.
Building on this strand, we argue that, strategic choice perspective can benefit, to a great extent, from
the concept of metacognition. Metacognition is briefly defined as one’s ability to think about thinking and
refers to the knowledge and control one has about one’s own cognition (e.g. Mitchell, Shepherd, and
Sharfman, 2011; Schwartz and Perfect, 2004). Although metacognition is a well-established concept in
Page 2 of 18
Page 3 of 18
ANZAM 2012
the education (e.g. Baker, 1989) and psychology fields (e.g. Batha and Carroll, 2007; Sanna and Schwarz,
2007), it had been until recently neglected in business and management literature. The recent studies of
Haynie and colleagues (Haynie and Shepherd, 2009; Haynie, Shepherd, and Earley, 2010; Haynie,
Shepherd, and Patzelt, 2012) introduced this concept to entrepreneurship literature. Given this nascent
stream of research, it is the intention of this study to expand the notion of metacognition into strategic
choice theory in order to provide a better understanding of metacognitive choices of executives. We
assume that this approach not only offers new insights into micro-drivers of executives’ choice making
but also advances strategy-as-practice perspective by explaining the importance of executives’
metacognitive training in their every-day’s practice of choice making.
Our discussion in this paper is organized into three parts. Part one explains strategic choice
perspective. It will be shown that strategic choice perspective is centered on managerial cognition (i.e.
strategic cognition) but metacognition appears to be an under-emphasized aspect. Therefore, in part two
the concept of metacognition will be discussed. By doing so, the strategic cognition literature is extended
to include metacognition. Subsequently, in the last part we attempt to position the proposed metacognitive
view of strategic choice making in the contemporary strategy literature. This section is then concluded by
illuminating some potential areas for future research.
STRATEGIC CHOICE PERSPECTIVE
It is axiomatic that, because of competition, executives have choices to make if their firm is to survive
(Foss, 2005). Choice and choice making refer to the process of selecting one option, an option is a course
of action that appears possible to take (Macmillan and Tampoe, 2001:133). Choices are made based on
judgment and analysis to select amongst various courses of action (Nutt, 2002). Judgment is perhaps the
main driver of choice. It can be defined as “individual’s understanding of relationships among objects”
(Priem, 1994:421). Judgment and analysis are closely related and help people to evaluate different causeeffect relationships (Nutt, 2002). For executives, these are choices that influence the operation and
performance of their firms (Hambrick and Mason, 1984; Priem, 1994).
ANZAM 2012
Amongst numerous choices that executives make, strategic choices are critically important for the
survival and competitiveness of the firm (Rumelt, 1997; Yoo, Reed, Shin, and Lemak, 2009). Strategic
choice can be defined as “process whereby power-holders within organizations decide upon courses of
strategic action which could be directed towards different targets” (Child, 1997:45).Choices are doomed
strategic (i.e. made upon a strategic action) if they pertain to the firm’s logic of business and operation
(i.e. choices of products, services), asset structure (i.e. management of resources), and choices of how a
firm positions itself in the market place (Foss, 2005; 25). Strategic choice perspective (Child, 1972)
basically explains the behavior of an organization towards adaption to the environment through actions
that its members and in particular, executives take (Judge and Zeithaml, 1992; Child, 1997). This view
further implies that managerial actions (i.e. choices of executives) create imperfections in markets which
result in opportunities and threats that underpin dynamism of markets (Foss, 2005). Put differently,
strategic choice perspective not only advocates both proactive and reactive behaviors of firms (Child,
1997) and evolution of markets (Foss, 2005) but also it is a fundamental view in both prescriptive and
descriptive aspects of strategy (Priem,1994).
According to Miles and Snow (1978) as cited in Judge and Zeithaml (1992) the strategic choice
perspective can be summarized by three assumptions. First, the strategic choices of executives are the
primary links between the firm and its environment. Second, this perspective focuses on executives’
ability to learn about, create and manage the environment and hence it emphasizes acting on free will.
Third, it assumes that there are different ways an organization responds to the environment. Thus,
although it is a non-environmental deterministic view of the firm which acknowledges the importance of
external environment in behavior of the firm (Judge and Zeithaml, 1992:770), it is premised upon actiondeterminism. That is, actions of executives determine survival and competitive performance of firms
(Child, 1997). Action-determinism implies that actions are selected (i.e. choices are made) according to
built-in preferences and information processing systems of actors (Whittington, 1988:524).
Page 4 of 18
Page 5 of 18
ANZAM 2012
It further draws attention to the mechanism used by actors (i.e. executives) in choosing what to do
(Child, 1997). More specifically, strategic choice perspective suggests that executives’ perceptual and
evolutional factors drive their choice making (Hitt and Tyler, 1991). That is, executives select and
interpret their environment, respond to fixed elements and attempt to shape the remaining elements to
their advantage (Hitt and Tyler, 1991). Kaplan (2011) contends that, a notion throughout this perspective
is that external environment is not purely exogenous but it influences the organization through the
cognition of executives. Firms act and adapt to the environment through the choices their executives make
based on their cognitive abilities. Put simply environment is enacted by the executives’ cognition
(Narayanan, Zane, and Kemmerer, 2011).
Following this notion, Hambrick and Mason (1984) expanded this view to the top management team
of the firm known as upper echelons (UE). Upper echelons perspective suggests that behavior of a firm is
the reflection of the behavior of its team of top managers. Particularly, it attempts to associate firm’s
outcomes with choices that top managers make. It further argues that these choices stem from their
cognition. In other words, actors (i.e. executives) have the discretion to act on their own free will
(Hambrick and Finkelstein, 1987; Judge and Zeithaml, 1992). Executives have freedom of action in
making and executing choices and this is influenced by their cognition (Yan, Chong, and Mak, 2010).
More precisely, their information processing styles and cognitive predispositions impact their choice of
specific courses of action (Nutt, 2002). Therefore, in order to understand the behavior of an organization
the cognitive drivers of the behavior of its executives must be investigated (Hambrick, 2007), specifically
their cognitive predispositions and information-processing styles (Narayanan et al. 2011). One conclusion
drown from this argument is that, executives’ information processing governs their choices which
determine success or failure of firms and also explain firm’s heterogeneity (Schoemaker, 1990;
Narayanan et al. 2011).
Strategic choice and cognitive perspectives are therefore closely related. The synthesis of cognition
and strategic choice is now regarded as behavioral view of strategy (Powell, Lovallo and Fox, 2011;
ANZAM 2012
Lovallo and Sibony, 2010). This view suggests that choice making is not based on a full, complete and
perfect information processing but instead executives have limited information processing which does not
allow them to maximize utility through full processing of information (Hitt and Tyler, 1991). Indeed, the
behavioral view incorporates the cognition of executives within the behavior of the firm through the lens
of their choices. It assumes that, an organization acts through the choices that its executives make on the
basis of their cognitive abilities (i.e. information-processing) to learn about and manage their
environment. This is especially an important perspective in today’s environment characterized by fast
changes and increasing uncertainty (Hitt, 2000; Bettis, and Hitt, 1995). Under these circumstances
executives are more likely to face tremendous challenges for processing information required for making
effective choices.
Therefore, it is reasonable to posit that cognitive performance of executives is a critically significant
factor in strategic choice making. More precisely, understanding of how managers control and regulate
their cognition appears to be a significant yet underemphasized aspect of strategic choice perspective. We
believe that, the concept of metacognition advances our knowledge about this issue. We hence narrow our
discussion towards the notion of metacognition and seek to discuss how it could explain cognitive
performance and regulation of executives.
Metacognition: Its Structure and Function
Metacognition is usually defined as one’s knowledge and experience about one’s own cognition
(Flavell, 1979). That is knowledge and experience about anything cognitive (Flavell, 1979). However, it
can be reasonably broadened to include anything psychological such as knowledge and experience about
emotions and motives (Flavell, 1987:22). More precisely, metacognition is a higher level heuristic applied
by individuals to process information about their environment (Kozhevnikov, 2007).The concept of
metacognition roots in the cognitive psychology of learning and education in 1970s (Flavell, 1976, 1979).
The essence of this stream of research is that, individuals can develop a cognitive mechanism in the form
of self-controlling and self-monitoring abilities over their cognitive functioning (i.e. information
Page 6 of 18
Page 7 of 18
ANZAM 2012
processing) (Kholodnaya, 2002). Metacognition is believed to influence numerous daily behaviors of
individuals (Schwartz and Perfect, 2004). Given its conscious and flexible functioning, metacognition
plays a key role in individuals’ adaptability. That is, it mediates the relationship between an individual
and his or her environment (Kozhevnikov, 2007:477). Since individuals have two primary cognitive
resources namely knowledge and experience which are used in their information processing,
metacognition has been divided to the self-controlling and self-monitoring of these two (Flavell, 1987).
Indeed, metacognition works through two processes namely monitoring and control (Flavell, 1979;
Schmidt and Ford, 2003).
Metacognitive monitoring refers to “those processes that allow the individual to observe, reflect on, or
experience his or her own cognitive processes” (Schwartz and Perfect, 2004:4). It can be reflected in the
expressions like ‘feeling-of-knowing judgments’, ‘east-of-learning judgment’, and ‘comprehension
judgment’ (Flavell, 1979).Whereas, metacognitive control refers to the “conscious and non-conscious
decisions that an individual makes based on the output of his or her monitoring processes (Schwartz and
Perfect, 2004:4). Control processes are revealed by the behaviors a person engages in as a function of
monitoring, for example if an individual feels that a particular issue has not been adequately
comprehended he or she keeps asking or continues studying it (Schwartz and Perfect, 2004).
Metacognitive control process is critical in learning, making effective judgments and knowledgesharing of individuals (Schmidt and Ford, 2003). As noted, metacognitive monitoring and control work in
tandem and enable an individual to regulate his or her information processing based on the requirements
of tasks at hand. This self-regulation manipulates use of knowledge and experience as two sources of
metacognition abilities (Schwartz and Perfect, 2004). Therefore, two aspects of cognition which are
monitored and controlled by metacognitive processes are knowledge and experience (Flavell 1979).
Metacognitive knowledge refers to the part of one’s acquired knowledge that has to do with cognitive
or perhaps other psychological matter (Flavell, 1987). It contains one’s total knowledge base that pertains
ANZAM 2012
to one’s cognitive area as a whole. This knowledge can be subdivided into three components: knowledge
of person variables, knowledge of tasks variables and knowledge of strategy variables (Flavell, 1987).
Knowledge of person variables refers to acquired knowledge and beliefs concerning that, human
beings are like as cognitive organism (affective, emotion, motivation, perceptual, etc). It is subcategorized
into intra-individual that represents components such as self-efficacy, and confidences in learning. Interindividual that is pertinent to the social interaction of individual and universal that covers general
knowledge (Flavell, 1987). Knowledge of task variables covers acquisition of knowledge about how the
nature of the information encountered affects and constrains how one should deal with it. Given this,
different kinds of tasks require different information-processing demands (Flavell, 1987).
Finally, knowledge of strategy variables is about how to achieve various goals. Cognitive strategies
must be distinguished from metacognitive strategies. A cognitive strategy is designed to achieve some
cognitive goals or sub-goals such as findings the sum of some numbers but the metacognitive strategy is
to add numbers one more time to be sure that sub is correct. Cognitive strategy is about making cognitive
progress and metacognitive strategy is about monitoring the cognitive process. It must be noted that
person, task and strategy metacognitive knowledge always interact (Flavell, 1987). In other words, it is
almost impossible to isolate one of these three knowledge domains from the other two.
Metacognitive experience is conscious experiences that are cognitive and affective (Flavell 1979).
What makes them metacognitive experience is what they have to do with some cognitive endeavor or
enterprise, most frequently a current ongoing one (Flavell, 1987). It can be any affective or cognitive
conscious experience that is pertinent to the conduct of intellectual life; often it is pertinent to the conduct
in an ongoing situation or enterprise. Thus it plays a very important role in everyday cognitive life
(Flavell, 1979). As one grows older one learns how to interpret and respond appropriately to these
experiences (Flavell, 1987).In other words, metacognitive knowledge and experience develop over time
and regulate use of heuristics in making choice (Melot, 1998; Flavell, 1976).
Page 8 of 18
Page 9 of 18
ANZAM 2012
Individuals may vary in their metacognitive abilities and those who are more metacognitively able are
more aware of their abilities and exhibit some advantages over others (Schraw and Dennison, 1994;
Flavell, 1976). This may include abilities such as: 1) recognizing that for any course of action there could
be multiple options, 2) engaging consciously in assessing these multiple options, and 3) responding
effectively to feedbacks form environment and incorporating them into option evaluation in order to
taking the proper course of actions (Haynie and Shepherd, 2009:696). These abilities are caused by a
higher order cognitive consciousness known as metacognitive awareness (Flavell, 1979). Metacognitive
awareness refers to the feeling and experience an individual has when he or she engages in cognitive
processes, such as retrieval (Schwartz and Perfect, 2004:5). A metacognitively aware individual can
consciously recognize different alternative options based on the goal of cognitive task and accordingly
engage in cognitive processes which maximize the likelihood of choosing the most appropriate option
(Ford, Smith, Weissbein, Gully, & Salas, 1998). This is specifically important for those cognitive tasks
which are characterized by uncertainty, newness and dynamism (Haynie and Shepherd, 2009) such as
strategic choice making.
Having noticed these explanations, we reason that metacognitive abilities of executives are significant
components of their strategic choice making process. More specifically, we suggest that executives with
more metacognitive abilities engage more actively in making effective strategic choices.
ARRIVING AT A METACOGNITIVE VIEW OF STRATEGIC CHOICE MAKING
In order to incorporate the concept of metacognition into strategic choice view, we first clarify its
position in the strategic cognition literature. More specifically, we delineate the conceptual place of
metacognition with respect to the ‘cognitive map’, ‘cognitive structure’, and ‘cognitive style’ concepts as
key aspects of strategic cognition literature. This approach is under taken because strategic choice, as
noted, is a cognitive task of executives (Child, 1997) and literature on cognitive aspects of executives has
blossomed over the past few decades and continues to grow (Narayanan et al. 2011; Kaplan,
ANZAM 2012
Page 10 of 18
2011).Therefore, it seems appropriate to illuminate conceptual relationships between different aspects of
this body of literature.
Following Narayanan et al. (2001) we define strategic cognition as “linkages between ‘cognitive
structures’ and decision processes in strategic management with respect to strategy formulation and
implementation” (page, 307). Strategic cognition is particularly relevant to the strategic choice
perspective. This is because strategic choice making is a central phenomenon in strategic decision process
and formulation and implementation of strategies (Narayanan et al. 2010). Further, cognitive structures of
executives refer to their beliefs about “environment, strategy, business portfolio, and the state of the
organization” (Narayanan et al. 2010). Strategic cognition perspective is premised upon this assumption
that executives use their belief structures in their choice making (Hambrick and Mason, 1984). This belief
structure forms a mental model, world view or strategic schema that enables managers to perceive the
business environment and understand causal links to make sense of their business (Kaplan, 2011). This
schema has been termed and used as cognitive map (Eden, 1992). It can be applied more effectively when
managers
develop a cognitive ability to
monitor and control their beliefs about issues such as
competition, customers, industry, their firms’ structures and assets, etc. (Hodgkinson, Maule, and Bown,
2004). Given that executives’ knowledge and experience are principal components of their beliefs (Child,
1997) and metacognition monitors and controls utilization of knowledge and experience, it can be argued
that metacognition is explicitly related to the cognitive structure of executives and can be considered as a
significant concept in the nomenclature of strategic cognition perspective.
Furthermore, strategic choice perspective pays a significant amount of attention to the notion of
executives’ cognitive style (Armstrong, Cools, and Sadler-Smith, 2011). That is, their consistent
differences in processing of information (Hayes and Allinson, 1994). In particular, executives have been
argued to show tendencies towards relying either on intuition or analysis when making a judgment
(Allinson and Hayes, 1996). The nature of these tendencies is heuristics (Armstrong et al. 2011). As noted
earlier, metacognition is a higher-order heuristic (Kozhevnikov, 2007). This implies that metacognitive
Page 11 of 18
ANZAM 2012
abilities of individuals allow them to control their heuristics which play an important role in their strategic
choice making.
Situating Metacognitive View of Strategic Choice in the Contemporary Strategy Literature
Although the aforementioned view is directly situated within strategic cognition main stream research,
we argue that it can be further situated in an over-lapping area amongst two strands of research in the
contemporary strategy literature namely micro-foundations of strategy and strategy-as-practice research.
Illuminating these domains would enhance future research and allow metacognition to be utilized by a
wider range of researchers and reach its full potential in the strategic management discipline.
First, metacognition is relevant to research on the micro-foundations of strategy. Micro-foundations in
strategy are increasingly garnering attention (Foss, 2011; Coff and Kryscynski, 2011). This domain
generally talks about activities of individuals and specifically executives as micro-level factors that
influence macro level behavior (i.e. firms, markets and industries) (Fellin and Foss, 2006). Microfoundational discussions particularly pertain to cognitive factors of behaviors (Foss, 2011). Metacognitive
view of strategic choice can impact research on the link between micro and micro levels by providing
new insights into the behavior of executives at micro-level and their consequences at the macro-level.
Second, there is a reason to believe that metacognitive view of strategic choice making is relevant to
the growing interest in the strategy-as-practice (S-as-P) perspective. S-as-P advocates the notion of
strategy as an emergent phenomenon and subscribes to investigation of the practice of strategizing
through behavior of its main actors (i.e. executives) (Johnson, Langley, Melin, and Whittington, 2007).
One of the central issues in S-as-P is cognitive drivers of managerial behavior (Floyd, Cornelissen,
Wright, and Delios, 2011). Consequently, understanding the role of executives’ metacognitive abilities
and processes in their strategizing practices is directly pertinent to the S-as-P research stream. Having
noticed the above discussion, the next section proposes a preliminary research agenda by narrowing
attention towards a number of research strands that can potentially benefit from the concept of
metacognition.
ANZAM 2012
Page 12 of 18
DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
We believe that unlike entrepreneurship and marketing, metacognition has received very little
attention in strategy literature. A glance at the recent review of cognitive and psychological aspects of
strategy (Narayanan et al.2011; Kaplan, 2011; Armstrong et al.2011) attest to this claim. So, it is assumed
that future research may benefit from the concept of metacognition. Accordingly, we narrow our focus on
four areas which we believe may benefit from the concept of metacognition simply because they are
directly related to the strategic choice perspective.
First, we suggest that metacognition is a fruitful subject for the study of top management team
cognition (Hambrick and Mason, 1984). Given the existing knowledge of top management team cognitive
dimensions, research from metacognition perspective can yield new insights into this strand of research.
Second, given the importance of metacognition in improving learning, controlling and regulating the
development and use of knowledge and experience, Hodgkinson and Healey (2011) argued that
executives’ metacognitive abilities are important cognitive factors of dynamic capability development.
Specifically, metacognition could advance understanding of executives’ reaction to a specific strategic
issue (opportunity and threat) and subsequent required course of action (Hodgkinson and Healey,
2011:1504). So, understanding the role of metacognitive knowledge and experience opens new windows
into transformation phase of dynamic capabilities.
Third, a review of literature shows that metacognitive knowledge and experience are developed and
can be trained (Haynie, et al. 2010) however; cognitive style (i.e. reliance on intuition or analysis) tends
to be innate (Armstrong et al. 2011). Armstrong et al. argue that awareness of individuals’ cognitive style
can be an important precondition for their metacognitive abilities and understanding of their style can be
used to help them develop metacognitive abilities. Although, the interaction between metacognition and
intuition has been recently studied (Thompson, Prowse Turner, and Pennycook, 2011) however, delving
into this literature reveals that this field of inquiry deserves more systematic attention. Specifically we
Page 13 of 18
ANZAM 2012
encourage researchers to expand arguments of Thompson et al. (2011) into executive context in order to
examine the link between cognitive style, degree of metacognitive knowledge and experience and
metacognitive monitoring as well as control processes.
Finally, given that transformation refers to abilities to reconfigure resources of the firm by investing in
new capabilities (Teece, 2007) we believe that metacognition illuminates the cognitive aspects of
executive’s resource re-configurations. Indeed, it can be reasonably argued that studying the link between
metacognitive abilities (i.e. knowledge and experience over cognitive processes) and metacognitive
processes (monitoring and control) and resource management of executives offers valuable insights into
cognitive mechanism of resource configuration (Narayanan, et al,2011). This would, then, benefit bodies
of knowledge on both resource-based and dynamic capabilities view.
CONCLUSION
This study proposed a metacognitive view of strategic choice making. To do so, an overview of
strategy choice perspective was provided. It was then linked to the managerial cognition strand. On the
basis of this understanding, the concept of metacognition, metacognitive sources (i.e. knowledge and
experience) and metacognitive processes (i.e. monitoring and control) were reviewed and related to
choice making of executives. The paper was concluded by a discussion of some directions for future
research.
REFERENCES
Allinson CW & Hayes J (1996) The Cognitive Style Index: A Measure Of Intuition-Analysis For
Organizational Research, Journal of Management Studies 33(1): 119-135.
Armstrong
SJ
Cools
E &
Sadler-Smith E (2011) Role of Cognitive Styles in Business and
Management: Reviewing 40 Years of Research, International Journal of Management Reviews In press.
ANZAM 2012
Page 14 of 18
Augier M & Teece DJ (2008) Strategy as Evolution with Design: The Foundations of Dynamic
Capabilities and the Role of Managers in the Economic System, Organization Studies 29(8-9):1187–
1208.
Baker L (1989) Metacognition, Comprehension Monitoring, and the Adult Reader, Educational
Psychology Review 1(1): 3-38.
Batha K & Carroll M (2007) Metacognitive training aids decision making, Australian Journal of
Psychology 59(2): 64 – 69.
Bettis RA & Hitt MA (1995) The New Competitive Landscape, Strategic Management Journal 16: 719.
Child J (1972) Organizational Structure, Environment and Performance: The Role of Strategic Choice,
Sociology 6(1): 1-22.
Child J (1997) Strategic choice in the analysis of action, structure, organizations and environment:
Retrospect and prospect, Organization Studies 18(1): 43-76.
Coff R & Kryscynski D (2011) Drilling for Micro-Foundations of Human Capital–Based Competitive
Advantages, Journal of Management in press.
Eden C (1992) On the Nature of Cognitive Maps, Journal of Management Studies 29(3): 261-265.
Felin T & Foss N (2006) Individuals And Organizations: Thoughts On A Micro-Foundations Project For
Strategic Management And Organizational Analysis, in Ketchen DJ & Bergh DD (Eds) Research
Methodology In Strategy And Management, 3:253-288, Elsevier.
Flavell JH (1987) Speculations about the nature and development of metacognition, in Weinert FE &
Kluwe RH (Eds), Metacognition, Motivation and Understanding, 21-29, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Flavell JH (1976) Metacognitive aspects of problem solving, in Resnick LR (Eds) In The Nature of
Intelligence, 231-235, Hillsdale, N.J., Erlbaum.
Flavell JH (1979) Metacognition and Cognitive Monitoring A New Area of Cognitive—Developmental
Inquiry, American Psychologist 34(10):906-911.
Page 15 of 18
ANZAM 2012
Floyd SW Cornelissen JP Wright M & Delios A (2011) Processes and Practices of Strategizing and
Organizing: Review, Development, and the Role of Bridging and Umbrella Constructs Journal of
Management Studies, in press,
Ford JK Smith EM Weissbein DA Gully SM & Salas E (1998) Relationships of Goal Orientation,
Metacognitive Activity, and Practice Strategies with Learning Outcomes and Transfer, Journal of Applied
Psychology 83(2): 218-233.
Foss NJ (2005) Strategy, Economic Organization and the knowledge economy: the coordination of firms
and resources, New York: Oxford University Press.
Foss NJ (2011) Why Micro-Foundations for Resource-Based Theory Are Needed and What They May
Look Like, Journal of management in press.
Hambrick DC & Finkelstein S (1987) Managerial discretion: A bridge between polar views of
organizations , in Cummings L & Staw B (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior pp 369-406.
Hambrick DC & Mason PA (1984) Upper Echelons: The Organization as a Reflection of Its Top
Managers, Academy of Management Review 9(2):193-206.
Hambrick DC (2007) Upper Echelons Theory: An Update, Academy of Management Review, 32(2): 334–
343.
Hayes J & Allinson CW (1994) Cognitive Style and its Relevance for Management Practice, British
Journal of Management 5(1): 53-71.
Haynie JM & Shepherd DA (2009) A Measure of Adaptive Cognition for Entrepreneurship Research,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 695-714.
Haynie JM Shepherd DA & Earley C (2010) A Situated Metacognitive Model of The Entrepreneurial
Mindset, Journal of Business Venturing 25: 217–229.
Haynie JM Shepherd DA & Patzelt H (2012) Cognitive Adaptability and an Entrepreneurial Task:
The Role of Metacognitive Ability and Feedback, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 36(2):237-265.
Hitt MA & Tyler BB (1991) Strategic decision models: Integrating different perspectives, Strategic
Management Journal 12(5): 327–351.
Hitt MA (2000) The new frontier: Transformation of management for the new millennium,
Organizational Dynamics 28(3): 7-17.
Hodgkinson GP Maule AJ & Bown NJ (2004) Causal Cognitive Mapping in the Organizational
Strategy Field: A Comparison of Alternative Elicitation, Organizational Research Methods 7(1): 3-26.
ANZAM 2012
Page 16 of 18
Hodgkinson GP & Healey MP (2011) Psychological foundations of dynamic capabilities: Reflexion and
reflection in strategic management, Strategic Management Journal 32: 1500–1516.
Johnson G Langley A
Melin L & Whittington R (2007) Strategy as Practice: Research Directions
and Resources, New York, Cambridge University Press.
Judge JrWQ &
Involvement in
35(4): 766-794.
Zeithaml CP (1992) Institutional and Strategic Choice Perspectives on Board
the Strategic Decision Process, The Academy of Management Journal
Kaplan S (2011) Research in Cognition and Strategy: Reflections on Two Decades of Progress and a
Look to the Future, Journal of Management Studies 48(3): 665-695.
Kholodnaya M A (2002) Cognitive styles: On the nature of individual mind, cited in Kozhevnikov M
(2007) Cognitive Styles in the Context of Modern Psychology: Toward an Integrated Framework of
Cognitive Style, Psychological Bulletin 133(3): 464 - 481.
Kozhevnikov M (2007) Cognitive styles in the context of modern psychology: Toward an integrated
framework of cognitive style, Psychological Bulletin 133(3): 464-481.
Lovallo D & Sibony O (2010) The case for behavioral strategy, McKinsey Quarterly (2):30-43.
Macmillan H & Tampoe M (2001) Strategic Management. Oxford: Oxford University
Melot A (1998) The relationship between metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive experiences:
Acquisition and re-elaboration, European Journal of Psychology of Education 13: 75-89.
Miles RE & Snow CC (1978) Organizational strategy, structure, and process, New York: McGrawHill.
Mitchell JR Shepherd DA & Sharfman MP (2011) Erratic Strategic Decisions: When And Why
Managers Are Inconsistent In Strategic Decision Making, Strategic Management Journal 32: 683–704.
Narayanan VK
Zane LJ
&
Kemmerer B (2011) The Cognitive Perspective in Strategy: An
Integrative Review, Journal of Management 37(1): 305-351.
Nutt PC (2002) Making Strategic Choices, Journal of Management Studies, 39(1): 67-96.
Perfect TJ & Schwartz BL (2004) Applied Metacognition, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Page 17 of 18
ANZAM 2012
Powell TC Lovallo D & Fox CR (2011) Behavioral strategy, Strategic Management Journal 23(13):
1369–1386.
Priem RL (1994) Executive Judgment, Organizational Congruence, and Firm Performance, Organization
Science 5(3):421-437.
Rumelt R(1997) Towards a strategic theory of the firm, in Foss NJ (Eds), Resources, firms, and
strategies: a reader in the resource-based perspective, pp 131-145, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Sanna LJ & Schwarz N (2007) Metacognitive experiences and hindsight bias: it's not just the thought
(content) that counts, Social Cognition 25(1): 185-202.
Schmidt AM & Ford JK (2003)Learning Within A Learner Control Training Environment The
Interactive Effects Of Goal Orientation And Metacognitive Instruction On Learning Outcomes, Personnel
Psychology 56(2): 405–429.
Schoemaker PJH (1990) Are Risk-Attitudes Related across Domains and Response Modes?,
Management Science 36(12) :1451-1463.
Schraw G & Dennison R (1994) Assessing meta-cognitive awareness, Contemporary Educational
Psychology 19:460–475.
Schwartz BL and Perfect TJ (2004) Introduction: toward an applied metacognition, in Perfect TJ &
Schwartz BL (Eds.), Applied Metacognition pp 1-11, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Simon HA (1947) Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative
Organization. New York: Macmillan.
Simon HA (1952) A behavioral model of rational choice, Quarterly Journal of Economics 69: 99-118.
Simon HA (1957) Models of man: Social and rational, New York: Wiley.
Simon M & Houghton S (2002) The relationship among biases, misperceptions and introducing
pioneering products: Examining differences in venture decision contexts, Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice 27(2):105-125.
Taggart W & Valenzi E (1990) Assessing Rational and Intuitive Styles: A Human Information
Processing Metaphor, Journal of Management Studies 27(2): 149-172.
Teece DJ (2007) Explicating Dynamic Capabilities: The Nature and Microfoundations of (Sustainable)
Enterprise Performance, Strategic Management Journal 28: 1319–1350.
Thompson VA Prowse Turner JA &
Cognitive Psychology 63(3): 107-140.
Pennycook G (2011) Intuition, reason, and metacognition,
Tversky A & Kahneman D (1986)Rational choice and the framing of decisions, Journal of Business
59(4): 251-279.
ANZAM 2012
Page 18 of 18
Yan Y Chong CY & Mak S (2010) An exploration of managerial discretion and its impact on firm
performance: Task autonomy, contractual control, and compensation, International Business
Review19(6): 521–530.
Yoo JW Reed R Shin SJ & Lemak DJ (2009) Strategic Choice and Performance in Late Movers:
Influence of the Top Management Team’s External Ties, Journal of Management Studies 46(2): 308-335.