IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/stratm/v10y1989i1p31-43.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The utilization of individual capabilities in group approaches to strategic decision‐making

Author

Listed:
  • David M. Schweiger
  • William R. Sandberg

Abstract

Previous research has found that groups using dialectical inquiry (DI) or devil's advocacy (DA) make better strategic decisions than groups using a consensus (C) approach. This paper explains those findings by using new data to show that the DI and DA approaches make better use of the capabilities of individual group members. Specifically, the DI and DA groups yielded significantly higher quality recommendations and assumptions than the average of the individuals in the respective groups, whereas the C groups did not. Moreover, the recommendations and assumptions of the DI groups and the recommendations of the DA groups significantly exceeded those of the best individual in the respective groups. There were no significant differences for the C groups.

Suggested Citation

  • David M. Schweiger & William R. Sandberg, 1989. "The utilization of individual capabilities in group approaches to strategic decision‐making," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 10(1), pages 31-43, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:stratm:v:10:y:1989:i:1:p:31-43
    DOI: 10.1002/smj.4250100104
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250100104
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/smj.4250100104?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Stephen K. Markham, 2000. "Corporate Championing and Antagonism as Forms of Political Behavior: An R&D Perspective," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 11(4), pages 429-447, August.
    2. Haiyang Li & Jun Li, 2009. "Top management team conflict and entrepreneurial strategy making in China," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 263-283, June.
    3. Fabio Zona, 2015. "Board ownership and processes in family firms," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 44(1), pages 105-122, January.
    4. Hongjin Zhu & Pengji Wang & Chris Bart, 2016. "Board Processes, Board Strategic Involvement, and Organizational Performance in For-profit and Non-profit Organizations," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 136(2), pages 311-328, June.
    5. Jiunyan Wu & Tomoki Sekiguchi, 2020. "A multilevel and dynamic model of intragroup conflict and decision making: application of agent-based modeling," Frontiers of Business Research in China, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 1-26, December.
    6. Niemi, Petri & Pekkanen, Petra & Huiskonen, Janne, 2007. "Improving the impact of quantitative analysis on supply chain policy making," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(1-2), pages 165-175, July.
    7. Ehie, Ike C., 2010. "The impact of conflict on manufacturing decisions and company performance," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(2), pages 145-157, August.
    8. Katerina Bezrukova & Karen A. Jehn & Elaine L. Zanutto & Sherry M. B. Thatcher, 2009. "Do Workgroup Faultlines Help or Hurt? A Moderated Model of Faultlines, Team Identification, and Group Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(1), pages 35-50, February.
    9. Higashide, Hironori & Birley, Sue, 2002. "The consequences of conflict between the venture capitalist and the entrepreneurial team in the United Kingdom from the perspective of the venture capitalist," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 59-81, January.
    10. William R. Sandberg, 1992. "Strategic Management's Potential Contributions to a Theory of Entrepreneurship," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 16(3), pages 73-90, April.
    11. Parayitam, Satyanarayana & Dooley, Robert S., 2009. "The interplay between cognitive- and affective conflict and cognition- and affect-based trust in influencing decision outcomes," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 62(8), pages 789-796, August.
    12. A. Georges L. Romme, 2004. "Unanimity Rule and Organizational Decision Making: A Simulation Model," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(6), pages 704-718, December.
    13. Eddleston, Kimberly A. & Kellermanns, Franz W., 2007. "Destructive and productive family relationships: A stewardship theory perspective," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 545-565, July.
    14. Craig Pearce & Charles Manz, 2011. "Leadership Centrality and Corporate Social Ir-Responsibility (CSIR): The Potential Ameliorating Effects of Self and Shared Leadership on CSIR," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 102(4), pages 563-579, September.
    15. Torchia, Mariateresa & Calabrò, Andrea & Gabaldon, Patricia & Kanadli, Sadi Bogac, 2018. "Women directors contribution to organizational innovation: A behavioral approach," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 215-224.
    16. Neill, Stern & Rose, Gregory M., 2007. "Achieving adaptive ends through equivocality: A study of organizational antecedents and consequences," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 305-313, April.
    17. Mimi Lord, 2020. "University Endowment Committees, Modern Portfolio Theory and Performance," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-22, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:stratm:v:10:y:1989:i:1:p:31-43. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/0143-2095 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.