IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/fufsci/v1y2019i1ne5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Attention and foresight in organizations

Author

Listed:
  • Paul J. H. Schoemaker

Abstract

The challenges of dealing with the future include its vast scope, in time and breadth, as well as its deep uncertainty. In an age when organizational attention is increasingly limited, deciding how much to focus on the future is a central leadership challenge. At one extreme, a firm can devote massive efforts to rigorous analyses of trends and uncertainties to narrow the range of possible outcomes; at the other, it can do very little of this, wait to see what happens, and then improvise as needed. A wide range of postures exists between these two extremes, reflecting the complexity of issues involved, the firm's strategy plus the costs and benefits of a focus on the future versus the present.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul J. H. Schoemaker, 2019. "Attention and foresight in organizations," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(1), March.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:fufsci:v:1:y:2019:i:1:n:e5
    DOI: 10.1002/ffo2.5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/ffo2.5
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/ffo2.5?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wouter Dessein & Andrea Galeotti & Tano Santos, 2016. "Rational Inattention and Organizational Focus," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(6), pages 1522-1536, June.
    2. Henry Ogden Armour & David J. Teece, 1978. "Organizational Structure and Economic Performance: A Test of the Multidivisional Hypothesis," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 9(1), pages 106-122, Spring.
    3. Richard A. Bettis & C. K. Prahalad, 1995. "The dominant logic: Retrospective and extension," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(1), pages 5-14.
    4. William Ocasio, 2011. "Attention to Attention," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 1286-1296, October.
    5. C. K. Prahalad & Richard A. Bettis, 1986. "The dominant logic: A new linkage between diversity and performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 7(6), pages 485-501, November.
    6. Schoemaker, Paul J.H. & Day, George S. & Snyder, Scott A., 2013. "Integrating organizational networks, weak signals, strategic radars and scenario planning," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(4), pages 815-824.
    7. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    8. Karl E. Weick & Kathleen M. Sutcliffe, 2006. "Mindfulness and the Quality of Organizational Attention," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(4), pages 514-524, August.
    9. Zeelenberg, M., 1999. "Anticipated regret, expected feedback and behavioral decision-making," Other publications TiSEM 38371d1b-31fd-45b0-860f-b, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    10. Jay R. Galbraith, 1974. "Organization Design: An Information Processing View," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 4(3), pages 28-36, May.
    11. Paul M. Leonardi, 2014. "Social Media, Knowledge Sharing, and Innovation: Toward a Theory of Communication Visibility," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 25(4), pages 796-816, December.
    12. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    13. Ramírez, Rafael & Österman, Riku & Grönquist, Daniel, 2013. "Scenarios and early warnings as dynamic capabilities to frame managerial attention," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(4), pages 825-838.
    14. Tanya Menon & Jeffrey Pfeffer, 2003. "Valuing Internal vs. External Knowledge: Explaining the Preference for Outsiders," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(4), pages 497-513, April.
    15. David J. Teece & Gary Pisano & Amy Shuen, 1997. "Dynamic capabilities and strategic management," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(7), pages 509-533, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Giampietri, Elisa & Bugin, Giuseppe & Trestini, Samuele, 2020. "Exploring the Interplay of Risk Attitude and Organic Food Consumption," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 11(03), September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ko, Young Jin & O'Neill, Hugh & Xie, Xuanli, 2021. "Strategic intent as a contingency of the relationship between external knowledge and firm innovation," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    2. Schön, Benjamin & Pyka, Andreas, 2013. "The success factors of technology-sourcing through mergers & acquisitions: An intuitive meta-analysis," FZID Discussion Papers 78-2013, University of Hohenheim, Center for Research on Innovation and Services (FZID).
    3. Shinjinee Chattopadhyay & Janet Bercovitz, 2020. "When one door closes, another door opens … for some: Evidence from the post‐TRIPS Indian pharmaceutical industry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(6), pages 988-1022, June.
    4. Francesco Castellaneta & Maurizio Zollo, 2015. "The Dimensions of Experiential Learning in the Management of Activity Load," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(1), pages 140-157, February.
    5. Markku V. J. Maula & Thomas Keil & Shaker A. Zahra, 2013. "Top Management’s Attention to Discontinuous Technological Change: Corporate Venture Capital as an Alert Mechanism," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 926-947, June.
    6. Andreea N. Kiss & Dirk Libaers & Pamela S. Barr & Tang Wang & Miles A. Zachary, 2020. "CEO cognitive flexibility, information search, and organizational ambidexterity," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(12), pages 2200-2233, December.
    7. Lin, Hsing-Er & Hsu, I-Chieh & Hsu, Audrey Wenhsin & Chung, Hsi-Mei, 2020. "Creating competitive advantages: Interactions between ambidextrous diversification strategy and contextual factors from a dynamic capability perspective," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    8. Filipe M. Santos & Kathleen M. Eisenhardt, 2005. "Organizational Boundaries and Theories of Organization," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(5), pages 491-508, October.
    9. Pursey Heugens & Nikolay Dentchev, 2007. "Taming Trojan Horses: Identifying and Mitigating Corporate Social Responsibility Risks," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 75(2), pages 151-170, October.
    10. Henk W. Volberda & Nicolai J. Foss & Marjorie A. Lyles, 2010. "PERSPECTIVE---Absorbing the Concept of Absorptive Capacity: How to Realize Its Potential in the Organization Field," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(4), pages 931-951, August.
    11. Pascal Le Masson & Armand Hatchuel & Mario Le Glatin & Benoit Weil, 2018. "Designing Decisions In The Unknown: Towards A Generative Decision Model For Management Science," Post-Print hal-01937103, HAL.
    12. Markus Gmür, 2003. "Co-citation analysis and the search for invisible colleges: A methodological evaluation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 57(1), pages 27-57, January.
    13. Jesse Shore & Ethan Bernstein & David Lazer, 2015. "Facts and Figuring: An Experimental Investigation of Network Structure and Performance in Information and Solution Spaces," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(5), pages 1432-1446, October.
    14. Linda Argote & Henrich R. Greve, 2007. "A Behavioral Theory of the Firm ---40 Years and Counting: Introduction and Impact," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(3), pages 337-349, June.
    15. Pascal Le Masson & Armand Hatchuel & Benoit Weil, 2016. "Innovation theory and the logic of generativity: from optimization to design, a new post-decisional paradigm in management science," Post-Print hal-01481881, HAL.
    16. Shardul Sharad Phadnis & Inga‐Lena Darkow, 2021. "Scenario planning as a strategy process to foster supply chain adaptability: theoretical framework and longitudinal case," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(2), June.
    17. Paul J. H. Schoemaker & George S. Day, 2020. "Determinants of organizational vigilance: Leadership, foresight, and adaptation in three sectors," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(1), March.
    18. Pascal Back & Andreas Bausch, 2019. "Not If, But How CEOs Affect Product Innovation: A Systematic Review and Research Agenda," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(03), pages 1-52, May.
    19. Donal Crilly & Pamela Sloan, 2014. "Autonomy or Control? Organizational Architecture and Corporate Attention to Stakeholders," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(2), pages 339-355, April.
    20. Yuan, Chun & Xue, Doudou & He, Xin, 2021. "A balancing strategy for ambidextrous learning, dynamic capabilities, and business model design, the opposite moderating effects of environmental dynamism," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).

    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:wly:fufsci:v:1:y:2019:i:1:n:e5. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)2573-5152 .

    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.