Strategic Management Journal,Vol.18(Summer Special Issue),187–206(1997) TOWARDS AN ATTENTION-BASED VIEW OF THE
FIRM
WILLIAM OCASIO*缤纷水果茶
J.L.Kellogg Graduate School of Management,Northwestern University,Evanston,
Illinois,U.S.A.
The central argument is thatfirm behavior is the result of howfirms channel and distribute
the attention of their decision-makers.What decision-makers do depends on what issues and
answers they focus their attention on.What issues and answers they focus on depends on the
specific situation and on how thefirm’s rules,resources,and relationships distribute various
issues,answers,and decision-makers into specific communications and procedures.The paper
develops the theoretical principles into a model offirm behavior and prents its implications
for explainingfirm behavior and adaptation.©1997by John Wiley&Sons,Ltd.
超车时如何使用灯光Everyone knows what attention is.It is the taking behave is one of the fundamental issues or ques-posssion by the mind,in clear and vivid form,tions that define thefield of strategy,its priorities of one out of what em veral simultaneously
and concerns,and the contribution it makes to possible objects or trains of thought.Focalization,
the theory and practice of management(Rumelt, concentration of consciousness are of its esnce.
高一三角函数It implies withdrawal from some things in order Schendel,and Teece,1994).In particular, to deal effectively plaining howfirms behave allows us to com-William James(1890),The Principles of prehend whether and whenfirms are able to Psychology,I:403–404
adapt to changing environments,whether they Organizations and institutions provide the general successfully change their strategies and capabili-stimuli and attention-directors that channelize the ties,or whether they fail to respond adequately behaviors of the members of the group,and
to competition.
that provide the members with the intermediate
Half a century ago,Herbert Simon(1947) objectives that stimulate action.
Herbert Simon(1947),Administrative Behavior,introduced a then new perspective onfirm
pp.100–101behavior,which boldly departed from economists’
theories of rational choice and highlighted the INTRODUCTION limits of human rationality in explaining how
firms make decisions.The limited attentional How dofirms behave?How dofirms determine capability of humans—to the range of con-when,why,and how to respond to or anticipate quences of their actions,how the conquences changes in their environment or internal proc-would be valued,and the scope of available ess?Why dofirms undertake some decisions alternatives—results in their bounded capacity to and moves but not others?Explaining howfirms be rational.For Simon,organizations influence
individual decision process by allocating and
幼儿园小班月计划distributing the stimuli that channel the attention Key words:attention,cognition,social structure,of administrators in terms of what lected aspects theory of thefirm of the situation are to be attended,and what *Correspondence to:William Ocasio,Kellogg Graduate aspects are to be ignored.Firm behavior,for School of Management,Northwestern University,Leverone
Hall,2001Sheridan Road,Evanston,IL60208,U.S.A.Simon,is both a cognitive and a structural proc-
CCC0143–2095/97/S10187–20$17.50
©1997by John Wiley&Sons,Ltd.
188W.Ocasio
ess,as decision-making in organizations is the multiple levels,this paper focus on organi-result of both the limited attentional capacity of
zational attention,the socially structured pattern humans and the structural influences of organi-of attention by decision-makers within an organi-
zation(Ocasio,1995).The central argument of zations on an individual’s attention.
Fifty years after its initial publication,this this open systems perspective(Scott,1992)is paper aims to rediscover the central importance
that to explainfirm behavior is to explain how of the structuring of attention in Simon’s(1947)firms distribute and regulate the attention of their early work on administrative behavior,and update
decision-makers.This idea is bad on three inter-it to incorporate our current understanding of related premis:
social structures,environmental influences,and
individual and social cognition.While the concept 1.What decision-makers do depends on what of attention has a long history and tradition in
issues and answers they focus their attention organization theory,it has not thus far developed on(Focus of Attention).
2.What issues and answers decision-makers into a unified perspective onfirm behavior.Dif-
ferent authors have stresd different aspects of focus on,and what they do,depends on the attention allocation and structuring,but ignored
particular context or situation theyfind them-others.In particular,theories of attention have lves in(Situated Attention).
moved away from Simon’s(1947)dual emphasis
3.What particular context or situation decision-on structure and cognition to emphasize either makersfind themlves in,and how they
期待你的到来attend to it,depends on how thefirm’s rules, how attention is shaped by routines and bounded
rationality(March and Simon,1958;Cyert and resources,and social relationships regulate and March,1963),or alternatively,how attention is
control the distribution and allocation of is-looly coupled through enactment process sues,answers,and decision-makers into speci-(Weick,1979)and organized anarchy(Cohen,
fic activities,communications,and procedures March,and Oln,1972).In the process the(Structural Distribution of Attention). effects of the social structure on the channeling
and distribution of decision-makers’attention This view provides an alternative explanation for have been greatly deemphasized if not entirely
firm behavior both to theories of rational choice, lost.1I propo to bring them back in.such as game theory and agency theory,and
theories that emphasize environmental determin-The objective of this paper is thus to explicitly
link structure and cognition into an attention-ism,such as population ecology.Furthermore, bad view of thefirm.It explicitly links individ-
this paper argues that a focus on the structuring ual information processing and behavior to the of organizational attention to explainfirm organizational structure through the concepts of
behavior is of special interest and importance for procedural and communication channels and our understanding of strategic choice(Child, attention structures.It differs from and extends
1972).Corporate strategy,defined by Andrews Simon’s(1947)original formulation by providing as the pattern of decisions in a company that an explicit treatment of attentional processing
determines and reveals its objectives,purpos, as a multilevel process shaped by individuals,or goals,produces the principal policies and plans
for achieving tho goals(1971:13),is under-organizations,and the environment.While linking
stood here as a pattern of organizational atten-
tion,the distinct focus of time and effort by 1In their book-length exposition of the garbage can model of
decision-making,March and Oln(1976)utilize the concept thefirm on a particular t of issues,problems, of attention structures as a t of rules that constrain how opportunities,and threats,and on a particular problems,solutions,and participants get linked in the garbage t of skills,routines,programs,projects,and can.This generalization of the model of organized anarchy
provides an independent role for organizational structure in procedures.An attention-bad view both shares the allocation of attention,and has rved as a guide in the a strong commonality with and has been influ-preparation of this paper.Their more general model,however,enced by process-bad views of strategy formu-unlike the simple model of organized anarchy,has had limited
impact on the organizational or strategic management litera-lation andfirm behavior(Allison,1971;Bower, ture.Furthermore,unlike the arguments found in Simon1970;Burgelman,1983,1994),while adding to (1947),or the theory prented here,individual-level attention the an explicit focus on attentional processing. and information processing are ab
nt from March and Oln’s
(1976)formulation.The next ction prents the main outline of
Attention-bad View of the Firm
189
an attention-bad perspective and develops three important characteristic of this view of the firm as a system of distributed attention is the relation-metatheoretical principles underlying this view of organizations as systems of distributed attention.ship between individual and organizational-level information processing (Corner,Kinicki,and The principles are put to u in the subquent ction to develop a general process model of Keats,1994).While other perspectives on organi-zational cognition emphasize either the shared how firms behave.While a full theoretical devel-opment of the implications of an attention-bad cognitions of organizational members (Schein,1985;Daft and Weick,1984),or tho of its top view is beyond the scope of this paper,the objective here is to provide a process-bad model management team (Hambrick and Mason,1984;Einhardt,1990),this attention-bad perspective of how firms behave that integrates our under-standing of cognition,organizational structure,emphasizes the distributed nature of organi-zational decisions,acti
讲笑话英文
ons,and cognitions (Simon,and strategy formulation.I draw upon the model to provide a t of implications on how attentional 1947;Boland,Tenkaski,and Te’eni,1994;Hutch-ins,1995).While individuals ultimately do the processing helps explain when,why,and how organizations adapt to changes in their environ-attending,individual attention is situated in the context of the firm’s activities and procedures,ment (Astley and Van de Ven,1983;Barnett and Carroll,1995).The last ction prents con-and the situational contexts,and the decision-makers,issues,and answers they are linked to,clusions and reviews the contributions of this paper.
are distributed throughout the firm (March and Oln,1976).In this ction I develop the three interrelated metatheoretical principles or premis,drawn from different levels of analysis,that ORGANIZATIONS AS SYSTEMS OF DISTRIBUTED ATTENTION
政权更迭
underlie this perspective on how firms distribute and regulate the attention of its decision-makers:An attention-bad theory views firms as systems of structurally distributed attention in which the 1.At the level of individual cognition,the prin-ciple of focus of attention links attentional cognition and action of individuals are not pre-dictable from the knowledge of individual charac-processing to individual cognition and behav-ior.
teristics but are derived from the specific organi-zational context and situations that individual 2.At the level of social cognition,and building on the perspective of Lewinian social psy-decision-makers find themlves in.Attention is here defined to encompass the noticing,encoding,chology (Ross and Nisbett,1991),the prin-ciple of situated attention highlights the impor-interpreting,and focusing of time and effort by organizational decision-makers on both (a)issues ;tance of the situational context in explaining what decision-makers attend to.
the available repertoire of categories for making n of the environment:problems,opportuni- 3.At the organizational level,the principle of structural distribution of attention builds on ties,and threats;and (b)answers :the available repertoire of action alternatives:proposals,rou-rearch and theory from organizational decision-making,strategy formulation,and tines,projects,programs,and procedures.2An
cognitive anthropology to explain how the firm’s economic and social structures regulate 2
This definition differs from alternative conceptions that p-arate attention from encoding and interpretation,with the and channel issues,answers,and decision-former as the first of various stages in information processing makers into the activities,communications,(e.g.,Corner et al .,1994).Cogniti
ve psychologists differ in whether they view attention as occurring only as the first stage and procedures that constitute the situational of perception followed by encoding,or whether attentional context of decision-making.
processing is itlf shaped by the encoding of information.This paper follows both LaBerge’s (1995)model of individual information processing and Simon’s (1947)and Weick’s (1979)conceptualizations at the organizational level,in which Principle 1:Focus of attention
encoding is part of attentional processing.While neither Simon nor Weick discusd encoding directly,their respective con-cepts of decision premis and enacted environments refer to The principle of focus of attention indicates,first,how organizational decision-makers encode information,and that decision-makers will be lective in the is-both concepts were considered as central parts of organi-sues and answers they attend to at any one time,
zational attention.
190W.Ocasio
and cond,that what decision-makers do depends their lective focus of attention,decision-makers on what issues and answers they focus their
are limited in the number of issues and answers attention on.At the level of individual cognition,they can attend to in any particular situation,and attentional process focus the energy,effort,and
only tho issues and answers will affect what mindfulness of organizational decision-makers on they do(Simon,1947).
a limited t of elements that enter into conscious-
ness at any given time.Focud attention both
Principle2:Situated attention
facilitates perception and action towards tho
issues and activities being attended to,and The principle of situated attention indicates that inhibits perception and action towards tho that
what decision-makers focus on,and what they are not(Kahneman,1973).At the individual do,depends on the particular context they are level,the heedfulness associated with focud
located in.According to this principle,the focus attention is expresd through an elevation of of attention of individual decision-makers is trig-
gered by characteristics of the situations they activity in cortical neurons coding for a particular
item above the activity in neurons coding for confront themlves with,and this situated atten-different items when a group of objects or ideas
tion directly shapes individuals’behavior(Ross are prented for information processing and Nisbett,1991).It implies that individual (LaBerge,1995).The resulting enhanced mind-
decision-makers will vary their focus of attention fulness of individuals generates a lective atten-depending on the situation,and that consistency
(or variance)in attention and behavior is depen-tion on an object or idea that facilitates perception
and action towards the object or idea being con-dent more on consistency(or variance)in the sidered,and away from others.
characteristics of the situation rather than charac-The lective focus of attention of decision-teristics of the individuals.
makers is ameliorated,at least in part,in the ca
Cialdini and his collaborators(Cialdini,Reno, of routine,or well-learned activities.Shiffrin and and Kallgreen,1990;Cialdini,Kallgreen,and Schneider(1977),on the basis of experiments
Reno,1991)found strong evidence for the prin-involving visual perception,distinguished ciple of situated attention in a ries offield between two models of attentional processing:
experiments.Cialdini and his collaborators controlled and automatic.Controlled processing discovered that individual decisions to litter or is highly demanding of attentional capacity,it is
not in public parks and parking garages were largely under the individual’s control,and is dependent on the particular situation they found strongly dependent on activity load.Automatic
themlves in:the amount(and placement)of processing comes into operation without the litter,whether other individuals(confederates)lit-active control of individuals,is difficult to alter
tered or not,and their exposure to different writ-or suppress,and is dependent on extensive long-ten signs on public codes of behavior.They term learning.A common example given to dis-
found,not surprisingly,that individuals littered tinguish controlled vs.automatic attentional proc-less in litter-free environments than in littered essing is driving:a new driver utilizes controlled
ones.More interestingly,they discovered that processing to maneuver the vehicle and to shift littering was even less when either a single piece
of litter was found,or when litter was directly gears,actively mindful of driving;an experienced
driver utilizes automatic processing,shifting gears lined up along the curb(consistent with litter without thinking about it.
having been previously swept).The effects of The distinction between controlled and auto-exposure to public codes on littering varied matic attentional processing also helps us to
directly with the strength of association between understand the linkage between action and the the code of behavior and the antilittering norms. focus of attention.In the ca of automatic proc-
Cialdini et al’s(1990,1991)experiments indi-essing,action is highly routinized and habitual,cate that characteristics of the situation trigger as decisions are unreflexively triggered by
the individual’s attention to norms of littering, environmental stimuli that is‘automatically’and that this focus of attention directly affects attended to.In the ca of controlled processing,
how individuals behave.Cialdini and his collabo-the action of decision-makers is triggered by tho rators carefully discount other alternative expla-issues and answers they are mindful of.But given
nations to their experimental results.For example,
Attention-bad View of the Firm191 they found that littering decread when the con-zational behavior as a complex network of atten-federate littered in an otherwi litter-free
tional process.He emphasized the distribution environment.This result cannot be explained by and allocation of decision-making functions and
the process whereby the organization influences direct social influence or modeling of the confed-
erate,but is best explained by positing that the the attention of its decision-makers.Organiza-confederate,through his or her violation of the
tional actions and decisions are en as resulting norm,directly focus the subjects’attention on from a composite process whereby,for example, antilittering norms.The overall pattern of results
the‘major decisions were made neither by the (Cialdini et al.,1990,1991)demonstrates how board nor by any officer,nor formally by any
group;they evolved through the interactions of the situation shapes the individuals’focus of
attention and how,through this focus of attention,many decisions both of individuals and by com-the situation influences individuals’actions.
mittees or boards’(Simon,1947:222).For The principle of situated attention operates at Simon,thefirm’s economic and social structures the level of social cognition(Fiske and Taylor,
create,channel,and distribute the attention of 1991).This principle provides a link between decision-makers into discrete process,and how individuals think and decide in any particular
organizational actions and decisions result from situation,and how the organization and its the complex interactions among the discrete environment shape the situations that individuals
attentional process.
find themlves in.While in thefield experiments In the strategy literature,Bower’s(1970)con-described above the subjects react to the social
ceptual and empirical examination of investment environment as manipulated by Cialdini and his decisions in a large U.S.diversifiedfirm illus-collaborators,decision-makers in organizations
trates how the distribution of focus among organi-react to situations as shaped by the organization zational decision-makers affects the content and and its environment.In the ca of organizational
outcome of the corporate resource allocation proc-decision-making and action,the principle of situ-ess.According to Bower,investment decisions ated attention highlights the effects of the organi-
are best understood as an interconnected t of zational and environmental context in shaping stages in a hierarchical process.At each pha individuals’focus of attention and action.
of the process—the initiating,integrating,and
corporate levels—managers vary in the definition
of the situation and the issues they pay attention Principle3:Structural distribution of
to.From an attentional perspective,we can attention
reinterpret Bower’s framework as showing how
the attentional focus of thefirm’s decision-makers This principle indicates that the particular context
decision-makersfind themlves in,and how they is distributed throughout the various stages of the attend to it,depends on how the organization
resource allocation process,with each stage distributes and controls the allocation of issues,containing different procedural and communi-answers,and decision-makers within specificfirm
cation channels,and each channel producing dif-activities,communications,and procedures.ferent foci of attention.
According to this principle,attentional process
While the concept of distributed attention is of individual and group decision-makers are dis-implicit in past rearch and theory on organi-tributed throughout the multiple functions that
zational decision-making and strategy formulation take place in organizations,with different foci of(Simon,1947;Bower,1970;March and Oln, attention in each local procedure,communication,
1976),its development of the linkage between or activity.Each local activity within thefirm organizational and individual information proc-involves a t of procedures and communications,
essing builds on more recent rearch by cogni-and the procedures and communications focus tive anthropologists(Latour,1987;Lave,1988;
Hutchins,1995).This rearch emphasizes how the attention of decision-makers on a lected t
of issues and answers.the division of labor in social organizations The distributed nature of attentional processing
requires distributed cognition and information and action within thefirm is prent in Simon’s processing in order to coordinate the activities of (1947)early formulation of an attention-bad孕妇可以吃蚕豆吗
organizational participants.According to this perspective.Simon(1947:220)describes organi-view,the cognition that takes place within social
