Rationalizing organizational change: A need for comparative testing

Arkadiy V. Sakhartov, Timothy B. Folta

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Behavioral theory explains that organizational change is prompted by performance relative to a firm-specific aspiration. Although this explanation has been empirically confirmed, it has not been tested comparatively alongside other explanations, most notably rational choice. This lack of comparative study implies that prior research may be committing Type I errors-confirming aspiration-level decision making when it is not actually occurring. This paper contributes to behavioral theory in two specific ways. First, we show that several foundational studies purporting to provide empirical support for aspiration-level decision making may actually represent maximizing behavior. To consider this potential, we simulate a sample of subjectively rational agents who choose strategies by maximizing expectations. We show that it is possible and highly probable to diagnose satisficing when agents are, in fact, maximizing. Second, we develop and implement recommendations for comparative testing to demonstrate reliability. Analysis shows that the recommendations are effective at reducing Type I and II errors for both behavioral theory and rational choice. This paper is meant to inspire the design of future studies on aspirations and, indeed, all studies of organizational change.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1140-1156
Number of pages17
JournalOrganization Science
Volume24
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1 2013
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Decision making
Testing
Organizational change
Behavioral theory
Rational choice
Aspiration
Aspiration Level
Type I error
Relative performance
Satisficing
Type II error
Comparative study

Keywords

  • Aspiration levels
  • Aspirations
  • Behavioral theory
  • Comparative testing
  • Expectations
  • Rational choice

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Strategy and Management
  • Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management
  • Management of Technology and Innovation

Cite this

Rationalizing organizational change : A need for comparative testing. / Sakhartov, Arkadiy V.; Folta, Timothy B.

In: Organization Science, Vol. 24, No. 4, 01.07.2013, p. 1140-1156.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{4c029091777b4992ba4712811053a296,
title = "Rationalizing organizational change: A need for comparative testing",
abstract = "Behavioral theory explains that organizational change is prompted by performance relative to a firm-specific aspiration. Although this explanation has been empirically confirmed, it has not been tested comparatively alongside other explanations, most notably rational choice. This lack of comparative study implies that prior research may be committing Type I errors-confirming aspiration-level decision making when it is not actually occurring. This paper contributes to behavioral theory in two specific ways. First, we show that several foundational studies purporting to provide empirical support for aspiration-level decision making may actually represent maximizing behavior. To consider this potential, we simulate a sample of subjectively rational agents who choose strategies by maximizing expectations. We show that it is possible and highly probable to diagnose satisficing when agents are, in fact, maximizing. Second, we develop and implement recommendations for comparative testing to demonstrate reliability. Analysis shows that the recommendations are effective at reducing Type I and II errors for both behavioral theory and rational choice. This paper is meant to inspire the design of future studies on aspirations and, indeed, all studies of organizational change.",
keywords = "Aspiration levels, Aspirations, Behavioral theory, Comparative testing, Expectations, Rational choice",
author = "Sakhartov, {Arkadiy V.} and Folta, {Timothy B.}",
year = "2013",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1287/orsc.1120.0785",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "24",
pages = "1140--1156",
journal = "Organization Science",
issn = "1047-7039",
publisher = "INFORMS Inst.for Operations Res.and the Management Sciences",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Rationalizing organizational change

T2 - A need for comparative testing

AU - Sakhartov, Arkadiy V.

AU - Folta, Timothy B.

PY - 2013/7/1

Y1 - 2013/7/1

N2 - Behavioral theory explains that organizational change is prompted by performance relative to a firm-specific aspiration. Although this explanation has been empirically confirmed, it has not been tested comparatively alongside other explanations, most notably rational choice. This lack of comparative study implies that prior research may be committing Type I errors-confirming aspiration-level decision making when it is not actually occurring. This paper contributes to behavioral theory in two specific ways. First, we show that several foundational studies purporting to provide empirical support for aspiration-level decision making may actually represent maximizing behavior. To consider this potential, we simulate a sample of subjectively rational agents who choose strategies by maximizing expectations. We show that it is possible and highly probable to diagnose satisficing when agents are, in fact, maximizing. Second, we develop and implement recommendations for comparative testing to demonstrate reliability. Analysis shows that the recommendations are effective at reducing Type I and II errors for both behavioral theory and rational choice. This paper is meant to inspire the design of future studies on aspirations and, indeed, all studies of organizational change.

AB - Behavioral theory explains that organizational change is prompted by performance relative to a firm-specific aspiration. Although this explanation has been empirically confirmed, it has not been tested comparatively alongside other explanations, most notably rational choice. This lack of comparative study implies that prior research may be committing Type I errors-confirming aspiration-level decision making when it is not actually occurring. This paper contributes to behavioral theory in two specific ways. First, we show that several foundational studies purporting to provide empirical support for aspiration-level decision making may actually represent maximizing behavior. To consider this potential, we simulate a sample of subjectively rational agents who choose strategies by maximizing expectations. We show that it is possible and highly probable to diagnose satisficing when agents are, in fact, maximizing. Second, we develop and implement recommendations for comparative testing to demonstrate reliability. Analysis shows that the recommendations are effective at reducing Type I and II errors for both behavioral theory and rational choice. This paper is meant to inspire the design of future studies on aspirations and, indeed, all studies of organizational change.

KW - Aspiration levels

KW - Aspirations

KW - Behavioral theory

KW - Comparative testing

KW - Expectations

KW - Rational choice

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84880997558&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84880997558&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1287/orsc.1120.0785

DO - 10.1287/orsc.1120.0785

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84880997558

VL - 24

SP - 1140

EP - 1156

JO - Organization Science

JF - Organization Science

SN - 1047-7039

IS - 4

ER -