On the strategic value of equifinal choice

Jose Pablo Arrieta1, Yash Raj Shrestha2
1University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
2ETH Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland

Tóm tắt

Abstract

Managers are often faced with the need to choose among multiple satisficing options. We call this situationequifinal choiceand argue how it opens an opportunity for managers to choose a new trajectory for their firm—an opportunity for strategic action. Althoughequifinal choicecan exist in any environment, it becomes most consequential when uncertainty is high. Uncertainty weakens the adherence of organizational members to a superordinate goal and the plurality of goals leads political processes to guide the firm’s strategy. Extant view has identified random choice as an unbiased, fair, simple, and swift solution to the problem of equifinal choice. Random choice is also commonly used in machine learning and artificial intelligence systems. As organizations augment their decision making with these systems, there is a threat that they forego these strategic opportunities and randomly choose actions that fail to harness commitment and trust. In thisPoint of Viewarticle, we highlight the problem ofequifinal choice, explain different ways it can be approached, and motivate why strategic choice can be valuable for organizations over and above defaulting to random choice.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Adner R, Csaszar FA, Zemsky PB (2014) Positioning on a multiattribute landscape. Manage Sci 60(11):2794–2815

Agrawal A, Gans J, Goldfarb A (2018) Prediction machines: the simple economics of artificial intelligence. Harvard Business Press, New York

Anderson P, Tushman ML (1990) Technological discontinuities and dominant designs: a cyclical model of technological change. Admin Sci Quart 1:604–633

Argyris C (1977) Double loop learning in organizations. Harv Bus Rev 55(5):115–125

Aristotle (350 BCE) On the Heavens. Book II, Part XIII

Barnett WP, Pontikes EG (2008) The Red Queen, success bias, and organizational inertia. Manage Sci 54(7):1237–1251

Berger J, Osterloh M, Rost K, Ehrmann T (2020) How to prevent leadership hubris? Comparing competitive selections, lotteries, and their combination. The Leadership Quarterly 1:101388

Bridoux F, Stoelhorst JW (2022) Stakeholder governance: solving the collective action problems in joint value creation. Acad Manag Rev

Burton RM, Obel B (1984) Designing efficient organizations. Adv Ser Manag 7:1

Burton RM, Håkonsson DD, Nickerson J, Puranam P, Workiewicz M, Zenger T (2017) GitHub: exploring the space between boss-less and hierarchical forms of organizing. J Organ Des 6(1):1–19

Camuffo A, Cordova A, Gambardella A, Spina C (2020) A scientific approach to entrepreneurial decision making: Evidence from a randomized control trial. Manage Sci 66(2):564–586

Child, J. (2019). Hierarchy: A Key Idea for Business and Society. Routledge.

Christensen M, Knudsen T (2010) Design of decision-making organizations. Manage Sci 56(1):71–89

Christensen M, Knudsen T (2020) Division of roles and endogenous specialization. Ind Corp Chang 29(1):105–124

Cohn DA, Ghahramani Z, Jordan MI (1996) Active learning with statistical models. J Artif Intell Res 4:129–145

Creignou N, Kröll M, Pichler R, Skritek S, Vollmer H (2019) A complexity theory for hard enumeration problems. Discret Appl Math 268:191–209

Csaszar FA (2012) Organizational structure as a determinant of performance: evidence from mutual funds. Strateg Manag J 33(6):611–632

Csaszar FA (2013) An efficient frontier in organization design: Organizational structure as a determinant of exploration and exploitation. Organ Sci 24(4):1083–1101

Csaszar FA, Eggers JP (2013) Organizational decision making: an information aggregation view. Manage Sci 59(10):2257–2277

Csaszar FA, Ostler J (2020) A contingency theory of representational complexity in organizations. Organ Sci 31(5):1198–1219

Cyert RM, March JG (1963) A behavioral theory of the firm. Wiley-Blackwell, New York

Debreu G (1960) Review of ‘Individual Choice Behavior: A Theoretical Analysis’ by R. D Luce. Am Econ Rev 50:186–188

Denrell J, Fang C, Liu C (2015) Perspective—Chance explanations in the management sciences. Organ Sci 26(3):923–940

Denrell J, Liu C, Le Mens G (2017) When more selection is worse. Strat Sci 2(1):39–63

DiMaggio PJ, Powell WW (1983) The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. Am Sociol Rev 1:147–160

Doty DH, Glick WH, Huber GP (1993) Fit, equifinality, and organizational effectiveness: a test of two configurational theories. Acad Manag J 36(6):1196–1250

Eisenhardt KM (1988) Agency-and institutional-theory explanations: the case of retail sales compensation. Acad Manag J 31(3):488–511

Eliaz K, Rubinstein A (2014) On the fairness of random procedures. Econ Lett 123(2):168–170

Fast NJ, Gruenfeld DH, Sivanathan N, Galinsky AD (2009) Illusory control: a generative force behind power’s far-reaching effects. Psychol Sci 20(4):502–508

Ferguson TS (1989) Who solved the secretary problem? Stat Sci 4(3):282–289

Fiss PC (2007) A set-theoretic approach to organizational configurations. Acad Manag Rev 32(4):1180–1198

Folta TB, O’Brien JP (2004) Entry in the presence of dueling options. Strateg Manag J 25(2):121–138

Friedman M (1953) Essays in positive economics. University of Chicago press, Chicago

Gans JS, Stern S, Wu J (2019) Foundations of entrepreneurial strategy. Strateg Manag J 40(5):736–756

Gavetti G, Menon A (2016) Evolution cum agency: toward a model of strategic foresight. Strat Sci 1(3):207–233

Glynn PW, Greve HR, Rao H (2020) Relining the garbage can of organizational decision-making: modeling the arrival of problems and solutions as queues. Ind Corp Chang 29(1):125–142

Goodwin, B. (2013). Justice by lottery. Andrews UK Limited.

Gresov C, Drazin R (1997) Equifinality: Functional equivalence in organization design. Acad Manag Rev 22(2):403–428

Grønsund T, Aanestad M (2020) Augmenting the algorithm: emerging human-in-the-loop work configurations. J Strat Inform Syst 29(2):101614

Gul F, Natenzon P, Pesendorfer W (2014) Random choice as behavioral optimization. Econometrica 82(5):1873–1912

Hampel CE, Tracey P, Weber K (2020) The art of the pivot: How new ventures manage identification relationships with stakeholders as they change direction. Acad Manag J 63(2):440–471

Hannan MT, Freeman J (1986) Where do organizational forms come from?. In Sociological forum (Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 50–72). Kluwer Academic Publishers.

He, V. F., Puranam, P., Shrestha, Y. R., & von Krogh, G. (2020). Resolving governance disputes in communities: a study of software license decisions. Strat Manag J

Henderson RM, Clark KB (1990) Architectural innovation: the reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Admin Sci Quart 1:9–30

Hick WE (1952) On the rate of gain of information. Quart J Exp Psychol 4(1):11–26

Kaplan S (2008) Framing contests: strategy making under uncertainty. Organ Sci 19(5):729–752

Katz D, Kahn RL (1978) The social psychology of organizations (Vol. 2, p. 528). New York: Wiley

Kellogg KC, Valentine MA, Christin A (2020) Algorithms at work: the new contested terrain of control. Acad Manag Ann 14(1):366–410

Kelly D, Amburgey TL (1991) Organizational inertia and momentum: a dynamic model of strategic change. Acad Manag J 34(3):591–612

Kerr WR, Nanda R, Rhodes-Kropf M (2014) Entrepreneurship as experimentation. J Econ Persp 28(3):25–48

Ketel N, Leuven E, Oosterbeek H, van der Klaauw B (2016) The returns to medical school: evidence from admission lotteries. Am Econ J Appl Econ 8(2):225–254

Kinniment DJ (2008) Synchronization and arbitration in digital systems. Wiley

Klapper HJ, Maciejovsky B, Reitzig M (2019) Influence, interests and information in organizational decision making. Acad Manag Proc 2019(1):11990

Klein KJ, Sorra JS (1996) The challenge of innovation implementation. Acad Manag Rev 21(4):1055–1080

Levinthal DA (1997) Adaptation on rugged landscapes. Manage Sci 43(7):934–950

Levinthal DA, Rerup C (2021) The plural of goal: learning in a world of ambiguity. Organ Sci 32(3):527–543

Liu C (2021) In luck we trust: capturing the diversity bonus through random selection. J Organ Des 1:1–7

Liu C (2019). Solving the Brexit Deadlock by Lottery. Psychology Today.

Luce RD (1959) Individual choice behavior: A theoretical analysis. Wiley, New York

March JG (1962) The business firm as a political coalition. J Pol 24(4):662–678

March JC, March JG (1977) Almost random careers: the Wisconsin school superintendency, 1940–1972. Admin Sci Quart 1:377–409

March JG, Simon HA (1958) Organizations. John Wiley & Sons

Marengo L (2015) Representation, search, and the evolution of routines in problem solving. Ind Corp Chang 24(5):951–980

Matejka J, Fitzmaurice G (2017) Same stats, different graphs: generating datasets with varied appearance and identical statistics through simulated annealing. In: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. pp 1290–1294

Minsky M (1988) Society of mind. Simon and Schuster

Murray A, Rhymer J, Sirmon DG (2020) Human and Technology: Forms of Conjoined Agency in Organizations. Acad Manag Rev

Nelson RR (1991) Why do firms differ, and how does it matter? Strateg Manag J 12(S2):61–74

Nelson RR, Winter SG (1982) An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, Mass, Belknap

Newborn M (2012) Kasparov versus Deep Blue: Computer chess comes of age. Springer, New York

Nickerson JA, Zenger TR (2002) Being efficiently fickle: a dynamic theory of organizational choice. Organ Sci 13(5):547–566

O’Flaherty B, Siow A (1991) Promotion lotteries. J Law Econ Organ 7(2):401–409

Payne GT (2006) Examining configurations and firm performance in a suboptimal equifinality context. Organ Sci 17(6):756–770

Perrow C (2011) Normal accidents. Princeton University Press

Persky J (1995) The ethology of homo economicus. J Econ Persp 9(2):221–231

Porter ME (1996) What is strategy? Harv Bus Rev 74(6):61–78

Posen HE, Levinthal DA (2012) Chasing a moving target: exploitation and exploration in dynamic environments. Manage Sci 58(3):587–601

Posen HE, Keil T, Kim S, Meissner FD (2018) Renewing research on problemistic search—a review and research agenda. Acad Manag Ann 12(1):208–251

Puranam P (2018) The microstructure of organizations. Oxford University Press

Puranam P (2021) Human–AI collaborative decision-making as an organization design problem. J Organ Des 1:1–6

Puranam P, Håkonsson DD (2015) Valve’s Way. J Organ Des 4(2):2–4

Puranam P, Swamy M (2016) How initial representations shape coupled learning processes. Organ Sci 27(2):323–335

Puranam P, Raveendran M, Knudsen T (2012) Organization design: the epistemic interdependence perspective. Acad Manag Rev 37(3):419–440

Puranam P, Alexy O, Reitzig M (2014) What’s “new” about new forms of organizing? Acad Manag Rev 39(2):162–180

Raveendran M, Silvestri L, Gulati R (2020) The Role of interdependence in the microfoundations of organization design: task, goal, and knowledge interdependence. Acad Manag Ann

Rerup C, Feldman MS (2011) Routines as a source of change in organizational schemata: the role of trial-and-error learning. Acad Manag J 54(3):577–610

Rescher N (1959) Choice without preference: a study of the history and of the logic of the problem of “Buridan’s Ass.” Kant-Studien 51(1–4):142–175

Rich BR, Janos L (2013) Skunk works: A personal memoir of my years of Lockheed. Little, Brown

Rivkin JW, Siggelkow N (2003) Balancing search and stability: interdependencies among elements of organizational design. Manage Sci 49(3):290–311

Rumelhart DE, Hinton GE, Williams RJ (1985) Learning internal representations by error propagation (No. ICS-8506). California Univ San Diego La Jolla Inst for Cognitive Science

Sah RK, Stiglitz JE (1988) Committees, hierarchies and polyarchies. Econ J 98(391):451–470

Saunders B (2008) The equality of lotteries. Philosophy 1:359–372

Schilling MA (2002) Technology success and failure in winner-take-all markets: the impact of learning orientation, timing, and network externalities. Acad Manag J 45(2):387–398

Schreurs S, Cleland J, Muijtjens AM, Oude Egbrink MG, Cleutjens K (2018) Does selection pay off? A cost–benefit comparison of medical school selection and lottery systems. Med Educ 52(12):1240–1248

Schwartz B (2004) The paradox of choice: Why more is less. Ecco, New York

Shannon CE (1948) A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst Techn J 27(3):379–423

Shrestha YR, Ben-Menahem SM, Von Krogh G (2019) Organizational decision-making structures in the age of artificial intelligence. Calif Manage Rev 61(4):66–83

Siggelkow N, Rivkin JW (2005) Speed and search: designing organizations for turbulence and complexity. Organ Sci 16(2):101–122

Silver N (2012) The signal and the noise: why so many predictions fail–but some don’t. Penguin

Simon HA (1947) Administrative behavior. Simon and Schuster

Smaldino PE, Turner MA, Contreras Kallens PA (2019) Open science and modified funding lotteries can impede the natural selection of bad science. Royal Soc Open Sci 6(7):190194

Spinoza B (1677) Ethics. Book 2. Proposition 49

Tetlock PE (1983) Accountability and complexity of thought. J Pers Soc Psychol 45(1):74

Tetlock PE, Gardner D (2016) Superforecasting: the art and science of prediction. Random House

Tolstoy L (1877) Anna Karenina

Tushman ML, Nadler DA (1978) Information processing as an integrating concept in organizational design. Acad Manag Rev 3(3):613–624

Tversky A (1972) Elimination by aspects: a theory of choice. Psychol Rev 79(4):281

Van Maanen L, Grasman RP, Forstmann BU, Wagenmakers EJ (2012) Piéron’s law and optimal behavior in perceptual decision-making. Front Neurosci 5:143

Zellweger TM, Zenger TR (2021) Entrepreneurs as scientists: a pragmatist approach to producing value out of uncertainty. Acad Manag Rev

Zuboff S (2019) The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. Profile books