REPRESENTATIONS AND INFLUENCE PROCESSES IN GROUPS: TOWARDS A SOCIO-COGNITIVE PERSPECTIVE ON COGNITION IN ORGANIZATION

The cognitive approach to organizations assumes the existence of collective representations in organizations. This article critically examines this assumption and proposes the adoption of a socio-cognitive perspective on collective cognition in organizations. This theoretical current, which rejects the traditional individual/social dichotomy and relies on the concept of social representation, advocates the study of social cognition, which implies a change in the unit of analysis from the individual/social levels to interactions. A collective representation is viewed as being related to the socio-cognitive dynamics occurring between interacting group members. Communication and influence processes are thus critical to the construction of a collective representation. The socio-cognitive perspective, and the theory of social influence which it involves, can offer new and important insights on everyday thinking and behaving in organizations. However, this perspective calls for new methodological approaches to the study of organizational cognition.

[1]  H. Laroche.  From Decision to Action in Organizations: Decision-Making as a Social Representation , 1995 .

[2]  S. Moscovici,et al.  The group as a polarizer of attitudes. , 1969 .

[3]  Charles R. Schwenk.  LINKING COGNITIVE, ORGANIZATIONAL AND POLITICAL FACTORS IN EXPLAINING STRATEGIC CHANGE , 1989 .

[4]  Yaacov Trope,et al.  Interpersonal comparison versus persuasive argumentation: A more direct test of alternative explanations for group-induced shifts in individual choice , 1973 .

[5]  D. Rousseau.  Issues of level in organizational research: Multi-level and cross-level perspectives. , 1985 .

[6]  H. Thomas,et al.  Competitive Groups as Cognitive Communities: The Case of Scottish Knitwear Manufacturers Revisited , 1989 .

[7]  L. Smircich,et al.  Strategic Management in an Enacted World , 1985 .

[8]  Dennis A. Gioia,et al.  Influence Modes, Schema Change, and Organizational Transformation , 1989 .

[9]  G. Huber.  Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes and the Literatures , 1991 .

[10]  Edgar H. Schein,et al.  Coming to a new awareness of organizational culture , 1984 .

[11]  Peter H. Reingen,et al.  Sociocognitive Analysis of Group Decision Making among Consumers , 1990 .

[12]  H. B. Pepinsky.  Cognitive sociology: Language and meaning in social interaction. , 1975 .

[13]  James P. Walsh,et al.  Negotiated belief structures and decision performance: An empirical investigation , 1988 .

[14]  S. Moscovici.  Notes towards a description of Social Representations , 1988 .

[15]  B. Hedberg.  How Organizations Learn and Unlearn , 1981 .

[16]  J. Forgas.  Polarization and moderation of person perception judgements as a function of group interaction style , 1977 .

[17]  Yaacov Trope,et al.  A decision-making analysis of persuasive argumentation and the choice-shift effect , 1975 .

[18]  S. Moscovici,et al.  Social Influence, Conformity Bias, and the Study of Active Minorities , 1972 .

[19]  Susan C. Schneider,et al.  Basic Assumptions Themes in Organizations , 1988 .

[20]  Lívia Markíczy,et al.  A Method for Eliciting and Comparing Causal Maps , 1995 .

[21]  K. Langfield-Smith.  EXPLORING THE NEED FOR A SHARED COGNITIVE MAP , 1992 .

[22]  Barbara Gray,et al.  Organizations as Constructions and Destructions of Meaning , 1985 .

[23]  M. Bougon.  Cognition in Organizations: An Analysis of the Utrecht Jazz Orchestra. , 1977 .

[24]  Serge Moscovici,et al.  Studies in social influence III: Majority versus minority influence in a group , 1976 .

[25]  L. Bourgeois.  Performance and consensus , 1980 .

[26]  D. C. Feldman,et al.  The Development and Enforcement of Group Norms , 1984 .

[27]  H. P. Sims,et al.  Communication and Cognition in Appraisal: A Tale of Two Paradigms , 1989 .

[28]  J. Rentsch.  Climate and culture : interaction and qualitative differences in organizational meanings , 1990 .

[29]  A. Vinokur,et al.  Novel argumentation and attitude change: The case of polarization following group discussion , 1978 .

[30]  Robert G. Lord,et al.  An information processing approach to social perceptions, leadership and behavioral measurement in organizations. , 1985 .

[31]  S. Moscovici,et al.  Studies in social influence IV: Minority influence in a context of original judgments , 1978 .

[32]  J. Walsh,et al.  The Role of Negotiated Belief Structures in Strategy Making , 1986 .

[33]  P. Shrivastava.  A TYPOLOGY OF ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING SYSTEMS , 1983 .

[34]  C. Prahalad,et al.  The dominant logic: A new linkage between diversity and performance , 1986 .

[35]  G. Mugny,et al.  When rigidity does not fail: Individualization and psychologization as resistances to the diffusion of minority innovations , 1980 .

[36]  Charles R. Schwenk,et al.  TOP MANAGEMENT, STRATEGY AND ORGANIZATIONAL KNOWLEDGE STRUCTURES , 1992 .

[37]  D. Schweiger,et al.  Group Approaches for Improving Strategic Decision Making: A Comparative Analysis of Dialectical Inquiry, Devil's Advocacy, and Consensus , 1986 .

[38]  C. Stubbart.  MANAGERIAL COGNITION: A MISSING LINK IN STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT RESEARCH , 1989 .

[39]  G. Paicheler.  Polarization of attitudes in homogeneous and heterogeneous groups , 1979 .

[40]  Serge Moscovici,et al.  Toward A Theory of Conversion Behavior , 1980 .

[41]  George D. Bishop,et al.  Enhancement of Dominant Attitudes in Group Discussion. , 1971 .

[42]  J. Codol.  On the system of representations in a group situation , 1974 .