Proactive or Reactive: An Analysis of the Effect of Agent Style on Organizational Decision-making Performance

This paper addresses the issue of agent style-proactive and reactive-from a theoretical perspective. The results show that agent style, though often considered key in decision making, only affects the organization's performance when the organization is under moderate time pressure. Further, the effect of agent style depends on the type of training given to organizational agents and the internal condition under which the organization operates. This research suggests that, when resources are scarce, organizations should spend these resources on organizational design and on increasing the accuracy of incoming information rather than on altering the agents' style.

[1]  Joan C. Woodward.  Industrial Organization: Theory and Practice , 1966 .

[2]  James D. Thompson.  Organizations in Action , 1967 .

[3]  P. Lawrence,et al.  Organization and Environment: Managing Differentiation and Integration , 1967 .

[4]  Michael X Cohen,et al.  A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice. , 1972 .

[5]  O. Holsti,et al.  Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis , 1972 .

[6]  Kenneth R. Hammond,et al.  Negative effects of outcome-feedback in multiple-cue probability learning. , 1973 .

[7]  John Child,et al.  What determines organization The universals vs. the it-all-depends , 1974 .

[8]  William C. Giauque.  Organizational decision making , 1975 .

[9]  T. Lupton.  ‘Best Fit’ in the Design of Organizations , 1975 .

[10]  Johan P. Olsen,et al.  Ambiguity and choice in organizations , 1976 .

[11]  C. Rice.  Observations on the unexpected and simultaneous termination of leader and group , 1977 .

[12]  C. R. Anderson.  Locus of control, coping behaviors, and performance in a stress setting: a longitudinal study. , 1977, The Journal of applied psychology.

[13]  J. Pfeffer,et al.  The External Control of Organizations. , 1978 .

[14]  B. H. Mayhew,.  Structuralism Versus Individualism: Part 1, Shadowboxing in the Dark , 1980 .

[15]  R. Long.  Job Attitudes and Organizational Performance Under Employee Ownership , 1980 .

[16]  John F. Padgett.  Managing Garbage Can Hierarchies , 1980 .

[17]  J. March,et al.  Information in Organizations as Signal and Symbol. , 1981 .

[18]  Barry M. Staw,et al.  Threat-rigidity effects in organizational behavior: A multilevel analysis. , 1981 .

[19]  C. Hardy.  Organizations: Rational, Natural and Open Systems , 1983 .

[20]  Henry Mintzberg,et al.  Structure in Fives: Designing Effective Organizations , 1983 .

[21]  D. L. Simms,et al.  Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies , 1986 .

[22]  Robert E. Hoskisson,et al.  The Effect of Quantum Versus Incremental M-form Reorganization on Performance: A Time-Series Exploration of Intervention Dynamics , 1985 .

[23]  A. V. D. Ven,et al.  Alternative forms of fit in contingency theory. , 1985 .

[24]  Richard Smoke,et al.  Anatomy of a crisis , 1985 .

[25]  R. Burton,et al.  Designing efficient organizations : modelling and experimentation , 1986 .

[26]  James R. Lincoln,et al.  Organizational Structures in Japanese and U.S. Manufacturing , 1986 .

[27]  M. Clark.  Fallout from Chernobyl , 1986 .

[28]  Lawrence R. Jauch,et al.  Strategic management of uncertainty , 1986 .

[29]  H. Rothstein.  The effects of time pressure on judgment in multiple cue probability learning , 1986 .

[30]  Danny Miller,et al.  Personality, Culture, and Organization , 1986 .

[31]  K. Cameron.  Effectiveness as Paradox: Consensus and Conflict in Conceptions of Organizational Effectiveness , 1986 .

[32]  Lawrence R. Jauch,et al.  PROACTIVE VERSUS REACTIVE MANAGER: IS THE DICHOTOMY REALISTIC? , 1986 .

[33]  B. Wellman.  Structural analysis: From method and metaphor to theory and substance. , 1988 .

[34]  Robert N. Stern,et al.  Informal Networks and Organizational Crises: An Experimental Simulation , 1988 .

[35]  T. Ostrom.  Computer simulation: the third symbol system , 1988 .

[36]  Karlene H. Roberts,et al.  New challenges in organizational research: high reliability organizations , 1989 .

[37]  T. Fararo.  The meaning of general theoretical sociology: Frontmatter , 1989 .

[38]  R S Unger,et al.  Anatomy of a crisis. , 1989, Ontario dentist.

[39]  Richard M. Burton,et al.  Devising expert systems in organization theory: The Organizational Consultant , 1990 .

[40]  K. Roberts.  Some Characteristics of One Type of High Reliability Organization , 1990 .

[41]  Ian I. Mitroff,et al.  The ever-expanding scope of industrial crises: a systemic study of the Hinsdale telecommunications outage , 1990 .

[42]  L. Argote,et al.  Learning Curves in Manufacturing , 1990, Science.

[43]  Gene I. Rochlin.  Iran Air Flight 655 and the USS Vincennes , 1990 .

[44]  Todd R. La Porte,et al.  Social responses to large technical systems : control or anticipation , 1991 .

[45]  J. Woelfel,et al.  The Meaning of General Theoretical Sociology: Tradition and Formalization. , 1991 .

[46]  Kathleen M. Carley.  Designing organizational structures to cope with communication breakdowns: a simulation model , 1991 .

[47]  T. Laporte,et al.  Working in Practice But Not in Theory: Theoretical Challenges of “High-Reliability Organizations” , 1991 .

[48]  L. Donaldson,et al.  Coping with Crises: The Management of Disasters, Riots and Terrorism , 1989 .

[49]  Kathleen M. Carley.  Organizational Learning and Personnel Turnover , 1992 .

[50]  Cool Heads: Crisis Management for Administrators. , 1992 .

[51]  Kathleen M. Carley,et al.  Maydays and Murphies: A Study of the Effect of Organizational Design, Task, and Stress on Organizational Performance , 1992 .

[52]  Cynthia R. Cook,et al.  Organizational Structures , 1994 .