The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive
xt archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister
JMP
20,2
124
Received April 2004
Revised August 2004
Accepted October 2004
Journal of Managerial Psychology
Vol. 20 No. 2, 2005
pp. 124-136
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0268-3946
DOI 10.1108/02683940510579768
www.emeraldinsight.com/0268-3946.htm
Managers’ cognitive maps and
intra-organisational performance
differences
Geoffrey W. Goodhew
University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
Peter A. Cammock and Robert T. Hamilton
Department of Management, University of Canterbury, Christchurch,
New Zealand
Abstract
Purpose – To explore the relationship between managers’ cognitive maps and their performance as
managers at the same level in the same organisation.
Design/methodology/approach – Field study involving 30 branch managers in a financial
services organisation operating in New Zealand. A nomthetic approach was used to develop their
cognitive maps. Features of these maps were then related to business-unit performance.
Findings – The managers who were higher performing have maps that were considerably simpler,
using fewer concepts and fewer linkages.
Research limitations/implications/future research – While limited to one organisation and to
one level of management, there is evidence that cognition is related to managers’ performance. Future
research should explore how cognitive structures differ between managerial levels, and how these are
related to appropriate measures of performance.
Originality/value – One of few studies that have sought to map managers’ cognition and
organisation performance.
Keywords Managers, Cognition, Performance monitoring
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
This paper reports the findings of an exploratory study of the relationship between
managers’ cognitive structures – elucidated as maps – and their performance as
managers operating at the same level within the same organisation. Research on
managers’ cognition – their acquisition, processing and use of knowledge and
experience – has investigated the processes, styles and structures (Schneider and
Angelmar, 1993) by which cognition is represented, developed and then used (Walsh,
1995). Cognitive structures, such as maps, are templates consisting of organised
knowledge that an individual imposes on information to give it form and meaning
(Walsh, 1995, p. 281). The importance of cognitive structures to management was
summarised by Walsh (1995, pp. 280-1). He argued that management is largely about
information – “absorbing, processing and dissemination information”. The
information that the managers have to deal with is “extremely complex, ambiguous
and munificent”. Managers confront this “bewildering flow of information” by
“employing knowledge structures to represent their information worlds” which, in
turn, enables them to “make decisions and solve problems”. The managerial actions
that flow from their cognitive structures may have a pronounced effect on the Managers’
performance of their organisation and yet there have been few studies linking cognitive maps
managers’ cognition to performance. People behave in the ways that we observe for a
range of reasons, some rational but others deeply buried and unconscious to the
individual (Robinson, 2000). In conducting this study we were mindful that cognitive
maps, no matter how elaborate, cannot claim to be entirely representative of an
individual’s cognition. Such maps can reveal only a part of any understanding of 125
behavioural differences, even among managers operating at the same level of an
organisation. A more complete understanding of behaviour would require a full
understanding not only of cognition, but of conscious and unconscious functioning that
involves emotion, character and even spirituality.

Literature review
The main target of studies of cognition in organisations has been the individual
manager – understanding how they think while performing managerial tasks
(Schneider and Angelmar, 1993). Their cognitive structures have been treated
variously as beliefs (Sproull, 1981; Walsh, 1988), knowledge (Shrivastava and
Schneider, 1984), categories (Dutton and Jackson, 1987; Hodgkinson and Johnson,
1994), taxonomies (Porac and Thomas, 1989), scripts (Gioia et al., 1989; Lord and
Kernan, 1987) and maps (Bougon et al., 1977; Daniels et al., 2002). They have been
related to decision-making (Axelrod, 1976), performance appraisal (Gioia et al., 1989),
strategic behaviour (Dutton and Jackson, 1987; Stubbart, 1989), power (Bartenuk and
Ringuest, 1989), strategy (Day and Lord, 1992), and leadership (Lord and Maher, 1991).
A second important topic in the study of managerial cognition is organisational
performance. Walsh tells us that cognition might provide “a fresh theoretical
perspective to consider how managers might increase or decrease firm value” (Walsh,
1995, p. 280). This is echoed by Schneider and Angelmar (1993, p. 364), arguing that the
links between cognition, action and outcome need to be explored and by Thomas et al.
(1993, p. 239) describing “performance linkages to cognition and action” as “clearly
important” in the study of managerial and organisational cognition. Despite the
arguments for the importance of performance, there have been few empirical studies of
connections between managers’ cognition and organisational performance (Markcózy
and Goldberg, 1995). Thomas et al. (1993) surveyed hospital CEOs to investigate the
relationship between sensemaking (scanning and interpretation), action and
performance, finding linkages between cognition and action and cognition and
performance. Laukkanen (1993, 1994) compared the cognitive maps the
owner-managers of SMEs, comparing those who survived and those who failed. He
found the owners of surviving business had richer, more complex cognitive maps.
Jenkins and Johnson (1997) also used cognitive maps to compare the cognitions of high
and low performing managers in independent retail firms. Their research propositions
were not supported but on an exploratory re-analysis of the data, they found that the
higher performing managers connected actions, customer concepts and performance
measures in their cognitive maps.
Walsh’s (1995) review celebrated only ten years of concerted effort to understand
managerial and organisational cognition, despite the importance of cognition in
some of the earliest models of management and organisation (Barnard, 1938; Simon,
1955; Weick, 1969). There appear to be two reasons for the paucity of work linking
JMP cognition to performance. First there are theoretical problems. There is some
20,2 agreement on the overall importance of cognitive structures but there is little
agreement about the nature and function of these structures in organisational
settings (Walsh, 1995). Performance is a complex multidimensional construct
(Corvellec, 1997; Cameron and Whetten, 1983). Links between managerial behaviour
and performance are poorly understood (Martinko and Gardener, 1985; Hales, 1986).
126 Links between managerial cognition and managerial behaviour are still being
researched and understood, with little in the way of a cohesive model integrating
the findings (Walsh, 1995). Second, there are methodological problems. While
methods for collecting, analysing and interpreting cognitive data are being
developed for use in organisational settings (Markóczy and Goldberg, 1995; Bougon,
1983), there is considerable disagreement about what these methods measure and
what they mean (Daniels et al., 2002; Hodgkinson, 2002). Many of the methods used
are not suitable for comparison because they focus on the unique aspects of
individual cognition, rather than the similarities (Cossette and Audet, 1992).

Methodology
Our attempt to associate managers’ cognition to their performance involved studying a
group of 30 branch managers in a financial services organisation in New Zealand.
These managers each had a similar degree of autonomy in how they managed their
branch and were responsible for its performance. Some aspects, such as the product
range and staff training, were standardised across the organisation and the role of each
staff member was clearly defined. The branches varied in size (measured by staffing
levels) and there was a significant positive correlation ðr ¼ þ0:72Þ between branch
size and a manager’s experience (number of years as a manager in the organisation.)
Most studies of managerial cognition have focused on senior managers from several
organisations within one industry (Thomas et al., 1993; Jenkins and Johnson, 1997;
Porac et al., 1995), so using managers from one organisation minimises differences in
cognition caused by the organisation. The approach used by both Jenkins and Johnson
(1997) and Laukkanen (1994) to assess managerial cognition was cognitive mapping
(Huff, 1990; Eden and Spender, 1998; Nicolini, 1999), an approach well suited to
representing cognition in ways that are amenable to verification and comparative
analysis (Markóczy and Goldberg, 1995). The causal nature of cognitive maps is also
consistent with some views on how cognition affects behaviour in an organisation
(Weick and Bougon, 1986).
There are two general approaches to cognitive mapping: ideographic and
nomothetic. Nomothetic methods allow the respondents to select from a predefined set
of concepts and focus on the relationships between concepts. Ideographic methods do
not limit or standardise the concepts that can be included (Cossette and Audet, 1992).
Nomothetic methods are more suited to aggregation and comparison (Hodgkinson,
2002) and assume that cognition is contained in the relationships between concepts
rather than in the concepts themselves (Weick and Bougon, 1986). As this is a
comparative study, a nomothetic approach seemed the more appropriate. The maps
were produced using a three-stage process of selecting the concepts, identifying the
relationships and validating the maps (Markóczy and Goldberg, 1995). Performance
was assessed using the organisations internal performance measures.
Cognitive maps Managers’
The first step in a nomothetic approach is to select a set of concepts to be used. In this cognitive maps
study a survey of all of the managers was used to identify the concepts. The survey
asked the managers to identify the major factors that influenced the performance of
their branch. All of the branch managers and their supervisors (area managers)
responded and the results were analysed. Ten concepts were added to three
performance outcomes and these are reported in Table I. 127
The cognitive maps themselves were developed in two interviews with each of the
managers. The first interview began by asking the manager to review the list of
concepts and select any or all of them which were applicable to performance in their
branch. This identified the list of concepts that were to be mapped for that manager.
Table I also shows the number of managers selecting each concept. While this
indicates that most managers used all 13 concepts in their cognitive map, fewer
concepts tended to be used as branch size increased ðr ¼ 20:32Þ:
The second stage was used to identify the relationships between these concepts. For
each of the three performance outcomes the managers were asked, “Which of the other
factors on the list directly affect this factor in your branch?” This identified the causal
relationships to the performance outcomes. The managers were then asked to identify
any other relationships, considering each pair of concepts they had selected. This
produced a set of relationships between concepts that constituted the manager’s
cognitive map. The remainder of the interview was spent asking the manager to talk
about the nature of these relationships in more detail. Where appropriate, changes were
made to the map to reflect the more detailed discussions.
The cognitive maps were represented both graphically (Figure 1) and as an
adjacency matrix. These two representations are logically identical, containing the
same information. The graphical map is usually easier for people to see and
understand, while the adjacency matrix is more suitable for mathematical analysis and
comparison of the structure of the cognitive maps.
The final step was to ask the managers to verify the cognitive map. This was done
by taking the graphical maps to the manager, and asking them to confirm if it
represented their thinking about their branch and its performance. This usually

Concept number Concept description Number of managers

1 Having capable and knowledgeable staff 30

2 Having high levels of staff morale and motivation 30
3 Having the right number of staff 30
4 Having a good location for the branch 26
5 Having a favourable customer mix 25
6 Having a well equipped and laid-out branch 29
7 Managing staff performance well and PMPa 29
8 Having high levels of competition 23
9 Having a good mix of products 30
10 Providing leadership to the branch 29
11 Having high levels of customer satisfaction 30
12 Achieving good financial performance 30
13 Having high levels of staff satisfaction 30 Table I.
Note: aPMP is the organisation’s performance management process Concepts to be mapped
JMP
20,2

128

Figure 1.
A graphical representation
of a cognitive map

involved both presenting the cognitive map to the manager and talking about the
relationships identified in that map. Any changes made by the managers were included
in the map although this was rare. The remainder of the interview was spent
elaborating themes and ideas uncovered in the first interview.

Performance
The measure of performance used in this study was derived from the organisation’s
measures of branch financial performance. The organisation assesses the managers’
performance almost exclusively on this measure. Financial performance is divided into
several categories. For each category, the manager and their area manager negotiate a
growth target and the branch’s performance is then calculated as a percentage of this
target as follows:
Dtotalij
Performanceij ¼ 100 £
targetij
where i is the performance category (lending or funding) and j is the individual
manager.
The branch managers in this study were drawn from four geographic areas, each
managed by a different area manager who negotiated the targets for each branch with
the branch managers. Differences in performance mean and variance were apparent
between areas and to control for this, a branch’s performance in each category was
normalised to the mean and variance of the branches in their area in that category as
follows:
 X
performanceij 2 X
ik  Managers’
Performancej ¼
i
sik cognitive maps
where i is the performance category (lending or funding); j the manager; k the area that
the manager is in; X ik the mean performance in category i for area k and sik the
standard deviation of performance in category i for area k.
The categories were combined by summing the normalised Z-scores to give an
129
overall performance score for each manager. The final step was to split the managers
into high, medium and low performance groups. This was done by ranking the
managers overall performance score and splitting the sample into three equal sized
groups.

Analysis
There are two basic methods for quantitatively comparing the structure of cognitive
maps: mathematical methods and rating methods. Rating methods rely on the
scoring of similarity between maps by either independent observers or
the participants in the study. They are useful for comparing quite different
cognitive maps, but rely on the subjective judgements of the raters. Mathematical
methods rely on the mathematical properties of cognitive maps. They provide
objective comparisons, but require a structure to be imposed on the data being
collected. The nomothetic method used here meant that structure was imposed on
the cognitive maps during the data collection phase, allowing for a mathematical
comparison of cognitive maps.
There are two basic forms of mathematical comparison between cognitive maps.
One uses indices of the structure of cognitive maps and the other uses distance
measures between matrix representations of cognitive maps (Daniels et al., 1994).
Indices are useful for comparing any sort of cognitive map, however they do not take
account of all of the mathematical information available. This means that two
cognitive maps may have identical indices, but be very different in their content.
Distance measures do account for all of the information, but require that a structure be
imposed on the cognitive maps to allow this comparison to take place. Because
nomothetic methods were used, both indices and distance measures could be used to
analyse the maps derived in this study.
Mathematical measures of similarity focus on the set of concepts and relationships
between these concepts that form the cognitive maps. The most basic indices count the
number of concepts used in the map and the number of links (Eden et al., 1992). These
can be combined to form density: the number of links divided by the number of
concepts used (Eden et al., 1992). Indices can also be developed for heads and tails.
A head is a concept that affects no other concepts. In Figure 1, a head is represented by
a concept with no arrows leading out of it (e.g. concept 12). A tail is a concept that is
effected by no other concepts. In Figure 1 this is represented by a concept with no
arrows leading into it (e.g. concepts “3”, “4”, “6”, “7”, “8”, and “9” are tails) (Eden et al.,
1992).
Emergent features can be logically derived from the structure of the map. The first
issue to consider is a path (Axelrod, 1976). A path involves following links between
concepts to move from one concept to another. From Figure 1, a path exists from
“Providing strong leadership to the branch” to “Good financial performance”.
JMP The shortest path between these two concepts involves three steps (“Providing strong
20,2 leadership to the branch” ! “High levels of staff morale and motivation” !
“Achieving high levels of customer satisfaction” ! “Good financial performance”).
There is also a path of four steps in length (“Providing strong leadership to the
branch” ! “High levels of staff morale and motivation” ! “Having satisfied
employees” ! “Achieving high levels of customer satisfaction” ! “Good financial
130 performance”). Indices can then be developed by taking the longest path length and the
mean path length for each map.
The final emergent property of a cognitive map is the centrality of a concept. Eden
et al. (1992) use centrality to indicate the importance of a concept in a map. To compute
the centrality Eden et al. (1992) ignore the direction of the links. For each concept the
number of paths of each length is divided by the length of the path and summed to
produce a measure of centrality. The main caveat of this is that only the shortest path
between any two concepts is considered in this calculation. Indices can be developed
from the mean centrality of a cognitive map, the highest centrality and the lowest
centrality of each map. Together, these indices provide a set of measures for the
structure of each cognitive map.
Distance scores are a different approach to comparing cognitive mapping. They are
usually applied to cause maps and measure the distance between a given pair of
cognitive maps, using techniques derived from graph theory (Langfield-Smith and
Wirth, 1992; Daniels et al., 1994; Markóczy and Goldberg, 1995). These methods rely on
imposing a structure on the data before analysing the cognitive maps. This structure
takes the form of a limited set of concepts from which the maps are produced and a
limited set of links that can exist between these concepts. In this study, the 13 concepts
formed the total set of available concepts and the links were limited to positive causal
links between concepts.
The distance ratio takes the numerator from the links. For each pair of maps, all
possible links between the concepts are considered. If the two maps have the same
relationship between a pair of concepts, then it is scored as a 0; if they have a different
relationship between a pair of concepts it is scored as a 1[1]. If the maps have identical
link structures, then the numerator becomes zero. As the link structures become more
different, the numerator increases to a theoretical maximum of M ðM 2 1Þ where M is
the number of concepts. The denominator is taken from the concepts – the number of
concepts shared within the cognitive maps, and the concepts that are unique to each
map. If the two maps use the same set of concepts, then the denominator will be larger.
As the common set of concepts becomes smaller, and the number of concepts unique to
each map becomes larger, the denominator becomes smaller. Two identical maps will
have a distance ratio of 0. As the maps become more different, the distance ratio
increases towards 1.

Cognition and performance

The mean and standard deviation of distance scores for each group were calculated,
and reported in Table II. In this table, the high-medium cell in the table is the mean of
the distances between each map in the high performing group and each map in
medium performing group. This table shows us that the overall mean distance ratio is
low (0.11), supporting the finding that the maps are broadly similar to one another.
The highest distance score between any pair of maps is 0.20. There are no significant Managers’
differences between the means of different performance groups. cognitive maps
These findings indicate similarity of the cognitive maps both within and between
performance groups, a finding to be expected given the intra-organisational focus of
the study.
To identify which if any particular measures of cognitive structure are related to
performance, the individual properties of the cognitive maps were compared between 131
the high, medium and low performing managers. To find which of these differences
was significant, a Kruskal-Wallis test was used[2].
There are some significant performance-related differences reported in Table III. In
general terms, the higher performing managers had simpler maps with more heads but
fewer concepts and even fewer links. It is this relatively low number of links per
concept that leads to the somewhat lower true density of the cognitive maps of the high
performers. The maximum centrality measures are also significantly lower for the
higher performing group of managers.
These results were used to guide the selection of independent variables in a
regression using the standardised performance scores as the dependent variable. The
number of concepts and some indication of the number of links should be included as
explanatory variables in the model. Testing for correlations between the independent
variables indicated that density was the most appropriate indicator of the number of
links in the cognitive map. The resulting regression (refer Table IV) has an R 2 of 0.39
ð p , 0:001Þ; tolerance tests indicated low collinearity ðT ¼ 0:95Þ; and the estimated
coefficients are significant. These results support the results from the Kruskal-Wallis
test: the managers with higher performance had fewer concepts and lower density
cognitive maps than lower performing managers.

Mean (Standard deviation)

High Medium Low Total

High 0.12 (0.024) Table II.

Medium 0.12 (0.030) 0.09 (0.035) Mean distance scores
Low 0.12 (0.024) 0.11 (0.032) 0.11 (0.030) within and between
Total 0.12 (0.027) 0.11 (0.033) 0.11 (0.029) 0.11 (0.031) groups

H (adj)
Low Medium High Direction Kruskal-
(mean) (mean) (mean) of effect Wallis test statistic p-values

Number of heads 1.9 2.6 3.0 þ 5.63 0.060

Number of tails 8.0 8.1 8.2 þ 1.01 0.604
Number of links 25.2 22.8 18.6 2 6.46 0.040
Number of concepts 12.9 12.3 11.8 2 9.17 0.010
True density 1.9 1.9 1.6 2 4.80 0.091
Mean centrality 7.0 6.6 6.1 2 4.11 0.128 Table III.
Maximum centrality 10.2 9.3 8.8 2 5.23 0.073 Cognitive map variables
Minimum centrality 5.0 4.5 4.0 2 2.60 0.273 and performance
JMP Findings
20,2 Before we discuss our findings, we want to reiterate that we have been exploring only
one representation of each manager’s cognition and how this relates to our measure of
performance. Indeed our findings could have been generated by unconscious processes
that are not amenable to mapping. We have not sought to incorporate managers’
consciousness but have tried to find an association between one representation of
132 cognition and their performance. In the terms used by Vygotsky (1925, p. 251), the
research design we have used in this study allows us to explain “. . . no more than the
most elementary connections between a living being and the world”. With these
qualifications, we have nevertheless found some interesting associations between one
representation of managers’ cognition and their performance.
The dominant finding is the similarity among the cognitive maps of managers. It
does appear however that managers of higher performing branches had simpler
cognitive maps than managers from lower performing branches. The first finding is
expected, given that the managers are taken from one organisation; the second is
contrary to other studies of cognition and performance (Laukannen, 1993; Jenkins and
Johnson, 1997).
To explain these findings it is useful to look at the distinction between the role
demands and definition (Levinson, 1966). Role demands refer to the situational factors
that influence a manager; role definition refers to the manager’s adaptation to the
situation. The role definition can be further split into role conception and role
performance. Role conception is the way a manager perceives their position and the
demands of that position. The role conception is influenced by the role demands, as
well as by the attributes of the individual (Katz and Kahn, 1978), and reflects the
choices the manager has made, given the demands and constraints of their role
definition (Stewart, 1982). It is at the level of role conception that the individual
characteristics of the managers can be bought into role theory (Fondas and Stewart,
1994). Role performance is the behaviour of the manager in the role: either in response
to their role conception, or in pursuit of their individual projects (Levinson, 1966) and
choices (Stewart, 1982). Role performance refers specifically to “behaviour” with
respect to a set of role expectations; organisational performance tends to focus on
outcomes (Corvellec, 1997; Venkatraman and Ramanurajan, 1986).
If we assume that the manager’s cognitive map represents their role conception, and
their behaviour is role performance, Figure 2 shows the relationship between
managers’ cognitive maps and performance.
The first section of this model is the link between role demands, individual
characteristics and the manager’s cognitive map. In situations where the role demands
are clear, cohesive, specific, from unified sources and strong we would expect the role
demands to be more deterministic (Levinson, 1966). It can also be explained in terms of

Variables Estimated values t-value

Constant term 38.75 4.663

Number of concepts used 21.92 2.802
True density 23.76 2.357
Table IV. R2 0.39 –
Regression analysis F-statistic (2,27) 8.56 p, 0.001
 Managers’
cognitive maps

133

Figure 2.
Managerial cognition and
performance

Stewart’s (1982) demands, constraints and choices model. Where the role is clearly
defined, we would expect to see higher demands and constraints on the manager’s
behaviour, leaving less room for individual choice. In this study, the role was clearly
defined; the demands and constraints on the manager’s behaviour were generally well
communicated. In this situation, we would expect the role to dominate the individual.
Because the manager’s roles were virtually, identical, the similarity of the manager’s
cognitive maps is easily understood. For both Jenkins and Johnson (1997) and
Laukannen (1993), the managers had higher levels of autonomy and discretion,
suggesting that the role demands were both weaker and less homogeneous, leading us
to expect to see greater differences between the manager’s cognitive maps.
The second group of elements to focus on are the manager’s cognitive map, the
manager’s behaviour, the nature of performance and the organisation’s performance.
The nature of performance influences the manager’s cognitive map. In situations where
performance is clearly defined, and the links to this from the manager’s behaviour are
well understood, less complex maps should be able to represent the performance
situation. In situations where performance is ill-defined and/or the links from manager
behaviour are less well understood, we would expect to see more complex cognitive
maps. The conclusion from this is that the sparsity of the maps of high performers does
indeed reflect their better understanding of how they actually influence branch
performance. This association between cognitive map and performance effect is not
due to experience leading invariably to both sparser maps and higher performance. If
we take number of concepts used as a proxy for “sparsity”, the correlation between this
and number of years as a manager in the organisation was not statistically significant
ðr ¼ 20:23Þ in this group of managers.

Conclusions
In this study, the role demands were simple, unitary and clear, and the higher
performing managers had simpler cognitive maps. In a situation where role demands
were complex, diverse and ambiguous, higher performing managers had more
complex cognitive maps (Laukkanen, 1993). Presenting the manager’s cognitive map
as a role conception gives us a useful way of thinking about cognition in organisations.
JMP The characteristics of the individual manager and how they think they should be
20,2 performing their role is an important influence on the manager’s role conception, and
this is reflected in the manager’s cognitive map. This differs from the traditional
definition of a role conception, where the individual characteristics influence role
performance (Fondas and Stewart, 1994). By incorporating the characteristics of the
manager as an individual, including their experience and values, we get a more
134 individual picture of the role conception. This study provides an example of comparing
managers with the same role, suggesting that any differences are attributable to the
individual, rather than to the role.
To understand the relationship between managerial cognition and organisational
performance, we need to provide a better theoretical framework for modelling
managerial cognition and performance. This begins with definitions of the central
concepts with reference to the relevant literatures on management, managerial
cognition and organisational performance. It seems self-evident that the way a
manager thinks is going to be influenced by the organisation, industry and society in
which they are working. What is less evident is the nature and extent of these
influences, but these are issues that can and should be further investigated.

Notes
1. Langfield-Smith and Wirth (1992), Daniels et al. (1994) and Markóczy and Goldberg (1995) all
offer more complex formulae that allow for self-referential links, positive and negative
relationships and different link strengths. The formula used to calculate the distance ratio in
this study is the simplification of this formula taking the appropriate assumptions for the
maps used in this investigation.
2. Kruskal-Wallis is a non-parametric test. It is more conservative and less sensitive to small
numbers of observations, data that is not normally distributed and unequal variances
between groups than a standard ANOVA.

References
Axelrod, R.M. (1976), The Structure of Decision: Cognitive Maps of Political Elites, Princeton
University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Barnard, C. (1938), The Functions of the Executive, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Bartunek, J.M. and Ringuest, J.L. (1989), “Enacting new perspectives through work activities
during organizational transformation”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 26 No. 6,
pp. 541-60.
Bougon, M., Weick, K.E. and Binkhorst, D. (1977), “Cognition in organizations: an analysis of the
Utrecht jazz orchestra”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 22, pp. 606-39.
Cameron, K.S. and Whetten, D.A. (1983), “Some conclusions about organizational effectiveness”,
Organizational Effectiveness: A Comparison of Multiple Models, Academic Press,
New York, NY, pp. 261-77.
Corvellec, H. (1997), Stories of Achievements: Narrative Features of Organizational Performance,
Lund University Press, Lund.
Cossette, P. and Audet, M. (1992), “Mapping of an idiosyncratic schema”, Journal of Management
Studies, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 325-47.
Daniels, K., Johnson, G. and Chernatony, L. (1994), “Differences in managerial cognitions of
competition”, Journal of Management, Vol. 5 No. Special issue, pp. 21-9.
Daniels, K., Johnson, G. and de Chernatony, L. (2002), “Task and institutional influences on Managers’
managers’ mental models of competition”, Organization Studies, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 31-62.
cognitive maps
Dutton, J.E. and Jackson, S.E. (1987), “Categorising strategic issues: links to organizational
action”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 76-90.
Eden, C. and Spender, J.C. (1998), Managerial Cognition: Theory Methods and Research,
Sage, London.
Eden, C., Ackerman, F. and Cropper, S. (1992), “The analysis of cause maps”, Journal of 135
Management Studies, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 309-24.
Fondas, N. and Stewart, R. (1994), “Enactment of managerial jobs: a role analysis”, Journal of
Management Studies, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 83-103.
Gioia, D.A., Donnellon, A. and Sims, H.P. (1989), “Communication and cognition in appraisal: a
tale of two paradigms”, Organization Studies, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 503-30.
Hales, C.P. (1986), “What do managers do? A critical review of the evidence”, Journal of
Management Studies, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 88-115.
Hodgkinson, G.P. and Johnson, G. (1994), “Exploring the mental models of competitive
strategists: the case for a processual approach”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 31
No. 4, pp. 525-51.
Hodgkinson, G.P. (2002), “Comparing managers’ mental models of competition: why self-report
measures of belief similarity won’t do”, Organization Studies, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 63-72.
Huff, A.S. (1990), “Mapping strategic thought”, in Sigismund Huff, A.S. (Ed.), Mapping Strategic
Thought, Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 11-49.
Jenkins, M. and Johnson, G. (1997), “Linking managerial cognition and organizational
performance: a preliminary investigation using causal maps”, British Journal of
Management, Vol. 8 No. Special Issue, pp. S77-S90.
Katz, D. and Kahn, K.L. (1978), The Social Psychology of Organizations, 2nd ed., Wiley,
New York, NY.
Langfield-Smith, K. and Wirth, A. (1992), “Measuring differences between cognitive maps”,
Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 43 No. 12, pp. 1135-50.
Laukkanen, M. (1993), A Computer Method for Comparative Cognitive Mapping, paper presented
at The International Workshop on Managerial and Organizational Cognition, Brussels.
Laukkanen, M. (1994), “Comparative cause mapping of organizational cognitions”, Organization
Science, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 322-43.
Levinson, D.J. (1966), “Role, personality and social structure”, in Coser, L.A. and Rosenberg, B.
(Eds), Sociological Theory: A Book of Readings, 2nd ed., Collier Macmillan, New York, NY.
Lord, R.G. and Kernan, M.C. (1987), “Scripts as determinants of purposeful behavior in
organizations”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 265-77.
Lord, R.G. and Maher, K.J. (1991), “Cognitive theory in industrial and organizational
psychology”, in Dunnette, M.D. and Leaetta, M.H. (Eds), Handbook of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology 2, Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA, pp. 1-62.
Markóczy, L. and Goldberg, J. (1995), “A method for eliciting and comparing causal maps”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 305-33.
Martinko, M.J. and Gardener, W.L. (1985), “Beyond structured observation: methodological
issues and new directions”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 676-95.
Nicolini, D. (1999), “Comparing methods for mapping organizational cognition”, Organization
Studies, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 833-60.
JMP Porac, J.F. and Thomas, H. (1989), “Managerial thinking in business environments”, Journal of
Management Studies, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 323-4.
20,2 Porac, J.F., Thomas, H., Wilson, F., Paton, D. and Kanfer, A. (1995), “Rivalry and the industry
model of Scottish knitwear producers”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 40,
pp. 203-27.
Robinson, D. (2000), “Paradigms and ‘the myth of framework’: how science progresses”, Theory
136 and Psychology, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 39-47.
Schneider, S.C. and Angelmar, R. (1993), “Cognition in organizational analysis: who’s minding
the store?”, Organization Studies, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 347-74.
Shrivastava, P. and Schneider, S.A. (1984), “Organizational frames of reference”, Human
Relations, Vol. 37, pp. 795-807.
Simon, H.A. (1955), “A behavioral model of rational choice”, Quarterly Journal of Economics,
Vol. 69, pp. 99-118.
Sproull, L.S. (1981), “Beliefs in organizations”, in Nystrom, P.C. and Starbuck, W. (Eds),
Handbook of Organizational Design, Vol. 2, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Stewart, R. (1982), “A model for understanding managerial jobs and behavior”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 7-13.
Stubbart, C.I. (1989), “Managerial cognition: a missing link in strategic management research”,
Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 325-47.
Thomas, J.B., Clark, S.M. and Gioia, D.A. (1993), “Strategic sensemaking and organizational
performance: linkages among scanning interpretation, action, and outcomes”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 239-70.
Venkatraman, N. and Ramanujan, V. (1986), “Measurement of business performance in strategy
research: a comparison of approaches”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11 No. 4,
pp. 801-14.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1925), “Consciousness as a problem in the psychology of behaviour”, in Veresov,
N. (translator), Undiscovered Vygotsky: Etudes on the Pre-history of Cultural-Historical
Psychology (European Studies in the History of Science and Ideas), Vol. 8, pp. 251-81.
Walsh, J.P. (1995), “Managerial and organizational cognition: notes from a trip down memory
lane”, Organization Science, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 280-321.
Weick, K.E. (1969), The Social Psychology of Organizing, 1st ed., Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Weick, K.E. and Bougon, M.G. (1986), “Organizations as cognitive maps: charting ways to
success and failure”, in Sims, H.P. and Gioia, D.A. (Eds), The Thinking Organization:
Dynamics of Organizational Social Cognition, Jossey Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 102-35.