Within the broader study of decision-making, the Carnegie perspective occupies a unique place. Initially developed by pioneering scholars such as Herbert Simon and James March, it views organizational decisions as resulting from the combined influences of a.) psychological processes of attention allocation, interpretation of experience, and motivated search, and b.) features of the organizational context that direct attention, influence preferences, contend with ambiguity, contain conflict, and divide labor. Despite its unique strengths and a considerable body of work (see below some foundational references), research that adopts the Carnegie perspective is still relatively unknown outside the field of organization studies. As James March noted, Carnegie has been primarily an importer of ideas, rather than an exporter.
The goal of this research topic is to facilitate dialogue and integration between this well-established Carnegie perspective and other lines of inquiry into the study of decision making and problem solving. We are interested in bringing to the fore what is distinctive in the accumulated body of evidence produced by the Carnegie perspective and highlighting similarities, differences, and potential points of connection with other research done on similar topics. To achieve this goal, we hope that the front end of each submission will cover the following four components:
1. A clear focus on a central topic in Carnegie. Possible topics may include, but are not limited to: ambiguity, artificial intelligence, aspirations, attention, emotions, exploration vs exploitation, fluid participation, garbage can processes, interpretation, learning, logic of appropriateness, luck, meaning, multiple goals, routines, search, and storytelling.
2. A clear connection to decision making and/or problem solving. As has been noted, "decision making is the focal point of the [Carnegie] School's perspective on organizations," and work in this tradition seeks a "behaviorally plausible, decision-centered perspective on organizations" (Gavetti, Levinthal, & Ocasio, 2007: 525).
3. A section that provides an overview of the origins, key points, and advances of the topic within Carnegie, both conceptual and empirical. We are not looking for comprehensive reviews of past work but rather for reviews that identify key developments and highlight novel insights and findings. One goal of this section is to give someone not familiar with the topic an overview and orientation, as well as clarify how it contributes to the understanding of decision making and problem solving.
4. A section discussing how other lines of work within psychology have approached the Carnegie concept covered and in what ways the Carnegie perspective is similar, different, or otherwise related to that work. Here, too, we do not expect a comprehensive review but rather a selective analysis, written with psychology readers in mind, that illustrates how the Carnegie perspective complements, contrasts, and/or adds unique value to other psychological analyses of decision making. This section will be fundamental in making work featured in the research topic accessible to psychology scholars.
We are interested in both theoretical and empirical papers and we encourage submissions that report on studies conducted using a wide range of methods, including but not limited to field, laboratory, and online studies; and modeling.
Please note that manuscripts should not exceed 12.000 words, but can be shorter. The review process is transparent and Frontiers in Psychology has an average review time of 88 days -reviewers of accepted manuscripts will be public.
An exciting byproduct of this research topic is that it encourages us to distill what we collectively view as key aspects of the Carnegie perspective at this point in time. We think this is an additional valuable dimension of the research topic that may benefit the growing number of junior scholars interested in the Carnegie perspective to decision-making.
We look forward to receiving your submissions by the 10th of January 2023, and in the meantime remain available for any questions.
References
Audia, P. G., & Greve, H. R. (2021). Organizational learning from performance feedback: A behavioral perspective on multiple goals: A multiple goals perspective. Cambridge University Press.
Beckman, C. M. (2021). Carnegie goes to California: Advancing and Celebrating the Work of James G. March. Research in the Sociology of Organizations.
Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A Behavioral Theory of the Firm.
Gavetti, G., Levinthal, D., & Ocasio, W. (2007). Perspective—Neo-Carnegie: The Carnegie school’s past, present, and reconstructing for the future. Organization Science, 18(3), 523-536.
Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic management journal, 14(S2), 95-112.
March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization science, 2(1), 71-87.
March, J. G. (1994). A Primer on Decision Making: How Decisions Happen. Simon and Schuster.
Simon, H. A. (1947). Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organization.
Within the broader study of decision-making, the Carnegie perspective occupies a unique place. Initially developed by pioneering scholars such as Herbert Simon and James March, it views organizational decisions as resulting from the combined influences of a.) psychological processes of attention allocation, interpretation of experience, and motivated search, and b.) features of the organizational context that direct attention, influence preferences, contend with ambiguity, contain conflict, and divide labor. Despite its unique strengths and a considerable body of work (see below some foundational references), research that adopts the Carnegie perspective is still relatively unknown outside the field of organization studies. As James March noted, Carnegie has been primarily an importer of ideas, rather than an exporter.
The goal of this research topic is to facilitate dialogue and integration between this well-established Carnegie perspective and other lines of inquiry into the study of decision making and problem solving. We are interested in bringing to the fore what is distinctive in the accumulated body of evidence produced by the Carnegie perspective and highlighting similarities, differences, and potential points of connection with other research done on similar topics. To achieve this goal, we hope that the front end of each submission will cover the following four components:
1. A clear focus on a central topic in Carnegie. Possible topics may include, but are not limited to: ambiguity, artificial intelligence, aspirations, attention, emotions, exploration vs exploitation, fluid participation, garbage can processes, interpretation, learning, logic of appropriateness, luck, meaning, multiple goals, routines, search, and storytelling.
2. A clear connection to decision making and/or problem solving. As has been noted, "decision making is the focal point of the [Carnegie] School's perspective on organizations," and work in this tradition seeks a "behaviorally plausible, decision-centered perspective on organizations" (Gavetti, Levinthal, & Ocasio, 2007: 525).
3. A section that provides an overview of the origins, key points, and advances of the topic within Carnegie, both conceptual and empirical. We are not looking for comprehensive reviews of past work but rather for reviews that identify key developments and highlight novel insights and findings. One goal of this section is to give someone not familiar with the topic an overview and orientation, as well as clarify how it contributes to the understanding of decision making and problem solving.
4. A section discussing how other lines of work within psychology have approached the Carnegie concept covered and in what ways the Carnegie perspective is similar, different, or otherwise related to that work. Here, too, we do not expect a comprehensive review but rather a selective analysis, written with psychology readers in mind, that illustrates how the Carnegie perspective complements, contrasts, and/or adds unique value to other psychological analyses of decision making. This section will be fundamental in making work featured in the research topic accessible to psychology scholars.
We are interested in both theoretical and empirical papers and we encourage submissions that report on studies conducted using a wide range of methods, including but not limited to field, laboratory, and online studies; and modeling.
Please note that manuscripts should not exceed 12.000 words, but can be shorter. The review process is transparent and Frontiers in Psychology has an average review time of 88 days -reviewers of accepted manuscripts will be public.
An exciting byproduct of this research topic is that it encourages us to distill what we collectively view as key aspects of the Carnegie perspective at this point in time. We think this is an additional valuable dimension of the research topic that may benefit the growing number of junior scholars interested in the Carnegie perspective to decision-making.
We look forward to receiving your submissions by the 10th of January 2023, and in the meantime remain available for any questions.
References
Audia, P. G., & Greve, H. R. (2021). Organizational learning from performance feedback: A behavioral perspective on multiple goals: A multiple goals perspective. Cambridge University Press.
Beckman, C. M. (2021). Carnegie goes to California: Advancing and Celebrating the Work of James G. March. Research in the Sociology of Organizations.
Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A Behavioral Theory of the Firm.
Gavetti, G., Levinthal, D., & Ocasio, W. (2007). Perspective—Neo-Carnegie: The Carnegie school’s past, present, and reconstructing for the future. Organization Science, 18(3), 523-536.
Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic management journal, 14(S2), 95-112.
March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization science, 2(1), 71-87.
March, J. G. (1994). A Primer on Decision Making: How Decisions Happen. Simon and Schuster.
Simon, H. A. (1947). Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organization.
