在董事会会议室:认知框架如何塑造美国和荷兰医院对采用治理最佳实践压力的反应?

IF 4.1 4区 管理学 Q2 MANAGEMENT
Agota Szabo, R. Ruotsalainen
{"title":"在董事会会议室:认知框架如何塑造美国和荷兰医院对采用治理最佳实践压力的反应?","authors":"Agota Szabo, R. Ruotsalainen","doi":"10.1177/10564926221109481","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The literature on how organizations respond to institutional pressure has shown that the individual decision-makers’ interpretation of institutional pressure played an important role in developing organizational responses. However, it has paid less attention to how this interpretation ultimately contributes to their range of organizational decisions when responding to the same institutional pressure. We address this gap by interviewing board members of U.S. and Dutch hospitals involved in adopting best practices regarding board evaluation. We found four qualitatively different cognitive frames that board members relied on to interpret institutional pressure, and which shaped their organizational response. We contribute to the literature on organizational response to institutional pressure by empirically investigating how decision-makers interpret institutional pressure, by suggesting prior experience and role definition as moderating factors of multidimensional cognitive frames, and by showing how these cognitive frames influence board members’ response to the same institutional pressure.","PeriodicalId":47877,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management Inquiry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"In the Boardroom: How Do Cognitive Frames Shape American and Dutch Hospitals’ Responses to the Pressure of Adopting Governance Best Practices?\",\"authors\":\"Agota Szabo, R. Ruotsalainen\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10564926221109481\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The literature on how organizations respond to institutional pressure has shown that the individual decision-makers’ interpretation of institutional pressure played an important role in developing organizational responses. However, it has paid less attention to how this interpretation ultimately contributes to their range of organizational decisions when responding to the same institutional pressure. We address this gap by interviewing board members of U.S. and Dutch hospitals involved in adopting best practices regarding board evaluation. We found four qualitatively different cognitive frames that board members relied on to interpret institutional pressure, and which shaped their organizational response. We contribute to the literature on organizational response to institutional pressure by empirically investigating how decision-makers interpret institutional pressure, by suggesting prior experience and role definition as moderating factors of multidimensional cognitive frames, and by showing how these cognitive frames influence board members’ response to the same institutional pressure.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47877,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Management Inquiry\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Management Inquiry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10564926221109481\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Management Inquiry","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10564926221109481","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

关于组织如何应对制度压力的文献表明,决策者对制度压力的解释在组织应对中发挥了重要作用。然而,在应对同样的制度压力时,它很少关注这种解释如何最终促成他们的一系列组织决策。我们通过采访参与采用董事会评估最佳实践的美国和荷兰医院的董事会成员来解决这一差距。我们发现,董事会成员在解释制度压力时所依赖的四种性质不同的认知框架,以及它们塑造了他们的组织反应。我们通过实证研究决策者如何解释制度压力,提出先前的经验和角色定义是多维认知框架的调节因素,并展示这些认知框架如何影响董事会成员对相同制度压力的反应,为组织对制度压力的回应文献做出了贡献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
In the Boardroom: How Do Cognitive Frames Shape American and Dutch Hospitals’ Responses to the Pressure of Adopting Governance Best Practices?
The literature on how organizations respond to institutional pressure has shown that the individual decision-makers’ interpretation of institutional pressure played an important role in developing organizational responses. However, it has paid less attention to how this interpretation ultimately contributes to their range of organizational decisions when responding to the same institutional pressure. We address this gap by interviewing board members of U.S. and Dutch hospitals involved in adopting best practices regarding board evaluation. We found four qualitatively different cognitive frames that board members relied on to interpret institutional pressure, and which shaped their organizational response. We contribute to the literature on organizational response to institutional pressure by empirically investigating how decision-makers interpret institutional pressure, by suggesting prior experience and role definition as moderating factors of multidimensional cognitive frames, and by showing how these cognitive frames influence board members’ response to the same institutional pressure.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: The Journal of Management Inquiry, sponsored by the Western Academy of Management, is a refereed journal for scholars and professionals in management, organizational behavior, strategy, and human resources. Its intent is to explore ideas and build knowledge in management theory and practice, with a focus on creative, nontraditional research as well as key controversies in the field. The journal seeks to maintain a constructive balance between innovation and quality, and at the same time widely define the forms that relevant contributions to the field can take. JMI features six sections: Meet the Person, Provocations, Reflections on Experience, Nontraditional Research, Essays, and Dialog.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信