IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/aap/wpaper/130.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Attention process: A multilevel perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Luciana Carvalho de Mesquita Ferreira

Abstract

The attention-based view of the firm is a versatile theoretical perspective of organizational behavior. Despite its complexity, it comprises a set of principles, elements and mechanisms capable of explaining organizational behavior phenomena not only at the business firm level, as originally proposed, but also at other levels. We argue that attentional processes have functional equivalence at the team, organizational and social movement levels and propose a multilevel model of attention. By describing the elements of attentional processes within and across different levels of analysis we contribute to theories of attention, to the field of organizational behavior and also to the literature on social movements. A multilevel model of attention enlarges the scope of research on organizational attention and provides a fuller understanding of the relationship between attention and organizational behavior.

Suggested Citation

  • Luciana Carvalho de Mesquita Ferreira, 2011. "Attention process: A multilevel perspective," Business and Economics Working Papers 130, Unidade de Negocios e Economia, Insper.
    • Handle: RePEc:aap:wpaper:130
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://repositorio.insper.edu.br/handle/11224/5873
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrew J. Hoffman & William Ocasio, 2001. "Not All Events Are Attended Equally: Toward a Middle-Range Theory of Industry Attention to External Events," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(4), pages 414-434, August.
    2. Anil K. Gupta & Paul E. Tesluk & M. Susan Taylor, 2007. "Innovation At and Across Multiple Levels of Analysis," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(6), pages 885-897, December.
    3. Winsor, Robert D., 1995. "Marketing under conditions of chaos : Percolation metaphors and models," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 181-189, November.
    4. David Marginson & Laurie McAulay, 2008. "Exploring the debate on short‐termism: a theoretical and empirical analysis," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(3), pages 273-292, March.
    5. Michael D. Pfarrer & Ken G. Smith & Kathryn M. Bartol & Dmitry M. Khanin & Xiaomeng Zhang, 2008. "Coming Forward: The Effects of Social and Regulatory Forces on the Voluntary Restatement of Earnings Subsequent to Wrongdoing," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(3), pages 386-403, June.
    6. Sarah Kaplan & Rebecca Henderson, 2005. "Inertia and Incentives: Bridging Organizational Economics and Organizational Theory," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(5), pages 509-521, October.
    7. Richard A. Bettis & C. K. Prahalad, 1995. "The dominant logic: Retrospective and extension," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(1), pages 5-14.
    8. Claus Rerup, 2009. "Attentional Triangulation: Learning from Unexpected Rare Crises," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(5), pages 876-893, October.
    9. Aleksandra Kacperczyk, 2009. "With greater power comes greater responsibility? takeover protection and corporate attention to stakeholders," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(3), pages 261-285, March.
    10. Cyril Bouquet & Allen Morrison & Julian Birkinshaw, 2009. "International attention and multinational enterprise performance," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 40(1), pages 108-131, January.
    11. Michael G. Jacobides, 2007. "The Inherent Limits of Organizational Structure and the Unfulfilled Role of Hierarchy: Lessons from a Near-War," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(3), pages 455-477, June.
    12. William Ocasio, 1997. "Towards An Attention‐Based View Of The Firm," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(S1), pages 187-206, July.
    13. Jane E. Dutton & Susan J. Ashford & Katherine A. Lawrence & Kathi Miner-Rubino, 2002. "Red Light, Green Light: Making Sense of the Organizational Context for Issue Selling," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(4), pages 355-369, August.
    14. Charles Williams & Will Mitchell, 2004. "Focusing Firm Evolution: The Impact of Information Infrastructure on Market Entry by U.S. Telecommunications Companies, 1984--1998," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(11), pages 1561-1575, November.
    15. Amy J. Hillman & Gerald D. Keim, 2001. "Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: what's the bottom line?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(2), pages 125-139, February.
    16. David Deephouse & Pursey Heugens, 2009. "Linking Social Issues to Organizational Impact: The Role of Infomediaries and the Infomediary Process," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 86(4), pages 541-553, June.
    17. Pratima Bansal, 2003. "From Issues to Actions: The Importance of Individual Concerns and Organizational Values in Responding to Natural Environmental Issues," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(5), pages 510-527, October.
    18. Sucheta Nadkarni & Pamela S. Barr, 2008. "Environmental context, managerial cognition, and strategic action: an integrated view," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(13), pages 1395-1427, December.
    19. Rebecca Henderson & Sarah Kaplan, 2005. "Inertia and Incentives: Bridging Organizational Economics and Organizational Theory," NBER Working Papers 11849, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Theresa S. Cho & Donald C. Hambrick, 2006. "Attention as the Mediator Between Top Management Team Characteristics and Strategic Change: The Case of Airline Deregulation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(4), pages 453-469, August.
    21. Sarah Kaplan, 2008. "Framing Contests: Strategy Making Under Uncertainty," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(5), pages 729-752, October.
    22. C. K. Prahalad & Richard A. Bettis, 1986. "The dominant logic: A new linkage between diversity and performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 7(6), pages 485-501, November.
    23. Patricia H. Thornton, 2001. "Personal Versus Market Logics of Control: A Historically Contingent Theory of the Risk of Acquisition," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(3), pages 294-311, June.
    24. Tammy E. Beck & Donde Ashmos Plowman, 2009. "Experiencing Rare and Unusual Events Richly: The Role of Middle Managers in Animating and Guiding Organizational Interpretation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(5), pages 909-924, October.
    25. Ranjay Gulati & Monica C. Higgins, 2003. "Which ties matter when? the contingent effects of interorganizational partnerships on IPO success," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(2), pages 127-144, February.
    26. Patricia Doyle Corner & Angelo J. Kinicki & Barbara W. Keats, 1994. "Integrating Organizational and Individual Information Processing Perspectives on Choice," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(3), pages 294-308, August.
    27. Hung, Shih-Chang, 2005. "The plurality of institutional embeddedness as a source of organizational attention differences," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 58(11), pages 1543-1551, November.
    28. Jennifer A. Howard-Grenville, 2007. "Developing Issue-Selling Effectiveness over Time: Issue Selling as Resourcing," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(4), pages 560-577, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ferreira, Luciana C. de Mesquita, 2011. "Attention process: A multilevel perspective," Insper Working Papers wpe_261, Insper Working Paper, Insper Instituto de Ensino e Pesquisa.
    2. William Ocasio, 2011. "Attention to Attention," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 1286-1296, October.
    3. Markku V. J. Maula & Thomas Keil & Shaker A. Zahra, 2013. "Top Management’s Attention to Discontinuous Technological Change: Corporate Venture Capital as an Alert Mechanism," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 926-947, June.
    4. Donal Crilly & Pamela Sloan, 2014. "Autonomy or Control? Organizational Architecture and Corporate Attention to Stakeholders," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(2), pages 339-355, April.
    5. Tomi Laamanen, 2019. "Dynamic attention-based view of corporate headquarters in MNCs," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 8(1), pages 1-15, December.
    6. Shih-chi (Sana) Chiu & Azadeh Sabz, 2022. "Can Corporate Divestiture Activities Lead to Better Corporate Social Performance?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 179(3), pages 849-866, September.
    7. van den Oever, Koen, 2017. "Uncharted waters : A behavioral approach to when, why and which organizational changes are adopted," Other publications TiSEM 0136c8c2-ecdd-4f82-8ca7-d, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    8. Alan Muller & Gail Whiteman, 2016. "Corporate Philanthropic Responses to Emergent Human Needs: The Role of Organizational Attention Focus," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 137(2), pages 299-314, August.
    9. Souza-Santos, Renato & Carneiro, Jorge & Andersson, Ulf, 2025. "Pursuing headquarters’ attention: Foreign subsidiaries’ strategic issue selling," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 34(3).
    10. Jantunen, Ari & Tuppura, Anni & Pätäri, Satu, 2024. "Dominant logic – Cognitive and practiced facets and their relationships to strategic renewal and performance," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 108-118.
    11. Andrews, Daniel S. & Fainshmidt, Stav & Ambos, Tina & Haensel, Kira, 2022. "The attention-based view and the multinational corporation: Review and research agenda," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 57(2).
    12. Vecchiato, Riccardo, 2020. "Analogical reasoning, cognition, and the response to technological change: Lessons from mobile communication," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(5).
    13. Christoph Grimpe & Wolfgang Sofka & Andreas P. Distel, 2022. "SME participation in research grant consortia—the emergence of coordinated attention in collaborative innovation," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 59(4), pages 1567-1592, December.
    14. Hutzschenreuter, Thomas & Kleindienst, Ingo, 2013. "(How) Does discretion change over time? A contribution toward a dynamic view of managerial discretion," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 264-281.
    15. Y. Sekou Bermiss & Benjamin L. Hallen & Rory McDonald & Emily C. Pahnke, 2017. "Entrepreneurial beacons: The Yale endowment, run‐ups, and the growth of venture capital," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(3), pages 545-565, March.
    16. Peter M. Madsen & Zachariah J. Rodgers, 2015. "Looking good by doing good: The antecedents and consequences of stakeholder attention to corporate disaster relief," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(5), pages 776-794, May.
    17. Luca Berchicci & Murat Tarakci, 2022. "Aspiration formation and attention rules," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(8), pages 1575-1601, August.
    18. Kratochvil, Renate, 2025. "The process of framing innovation activities: How strategic leaders erode their ideas for radical innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(1).
    19. Blankenburg Holm, Desirée & Drogendijk, Rian & Haq, Hammad ul, 2020. "An attention-based view on managing information processing channels in organizations," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(2).
    20. Riccardo Vecchiato & Giampiero Favato & Francesco di Maddaloni & Hang Do, 2020. "Foresight, cognition, and long‐term performance: Insights from the automotive industry and opportunities for future research," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(1), March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aap:wpaper:130. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Biblioteca Telles (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inspebr.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.