Soluci´on de estado estacionario

management practices, I draw on a perspective of firm behaviour based on the fact that strategic choices are likely to be a result of behavioural factors (Cyert and March, 1963; March and Olsen, 1976; March and Simon, 1958; Simon, 1947, 1982). In line with cognitive literature, this stream of literature posits that in the course of decision making, leaders are subjected to an array of environmental stimuli. However, focused upon a reduced set of specific stimuli, at the cost of other alternatives. This is the result of a cognitive process based upon the formation of mental models that generate simplified versions of the environmental situations. Thus, due to the extensive amount of information leaders are confronted with, they engage in an

information processing sequence involving attention, interpretation and action (Barr, Stimpert and Huff, 1992; Daft and Weick, 1984; Kiesler and Sproull, 1982).

This top-down organisational attention process has been widely acknowledged in various theories and perspectives such as the upper echelons theory (Hambrick and Mason, 1984), and the attention-based view (Ocasio, 1997). These approaches show important role in sense-making, that is, in identifying the stimuli to respond to, and address them. Based on these arguments, various scholars suggest that different leader mental models, influenced by individual characteristics, such as cognitive abilities, personality, values, education and experience, are likely to be associated with variations in strategic choices (Cho and Hambrick, 2006; Hambrick and Mason, 1984; Herrmann and Nadkarni, 2014; Nadkarni and Barr, 2008; Nadkarni and Herrmann, 2010). While present theory and evidence provide an understanding of the link between cognitions and strategic choices, there is no sufficient clarity on the specific cognitions that may predict particular patterns of practices. The theory is at a relatively general level, it is mid-level theory in terms of abstraction.

In order to understand the process behind how variations in leader cognitions may influence variations in management practices, it is important to identify the characteristics that leader mental models are based on. Cognitive theories show that ledge structures, defined as

(Walsh, 1995, p. 218). Studies have applied various types of knowledge structures which leaders use in identifying and addressing environmental stimuli. These knowledge structures are based on tacit knowledge (Athanassiou and Nigh, 1999), schematic knowledge (Holyoak and Thagard, 1997), associational knowledge (Jacoby, 1991), and experiential knowledge (Herrmann and Datta, 2006). Literature has consistently shown that experiential knowledge is regarded as an essential type of knowledge structure for leaders in terms of exercising influence, and also in solving issues arising from internal and environmental stimuli (Mumford, Friedrich, et al., 2007; Mumford, Marks, Connelly, Zaccaro and Reiter-Palmon, 2000; Mumford et al., 2017; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 2011). To this effect, the present review will focus on these types of structures. Compared to other types of knowledge,

75

experiential knowledge is (Mumford et al., 2017, p. 26). This is likely to enhance effectiveness in decision-making. In fact, Vessey, Barrett and Mumford (2011) show that leaders who rely on experiential knowledge in identifying issues and producing solutions are likely to be associated with higher-quality outcomes and more original solutions. The importance of experiential knowledge is also supported by evidence indicating that leaders mostly rely on experiential knowledge structures to address real-world settings (Hershey, Walsh, Read and Chulef, 1990; Hunter, Gutworth, Crayne and Jayne, 2015; Kor, 2003; Mumford, Friedrich, et al., 2007). To this effect, Miller (1993) states that experiential knowledge acts like a lens for leaders with regards to how they see the world.

Under the experiential knowledge approach, knowledge structures are considered to be the result of accumulated experiences gained from various tasks undertaken over time, and issues encountered (Augusto Felício, Caldeirinha and Ribeiro-Navarrete, 2015; Kabanoff and Brown, 2008; Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka and Konno, 1998; Walsh, 1995). The different experiences are organised in the (Bluck, 2003). When leaders are faced with a situation, they are likely to recall and reflect upon a particular experience or upon different experiences, which leads to the construction of mental models, followed by action against the particular stimuli (Mumford et al., 2017).

Leaders draw from experiential knowledge to construct mental models in two -based-decision-

apply the knowledge from a closely matched case in order to understand the situation at hand. The second reflects a situation where the stimuli are not easily defined or recognised. In this case, individuals are likely to retrieve multiple cases from their memory and apply salient features abstracted from these cases in order to find a solution (Mumford, Friedrich, et al., 2007).

Based on these mechanisms, it can be argued that the different experiences that individuals draw from determine how they process information and what they attend to. Specifically, different leaders are likely to go through different experiences with regards to the implementation of management practices, and/or they might have had different experiences observing the implementation of different management

practices. This leads to different models on how and when to implement different management practices. These experiences are also likely to influence how leaders use and combine different management practices in relation to the internal and external contexts faced by the firm. While it is not clear how specific experiences influence variations in management practices (Klaas et al., 2012), literature shows that leader strategic choices are likely to vary depending on the experiences that different leaders go through (e.g., Finkelstein, 1992; Sambharya, 1996; Song, 1982).

Literature also shows that variations in management practices may be a result of the level of experience(s), and not just the type of experience(s). When a leader is presented with a new problem and his experience with respect to the problem is low, he has to go through a cognitive process in order to gain information and be able to develop and/or reshape the necessary knowledge to generate a viable solution. The complexity involved in the information processing is likely to generate errors throughout the problem-solving attempts such as focusing on the wrong trigger or giving priority to superfluous issues etc. (Mumford, Friedrich, et al., 2007). As leader experience starts to increase, they are likely to develop rather accurate mental models. This is due to the repertoire of solutions they have experienced in facing different environmental and organisational issues (Levitt and March, 1988; Miller, 1993). Given that experienced leaders have a better understanding of the industry, they are better able to predict environmental changes, and thus such leaders are able to provide an effective vision in line with the environmental needs (Mumford, Friedrich, et al., 2007). In order to reach their vision effectively, experienced leaders are more likely to set appropriate performance targets which change according to any external and internal changes (Mumford, Schultz and Osburn, 2002). This suggests that highly- experienced leaders are more likely to recognise the benefits of sophisticated management practices, compared to leaders with low experience. This statement is reinforced by the fact that evidence shows that experienced leaders are more likely to be associated with better organisational outcomes. For example, Stuart and Abetti (1990) found that the presence of experience in starting up new companies (entrepreneurial experience) is positively related to organisational performance of new start-ups. One mechanism through which experience is likely to influence such outcomes is the implementation of good management practices (see: Kroon, Voorde

77

These arguments are in line with top-down cognitive theories, such as the Upper Echelons Theory, which propose that in addressing environmental stimuli, different leaders are likely to have idiosyncratic characteristics which lead to different cognitions, ultimately resulting in variations in strategic choices (Hambrick and Mason, 1984). However, while providing a rationale for the underlying cognitive mechanisms, literature remains at a relatively high level of abstraction and does not provide guidance on how particular experiential knowledge structures may be associated with the implementation of particular profiles or sets of management

Cognitive theories of leadership also suggest that leader cognitions precede leader behaviours in influencing how they address leadership problems (e.g., control or participation), which in turn influence tactics they use (e.g., strategic or emotional) (Avolio, Walumbwa and Weber, 2009; Bandura, 1986; Lazarus, 1991; Lord and Maher, 1991; Mumford et al., 2017). On the basis of these theories, studies suggest that different cognitions are likely to lead to variations in leader behaviours. For example, Mumford, Antes, Caughron and Friedrich (2008) and Mumford and Strange (2013) show that charismatic and ideological leader behaviours are driven by different mental models.

These findings imply that different experiential knowledge structures are likely to influence leader behaviour variations. To a very limited extent, leadership research has recognised this notion. For example, Wofford and Goodwin (1994) suggest that the fact that some leaders opt for transactional behaviour while others opt for transformational can be due to the fact that these leaders have gone through or observed experiences associated with transactional and transformational role models, respectively. Still, studies on the association between specific leader experiential knowledge structures and specific leader behaviours remain limited.

While different experiences may influence variations in leader behaviour, through their behaviour, leaders are likely to influence strategic decisions including management practices. According to theories of leader behaviour, different leader behaviours are expected to be related to different management practices (Yukl, 2010). To some extent empirical evidence has supported this expectation. For example, studies suggest that transformational leaders are more likely to base their targets on a

long-term vision, while transactional leaders focus their target practices on short-term goals (Bass and Avolio, 1993; Jung and Avolio, 2000). Moreover, it has been shown that, based on their concern over employee well-being and development, transformational leaders are more likely to be associated with the implementation of sophisticated HRM practices, unlike transactional leaders (Bono and Judge, 2003; Hofstede, 1993; Zhu et al., 2005).

Despite these observations, literature has mainly focused on the implications of leader behaviour on group or organisational performance outcomes (Conger, 1999; Peterson, Walumbwa, Byron and Myrowitz, 2008). Studies on how different leader behaviours are associated with variations in management practices are limited (Zhu et al., 2005).

Overall, in this section I show that it is likely that variations in management practices are influenced by leader cognitions, based on experiential knowledge structures, combined with leader behaviourN@Still, theoretical arguments that link the

three constructs are very general and high level, focusing more on the general principle that experience has a positive influence on the adoption of the best solution. Literature rarely identifies how specific experience or specific cognitive structures influence behaviour or the choice of adopting particular management practices. There is also no empirical evidence supporting the link between all three elements simultaneously, although it is likely that there is some endogeneity among the three elements. Since behaviour depends upon cognitive structures which accumulate with experience, then prior experience with management practices is an important predictor of both, which in turn are expected to predict the adoption of management practices. This creates an interesting conundrum for developing a model and studying it empirically. Based on these observations, I proceed by developing a conceptual framework, drawing upon two theoretical perspectives which provide underpinnings for the connection between leader cognitions (experiential knowledge structures), leader behaviour, and management practices.

3.03.2 A Model for Leader Cognitions, Behaviour, and Management Practices