TMT Cognitive Capability and Organizational Outcomes: A Theoretical Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extant strategic management literature has followed two divergent paradigms. One is based on the tenets of industrial organization theory and argues that strategic decision making and action is purely a chance affair because the industry environment determines whether an organizational will survive or not and that the decisions and actions of the organizational players have no role at all. The second paradigm is based on the Resources Based View (RBV) and argues that organizational strategic choice and action is purely a resources, capability and competence deployment affair. Even though recent scholarship in strategic management has attempted to integrate the two paradigms to explain organizational strategic decision making and outcome, it is however yet to put forward a theoretical model explaining how the two paradigms integrate. In this paper, the authors bring on board a managerial cognitive capability perspective to play the role of a catalyst that blends the two paradigms together in explaining organizational outcomes. The paper reviews extant conceptual, theoretical and empirical literature and builds a case for a theoretical model linking TMT cognitive capability and organizational outcomes in the context of both industry environment dynamics and internal organization dynamics. The study identifies key organization outcomes resulting from the deployment of TMT cognitive capability as strategic choice, strategic flexibility and organizational performance while the key contextual factor that condition the outcomes include industry velocity and organizational characteristics. Based on the postulates of several underpinning theories, the paper identifies a phenomenon arising from deployment of TMT Cognitive Capability in the context of dynamic business environments and proposes a theoretical model that raises several implications for future empirical work.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".