Call for Papers

The attention-based view of the firm (ABV; Ocasio, 1997) has become an influential theoretical perspective in organization and strategy research. Deeply inspired by Simon (1947), the ABV theorizes that organizational moves are the result of the structural distribution of decision-makers’ attention. Over the last decades, scholars have applied this powerful theory to advance our understanding in a wide array of topics, such as firms’ growth (Joseph & Wilson, 2018), mergers and acquisitions (Bauer & Friesl, 2024), or strategic adaptation (Cho & Hambrick, 2006). While the ABV has developed into a cornerstone in management research, three key developments require us to reflect upon the future of the ABV:

• First, scholars have started to recognize how the ABV may account for the changing nature of organizational structures beyond traditional Chandlerian firms (Ocasio et al, 2023).

• Second, there is an increase in the theoretical pluralism of the ABV, which challenges the theoretical integration of key constructs.

• Finally, ABV studies increasingly draw on a greater but still developing repertoire of methodological approaches (Joseph et al., 2024).

 
This sub-theme intends to bring together these recent developments of the ABV. Thereby, we aim 1) to advance our understanding of these important developments, 2) to account for both diversity and interconnections between these developments, and 3) to critically discuss the prospects and limits of current attention-based theorizing and methodologies to account for new developments.
 
The first development pertains to the application of the ABV in today’s world. Recently, scholars have started to discuss how the ABV allows us to elucidate phenomena of the “post-Chandlerian era” (Ocasio et al., 2023). Due to economic, technological, and societal changes, new forms of strategizing and organizing emerged (Splitter et al., 2023) that question the relevance of traditional Chandlerian organizational structures, and thus a main assumption on which the original ABV is built. These new forms of organizing and strategizing, such as ‘holocracy’, ‘network organizations’ or ‘open strategy’, include less hierarchical organizational forms and formal roles for organizational actors. As such, traditional attention structures lose their importance in guiding actors’ attention coherently toward a clear set of activities (Brielmaier, 2023). For instance, Tonellata et al. (2023) show that in contexts without hierarchical control, ‘attention networks’ emerge that direct attention and enable collaboration. Additionally, the emergence of digital communication channels within and outside a firm’s boundaries, such as online communities, intensifies the attentional demand organizational actors face (Heavey et al., 2020; Ocasio et al., 2018; Ocasio et al., 2023). While scholars have started to unpack how the ABV accounts for these changes, we still need further examination of these new phenomena. This offers various opportunities to extend current ABV theorizing but also requires a critical assessment of the original ABV.
 
The second development pertains to increased theoretical perspectives connected to and integrated with the ABV. ABV scholars have drawn on a variety of theoretical traditions such as managerial cognition (e.g., Yadav et al., 2007), institutional logics (e.g., Ocasio & Nigam, 2010), or the behavioral theory of the firm (e.g., Greve, 2008). These streams of research have predominantly understood attention allocation from a cognitive perspective (Ocasio, 2011). While recognizing the merits of this perspective, recent ABV research has expanded the range of theories to account for the social nature of attention allocation (see Brielmaier & Friesl, 2023). For example, Ocasio et al. (2018) propose the centrality of communicative and discursive aspects in attentional structures, while practice-based scholars (Nicolini & Korica, 2021; Kudesia & Lang, 2024) highlight that repeated collective activities produce and reproduce such attention structures. The role of emotions in organizational attention has also been a subject of research and theoretical developments, complementing more traditional information processing approaches (Vuori & Huy, 2016; Vuori, 2024). Overall, the compatibility of the ABV has enabled scholars to expand the range of theories used to explain various strategic and organizational phenomena. Yet, this theoretical pluralism also increases the complexity to create coherency and integration of key constructs in attention-based theorizing, such as attention structures (Ocasio, 1997).
 
The third development relates to a methodological expansion of the ABV. Accordingly, we see an increase in a variety of methods used to study attention, such as new forms of quantitative text analysis (Joseph et al., 2023) and topic modeling (e.g., Joseph and Wilson, 2018), which have been used to understand attention through communication and vocabularies. While ABV studies draw mainly on quantitative methods to measure attention, we also see an increase in qualitative methods (e.g., Nicolini & Korica, 2021; Splitter et al., 2021) that allow scholars to acknowledge the richness of the contexts in which questions of attention arise, to be open for emergent themes, and to examine interconnectedness. As such, qualitative methods have proven to be important tools that can complement other, mostly quantitative, methods. Despite the recent methodological expansion of the ABV, Joseph et al. (2024) argue that the repertoire of methods could be further expanded to study underrepresented themes. For example, this could include more in-depth ethnographic studies, which allow scholars to consider non-verbal means of communication for actors’ attention allocation (e.g., bodily expressions), or experimental studies that could allow scholars to measure attention directly and to show its causal effects (Laureiro-Martinez & Brusoni, 2023).
 
In summary, our intention for this sub-theme is to better understand the new developments of the ABV outlined above. We invite papers from a wide range of methodological and theoretical approaches. Submissions might address one of the following questions but are not required to do so:

• In what way are new theoretical perspectives and methods needed to account for the changing nature of organizational structures?

• How do employees experience and deal with the increasing complexity coming along with the emergence of more fluid attention structures in new forms of organizing?

• How can we measure attention and relate it to specific individual, organizational, and macro-institutional and cross-level behaviors and outcomes?

• How to account for both theoretical integration and theoretical pluralism within the ABV?

• What role do informal attention networks play in traditional organizations that largely rely on top-down designed attention structures?

• To what extent do (digital) platforms affect the individuals’ and/or collective attention, and how does this impact firm-level outcomes?

• How do new forms of organizing and strategizing affect the (cross-level) nature of attentional proceses?

• What methodological advances can be applied to address both new and existing theoretical developments?

References

• Ambos, T.C., & Birkinshaw, J. (2010): “Headquarters’ attention and its effect on subsidiary performance.” Management International Review, 50 (4), 449–469.

• Bauer, F., & Friesl, M. (2022): “Synergy Evaluation in Mergers and Acquisitions: An Attention‐Based‐View.” Journal of Management Studies, 61 (1), 37–68.
• Brielmaier, C. (2023): “Creating Order Where There is None: The Reconciliation of Fragmented Attention Structures.” Academy of Management Proceedings, 2023 (1), https://doi.org/10.5465/AMPROC.2023.18793abstract.
• Brielmaier, C., & Friesl, M. (2023): “The attention‐based view: Review and conceptual extension towards situated attention.” International Journal of Management Reviews, 25 (1), 99–129.
• Cho, T.S., & Hambrick, D.C. (2006): “Attention as the mediator between top management team characteristics and strategic change: The case of airline deregulation.” Organization Science, 17 (4), 453–469.
• Greve, H.R. (2008): “A behavioral theory of firm growth: Sequential attention to size and performance goals.” Academy of Management Journal, 51 (3), 476–494.
• Heavey, C., Simsek, Z., Kyprianou, C., & Risius, M. (2020): “How do strategic leaders engage with social media? A theoretical framework for research and practice.” Strategic Management Journal, 41 (8), 1490–1527.
• Joseph, J., Laureiro-Martinez, D., Nigam, A., Ocasio, W., & Rerup, C. (2024): “Research frontiers on the attention-based view of the firm.” Strategic Organization, 22 (1), 6–17.
• Joseph, J., Rhee, L., & Wilson, A.J. (2023): “Corporate Hierarchy and Organizational Learning: Member Turnover, Code Change, and Innovation in the Multiunit Firm.” Organization Science, 34 (3), 1332–1352.
• Joseph, J., & Wilson, A.J. (2018): “The growth of the firm: An attention‐based view.” Strategic Management Journal, 39 (6), 1779–1800.
• Kudesia, R.S., & Lang, T. (2024): “Toward an attention-based view of crises.” Strategic Organization, 22 (1), 118–145.
• Laureiro-Martinez, D., Arrieta, J.P., & Brusoni, S. (2023): “Microfoundations of Problem Solving: Attentional Engagement Predicts Problem-Solving Strategies.” Organization Science, 34 (6), 2207–2230.
• Nicolini, D., & Korica, M. (2021): “Attentional engagement as practice: A study of the attentional infrastructure of healthcare chief executive officers.” Organization Science, 32 (5), 1273–1299.
• Nigam, A., & Ocasio, W. (2010): “Event attention, environmental sensemaking, and change in institutional logics: An inductive analysis of the effects of public attention to Clinton’s health care reform initiative.” Organization Science, 21 (4), 823–841.
• Ocasio, W. (2011): “Attention to attention.” Organization Science, 22 (5), 1286–1296.
• Ocasio, W., Laamanen, T., & Vaara, E. (2018): “Communication and attention dynamics: An attention‐based view of strategic change.” Strategic Management Journal, 39 (1), 155–167.
• Ocasio, W., Yakis-Douglas, B., Boynton, D., Laamanen, T., Rerup, C., Vaara, E., & Whittington, R. (2023): “It’s a Different World: A Dialog on the Attention-Based View in a Post-Chandlerian World.” Journal of Management Inquiry, 32 (2), 107–119.
• Splitter, V., Dobusch, L., von Krogh, G., Whittington, R., & Walgenbach, P. (2023): “Openness as Organizing principle: introduction to the special issue.” Organization Studies, 44 (1), 7–27.
• Splitter, V., Seidl, D.N., & Whittington, R. (2021): “Effective participation in Open Strategy processes: How employees get heard by senior management.” Academy of Management Proceedings, 2021 (1), https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2021.44.
• Tonellato, M., Tasselli, S., Conaldi, G., Lerner, J., & Lomi, A. (2024): “A Microstructural Approach to Self-Organizing: The Emergence of Attention Networks.” Organization Science, 35 (2), 496–524.
• Vuori, T.O. (2024): “Emotions and attentional engagement in the attention-based view of the firm.” Strategic Organization, 22 (1), 189–210.
• Vuori, T.O., & Huy, Q.N. (2016): “Distributed attention and shared emotions in the innovation process: How Nokia lost the smartphone battle.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 61 (1), 9–51.
• Yadav, M.S., Prabhu, J.C., & Chandy, R.K. (2007): “Managing the future: CEO attention and innovation outcomes.” Journal of Marketing, 71 (4), 84–101.
•