scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

James G. March

Bio: James G. March is an academic researcher from Stanford University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Organizational learning & Politics. The author has an hindex of 72, co-authored 176 publications receiving 94815 citations. Previous affiliations of James G. March include Carnegie Mellon University & University of Bergen.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the reproduction of successful actions inherent in adaptive processes, such as learning and competitive selection and reproduction, results in a bias against alternatives that initially may appear to be worse than they actually are.
Abstract: Individuals and social systems are often portrayed as risk averse and resistant to change. Such propensities are characteristically attributed to individual, organizational, and cultural traits such as risk aversion, uncertainty-avoidance, discounting, and an unwillingness to change. This paper explores an alternative interpretation of such phenomena. We show how the reproduction of successful actions inherent in adaptive processes, such as learning and competitive selection and reproduction, results in a bias against alternatives that initially may appear to be worse than they actually are. In particular, learning and selection are biased against both risky and novel alternatives. Because the biases are products of the tendency to reproduce success that is inherent in the sequential sampling of adaptation, they are reduced whenever the reproduction of success is attenuated. In particular, when adaptation is slowed, made imprecise, or recalled less reliably, the propensity to engage in risky and new activities is increased. These protections against the error of rejecting potentially good alternatives on inadequate experiential evidence are costly, however. They increase the likelihood of persisting with alternatives that are poor in the long run as well as in the short run.

579 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The organizational research community often responds by saying that inferences about the causes of performance cannot be made from the data available, and simultaneously goes ahead to make such inferences as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: Most studies of organizational performance define performance as a dependent variable and seek to identify variables that produce variations in performance. Researchers who study organizational performance in this way typically devote little attention to the complications of using such a formulation to characterize the causal structure of performance phenomena. These complications include the ways in which performance advantage is competitively unstable, the causal complexity surrounding performance, and the limitations of using data based on retrospective recall of informants. Since these complications are well-known and routinely taught, a pattern of acknowledging the difficulties but continuing the practice cannot be attributed exclusively to poor training, lack of intelligence, or low standards. Most researchers understand the difficulties of inferring causal order from the correlations generated by organizational histories, particularly when those correlations may be implicit in the measurement procedures used. We suggest that the persistence of this pattern is due, in part, to the context of organizational research. Organizational researchers live in two worlds. The first demands and rewards speculations about how to improve performance. The second demands and rewards adherence to rigorous standards of scholarship. In its efforts to satisfy these often conflicting demands, the organizational research community sometimes responds by saying that inferences about the causes of performance cannot be made from the data available, and simultaneously goes ahead to make such inferences. We conclude by considering a few virtues and hazards of such a solution to dilemmas involving compelling contradictory imperatives and the generality of the issues involved.

555 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors argue that although technologies of rationality seem to be effective instruments of exploitation in relatively simple situations and to derive their adaptive advantage from those capabilities, their ventures in more complex explorations seem often to lead to huge mistakes and thus unlikely to be sustained by adaptive processes.
Abstract: Technologies of model-based rationality are the core technologies of strategic management, having largely replaced earlier technologies that placed greater reliance on traditional practice or on communication either with the stars or with the gods. The technologies used by organizations in their pursuit of intelligence can be imagined to change over time as a result of responding to the successes and failures associated with the technologies. Although technologies of rationality seem clearly to be effective instruments of exploitation in relatively simple situations and to derive their adaptive advantage from those capabilities, their ventures in more complex explorations seem often to lead to huge mistakes and thus unlikely to be sustained by adaptive processes. Whether their survival as instruments of exploratory novelty in complex situations is desirable is a difficult question to answer, but it seems likely that any such survival may require hitchhiking on their successes in simpler worlds. Survival may also be served by the heroism of fools and the blindness of true believers. Their imperviousness to feedback is both the despair of adaptive intelligence and, conceivably, its salvation. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

537 citations

Book
01 Jun 1975
TL;DR: In this paper, a multidisciplinary introduction to model building in the social sciences formulates interesting problems that involve students in creative model building and the process of invention and encourages student participation in analytical thinking.
Abstract: What is a model? How do you construct one? What are some common models in the social sciences? How can models be applied in new situations? What makes a model good? Focusing on answers to these and related questions, this multidisciplinary introduction to model building in the social sciences formulates interesting problems that involve students in creative model building and the process of invention. The book describes models of individual choice, exchange, adaptation, and diffusion. Throughout, student participation in analytical thinking is encouraged. Originally published in 1975 by HarperCollins Publishers.

515 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present an overview of the evolution of the theory of organizational learning and its application in the field of political science, including the myopia of learning and the focus of attention of a learning team.
Abstract: 1. Introduction. 2. Understanding How Decisions Happen in Organizations. 3. Continuity and Change in Theories of Organizational Action. 4. Institutional Perspectives on Political Institutions (with Johan P. Olsen). 5. Organizational Learning (with Barbara Levitt). 6. The Evolution of Evolution. 7. Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning. 8. Learning from Samples of One or Fewer (with Lee S. Sproull, and Michal Tamuz). 9. Adaptive Co--ordination of a Learning Team (with Pertti H. Lounamma). 10. The Future, Disposable Organizations, and the Rigidities of Imagination. 11. The Myopia of Learning (with Daniel A. Levinthal). 12. Wild Ideas: The Catechism of Heresy. 13. Variable Risk Preferences and Adaptive Aspirations. 14. Variable Risk Preferences and the Focus of Attention (with Zur Shapira). 15. Learning to Be Risk Averse. 16. Model Bias in Social Action. 17. Organizational Consultants and Organizational Research. 18. Organizational Performance as a Dependent Variable (with Robert I. Sutton). 19. Science, Politics, and Mrs. Gruenberg. 20. Education and the Pursuit of Optimism. 21. A Scholara s Quest.

499 citations


Cited by
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors draw on recent progress in the theory of property rights, agency, and finance to develop a theory of ownership structure for the firm, which casts new light on and has implications for a variety of issues in the professional and popular literature.

49,666 citations

Book ChapterDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors examined the link between firm resources and sustained competitive advantage and analyzed the potential of several firm resources for generating sustained competitive advantages, including value, rareness, imitability, and substitutability.

46,648 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
01 Feb 2009
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors describe the process of inducting theory using case studies from specifying the research questions to reaching closure, which is a process similar to hypothesis-testing research.
Abstract: Building Theories From Case Study Research - This paper describes the process of inducting theory using case studies from specifying the research questions to reaching closure. Some features of the process, such as problem definition and construct validation, are similar to hypothesis-testing research. Others, such as within-case analysis and replication logic, are unique to the inductive, case-oriented process. Overall, the process described here is highly iterative and tightly linked to data. This research approach is especially appropriate in new topic areas. The resultant theory is often novel, testable, and empirically valid. Finally, framebreaking insights, the tests of good theory (e.g., parsimony, logical coherence), and convincing grounding in the evidence are the key criteria for evaluating this type of research.

40,005 citations

Book ChapterDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors argue that rational actors make their organizations increasingly similar as they try to change them, and describe three isomorphic processes-coercive, mimetic, and normative.
Abstract: What makes organizations so similar? We contend that the engine of rationalization and bureaucratization has moved from the competitive marketplace to the state and the professions. Once a set of organizations emerges as a field, a paradox arises: rational actors make their organizations increasingly similar as they try to change them. We describe three isomorphic processes-coercive, mimetic, and normative—leading to this outcome. We then specify hypotheses about the impact of resource centralization and dependency, goal ambiguity and technical uncertainty, and professionalization and structuration on isomorphic change. Finally, we suggest implications for theories of organizations and social change.

32,981 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The dynamic capabilities framework as mentioned in this paper analyzes the sources and methods of wealth creation and capture by private enterprise firms operating in environments of rapid technological change, and suggests that private wealth creation in regimes of rapid technology change depends in large measure on honing intemal technological, organizational, and managerial processes inside the firm.
Abstract: The dynamic capabilities framework analyzes the sources and methods of wealth creation and capture by private enterprise firms operating in environments of rapid technological change. The competitive advantage of firms is seen as resting on distinctive processes (ways of coordinating and combining), shaped by the firm's (specific) asset positions (such as the firm's portfolio of difftcult-to- trade knowledge assets and complementary assets), and the evolution path(s) it has aflopted or inherited. The importance of path dependencies is amplified where conditions of increasing retums exist. Whether and how a firm's competitive advantage is eroded depends on the stability of market demand, and the ease of replicability (expanding intemally) and imitatability (replication by competitors). If correct, the framework suggests that private wealth creation in regimes of rapid technological change depends in large measure on honing intemal technological, organizational, and managerial processes inside the firm. In short, identifying new opportunities and organizing effectively and efficiently to embrace them are generally more fundamental to private wealth creation than is strategizing, if by strategizing one means engaging in business conduct that keeps competitors off balance, raises rival's costs, and excludes new entrants. © 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

27,902 citations