Why do some entrepreneurs outperform others? How can companies succeed against tough competition? Certainly, some benefit from unique resources, such as patents, and others can winnow competition, as through mergers. But some have entered highly competitive markets, lacking obvious resources, yet managed to achieve impressive success: think Under Armour, Wal‐Mart or Home Depot. Here we test how advantage can stem from managerial cognition. We measure two kinds of cognitive skill in market participants, and then let them vie for cash in intensely competitive markets. Some end up with far more profit than others. Tracing the root of high performance, we find it is predicted by a combination of analytic skills, the ability to solve abstract problems, and strategic intelligence—ability to anticipate competitors' behavior and preempt it .
Executives often prioritize maximizing immediate returns over investing to build a long‐term competitive advantage. How they think about the future offers one explanation for this short‐termism. This article distinguishes two ways of framing the future with implications for decision‐making. Are we approaching the future (the ego‐moving frame) or is it approaching us (the time‐moving frame)? As long as executives have confidence in their ability to achieve forecasted results, they focus on long‐term returns in their decision‐making when they recognize the advent of the future as inevitable (the time‐moving frame). In contrast, though executives use the ego‐moving frame to show that they are active agents, they weigh future returns less heavily when framing the future in this way .
Behavioral strategy merges cognitive and social psychology with strategic management theory and practice. Despite much progress, the aims and boundaries of behavioral strategy remain unclear. In this paper we define behavioral strategy and identify the main unsolved problems. We propose a unifying conceptual framework for behavioral strategy and conclude by introducing the papers of the Special Issue on the Psychological Foundations of Strategic Management.
We study why and how firms change the configuration of their alliance portfolios over time. We find that actual performance relative to performance objectives, and firms' excess resources, are important drivers of such change. The more firms fail to meet their performance objectives, the more likely they are to form alliances with novel partners focusing on areas in which they already have one or more alliances with other partners. The more firms exceed their performance objectives, the greater their inclination to form alliances with their existing partners in areas in which they do not yet have alliances. The greater the stock of excess resources, the greater firms' propensities to form alliances with novel partners focusing on areas in which they do not yet have alliances.