Can managers see an alternative and still not experience it as a real choice?
Hello,
Research on managerial cognition has shown how attention, mental models, identity, and sensemaking influence what decision-makers notice and how they interpret it.
I am interested in how governance may shape that process.
Do recurring governance conditions influence which alternatives managers notice, seriously consider, and regard as credible, realistic, and defensible enough to pursue?
An alternative may be technically feasible, yet receive little attention or disappear from consideration because it relies on unfamiliar evidence, challenges a protected commitment, lacks a credible sponsor, or cannot be justified using the organization's accepted criteria.
The proposed mechanism is cumulative. People observe which ideas receive patient consideration, which uncertainties are tolerated, which disagreements remain survivable, and what happens to those who advance proposals that challenge prevailing assumptions. Over time, these recurring signals influence which alternatives are raised, withheld, defended, or quietly abandoned before formal decision-making begins.
Governance may therefore do more than affect how managers evaluate the alternatives in front of them. It may narrow or expand the range of possibilities that receive attention, remain discussable, and become real organizational choices.
I am trying to understand whether this is already adequately explained by attention structures, sensemaking, mental models, motivated cognition, organizational identity, voice and silence, or another established literature.
Or is there theoretical value in examining how governance shapes the movement from a technically imaginable alternative to one that becomes cognitively visible and organizationally viable?
I would welcome candid criticism, relevant references, and conversations with MOC colleagues attending AOM in Philadelphia.
Best regards
Tim
architectureofcommitment.com