{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019218025182239893, 'fraction_numerical': 0.016235917826375082, 'mean_word_length': 5.972286374133949, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparing Aspiration Models: The Role of Selective Attention

COMPARING ASPIRATION MODELS: THE ROLE OF SELECTIVE ATTENTION MARK WASHBURN College of Business Administration California State University, Long Beach Long Beach, CA 90840 PHILIP BROMILEY University of California, Irvine ABSTRACT Scholars have used various models of organizational aspirations where aspirations depend on prior performance and the performance of comparable firms. We extend the models to incorporate selective attention. Using direct aspiration measures on sales performance in an automotive manufacturer, we find selective attention influences aspiration levels. INTRODUCTION Aspirations refer to levels of outcomes that will satisfy the individual or organization. Research on aspirations continues to rely on Cyert and March's (1963) Behavioral Theory of the Firm (BTOF) that makes aspirations a function of past performance and social comparison. The many studies including measures of organizational aspirations differ substantially in their measures. Some measure aspirations as an average of social comparison and firm past performance (Greve 1998, Denrell and March 2001, Audia and Greve 2006), others use switching models of comparison and past performance (Bromiley 1991, Deephouse and Wiseman 2000), and others use separate social comparison and past performance aspiration variables (Greve, 2003, Iyer and Miller, 2008). Different specifications of aspiration models require different theoretical assumptions regarding information processing in organizations. Models creating a single aspiration level as an additive function of prior performance and social comparison assume firms do not switch attention between self and social comparison, and that firms combine these into a single aspiration. Models allowing both social and prior performance aspirations as separate variables assume firms have such separate reference points. Bromiley (2004) observes that the BTOF proposes firms have aspirations along several dimensions with attention focusing on the dimensions where performance falls below aspirations, yet few if any studies allow for such multiple dimensions. March and Shapira (1987) argue for attention switching within a single dimension of aspirations (performance). The representation of aspiration levels reflects theoretically important differences in models of how organizations handle performance feedback. In addition to theoretical issues, the different representations of aspirations can create confusion when trying to compare across studies that use different measures (and implicitly theories) of aspirations in models explaining firm behavior. We propose that some of the assumptions in these models merit re-consideration. The BTOF emphasizes selective attention where the firm attends to goals sequentially (see also Ocasio, 1997). However, the BTOF did not include a selective attention mechanism in the determination of aspirations themselves. We extend the concept of selective attention to argue