
function, but also fill in information gaps based on
existing or non-existing experience, and thus enable
or prevent the controller from taking action. In their
functions of perceptual control, information
processing, and interpretation, cognitive structures
directly influence cognitive actions such as the
formation of expectations, the evaluation of action
options, the development and evaluation of problem-
solving alternatives, and the processing of
uncertainty or learning.
At the company level, cognitive structures
correspond to organizational knowledge, [15].
Cognitive processes occur both automatically, such
as language comprehension, and in a controlled
manner. In particular, controllable individual
cognitive activities are subject to cognitive
limitations or 'defects'. These constraints, which are
manifested in the individual's efforts to reduce
cognitive effort, essentially limit rationality, [16],
which in the case of corporate governance results in
decision defects. Decision defects may include
solving a problem without defining it, selective
perception of different aspects of the business,
limited perception of alternatives, overly strong
attachment to executable functions, distorted causal
relationships, etc, [17].
At the heart of every information capture and
processing process, for example, of information
related to strategy, two aspects interact. On the one
hand, the individual's context dominates, where
information about whether the individual has options
for a given issue, justifying and influencing those
options, and information about the individual's
perception of the context of the issue interact. The
other dominant influence on the thought process in
perception and information processing is the
organizational context. This adds to the previous
information the norms, values, and traditions of a
particular company, the style and even the culture of
dress, which in one way or another influence and
characterize the company's activities, location, the
quality and completeness of its equipment, as well as
its relations with colleagues. The interaction between
these two dominants results in a process that can be
described as a "search for meaning", [18] to find
more congruence between the first and the second
dominance. In this process, the individual considers
the relevance of the solution to his or her
understanding of the case, identifies the causes and
consequences of the solution, compares it with his or
her experience, knowledge, and abilities, and thus
applies it to him or herself. This process of
application results in his/her willingness to go along
with the collective way of thinking, opinion, or
solution, or not to do so. It has been stressed above
that the cognitive perspective in the context of
strategy research and development constitutes an
important business management perspective.
Most management decisions have a lasting
impact: the knowledge, experience and expertise of
the manager are crucial. Decision-making is based
on subjective patterns of judgement and the
manager's associated capabilities. These are derived
from the cognitive belief system of the manager or
owner and have a significant impact on the
performance and results of the business. From a
strategy-creating perspective, 'interventions' in
specific working areas should be assessed, taking
into account the possible consequences of the
interaction of both manager and employee 'belief
frameworks'.
Evaluating the authors' definitions, three types or
"levels" of strategies are proposed: individual
strategies, enterprise strategies, and enterprise
strategies. Different company employees pursue
their interests, and as a result, they also have
individual ideas about the company's future
development. In this context, we are talking about
individual strategies, which represent individual
cognitive orientations. The transformation of these
individual strategies into corporate strategies can
take place in decision-making processes such as
strategic planning, [19]. Cognitive management
research reveals that each manager or organization
develops different images of environmental reality
due to different interpretive mechanisms. In this
context, the question of how perceptions and
thinking mechanisms operate in individuals or
organizations, resulting in different models of
organizational reality, [20], is particularly relevant in
the context of both strategy and business model
development.
To survive in today's market conditions,
businesses need to develop two opposed skills: they
need to become more flexible and adaptable to
external conditions; at the same time, they need to
remain distinct from other market players in terms of
supply, [21]. Given the fact that all business
decisions have to be taken in an increasingly
competitive environment, [22], the need to learn to
work in a complex and diverse, high-performing
multinational team, where social and cultural
differences are used positively to foster innovation
and growth, creating a distinct and different
company culture from competitors, becomes a
strategic component of every company, [23].
It is the culture of an organisation that creates
the structures, routines and hierarchies that influence
its employees and their motivation to adopt or not
adopt the company's strategic orientations. Some
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2023.20.151
Rosita Zvirgzdina, Helena Skadina, Iveta Linina