Addressing the Flexible Use of Cognitive Flexibility Constructs: Toward a Multifaceted Approach
Many researchers have drawn on the term “cognitive flexibility” to denote the explanatory mechanism underlying a broad array of organizational theories. However, conceptualization (and operationalization) of this construct is inconsistent, and sometimes conflates with that of other constructs, thereby weakening our understanding of cognitive flexibility and muddling the theories that rest on it. To bring clarity, we conduct a comprehensive search of cognitive flexibility constructs, strip away their labels, and use text analysis and manual coding of their descriptions to distinguish among five fluid thought processes: (1) elaborating, (2) dimensionalizing, (3) integrating, (4) juxtaposing, and (5) matching. We further group these processes into three higher-order categories involving the reshaping, contending, and shifting of cognitive structures—and conduct a literature review of their consequences and antecedents. Our surveying demonstrates that these processes’ substance and implications differ markedly. As such, we argue that cognitive flexibility may be more appropriately viewed as a multifaceted, rather than monolithic, construct. We discuss how a multifaceted approach helps bring clarity to implicated organizational theories—and opens up exciting questions about the transferability, antagonism, and trainability of cognitive flexibility’s distinct facets.
Authors
- Santosh B. Srinivas (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7792-9622)
- Danielle Tussing (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9417-8939)
- Shefali V. Patil (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5414-7118)
- Junyeon Rhee
Institutions
- University at Buffalo, State University of New York (US)
- The University of Texas at Austin (US)
Publication Details
- Journal
- Academy of Management Annals
- Published
- 2024-09-27
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2023.0078
- Citations
- 7
- Primary Topic
- Creativity in Education and Neuroscience
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 3.55