Disentangling Strategic Consensus: Strategic Consensus Types, Psychological Bonds, and Their Effects on Strategic Climate

Abstract

Strategic consensus has long been held by academics and managers alike as crucial for organizational effectiveness. Yet, studies have failed to consistently demonstrate this importance. These equivocal findings have been attributed to the lack of clarity of the strategic consensus construct. We contend that current notions of strategic consensus have broadened the construct to the point that it has become indistinguishable from organizational strategic climate, which is a distinct, but related, construct. Moreover, we depart from past studies that have essentially treated commitment as an element of strategic consensus. Instead, we suggest that commitment is but one of several possible psychological bonds generated by strategic consensus. We therefore reconceptualize strategic consensus, disentangling it from commitment and strategic climate, and theorize how these three distinct constructs are interrelated. Specifically, we suggest that a strategic consensus influences strategic climate through both symbolic and substantive means, and that the latter occurs through a relationship mediated by the psychological bond that the strategic decision-makers hold toward the strategic decision. In so doing, our theorization paves the way for future research to explore how this constellation of constructs works together to affect more distal organizational outcomes such as strategic implementation, and ultimately, firm performance.