Path-Dependence and Persuasion: A Theory-Based View

This dissertation extends the theory-based view of strategy by looking into two fundamental challenges: how decision-makers' theories and internal beliefs influence path dependent trajectories, and how these theories are implemented when multiple organizational actors must align. The first extension examines how process memory shapes strategic outcomes. Paper 1 develops a theoretical framework showing that decision-makers' awareness of path dependence and their theories about future contingencies influence the initial conditions that trigger path-dependent processes. Rather than being merely passive victims of "historical accidents," decision-makers can actively shape their likelihood of avoiding suboptimal lock-ins through their theoretical frameworks. Paper 2 provides experimental validation, revealing that path dependence awareness alone does not alter behavior—only when combined with optimism about optimal alternatives does it lead to better long-term choices. The second extension addresses organizational complexity in the presence of more than one decision maker. Paper 3 develops a framework for how decision-makers achieve alignment around new theories through three distinct persuasion mechanisms: information persuasion (strategic evidence disclosure), interpretative persuasion (reframing existing data), and theory persuasion (fundamental changes to causal models). This persuasion process bridges the critical gap between strategy formulation and implementation when traditional incentive mechanisms prove insufficient. Together, these papers demonstrate that successful strategy requires managing both temporal dynamics (path-dependent consequences) and social dynamics (organizational alignment). The findings have significant implications for how leaders navigate uncertainty, suggesting that effective strategy requires not just good theories, but also the ability to understand their evolution over time and spread within organizations.