I)()es Agent Styi,e Matter ()r(~anizati()nal Decision Making Perf()rmance? I

INTR()DUCTi()N Organizations vltry in the way they respond to orglmizational problems, even when they are in similar task environments or are facing simihu stress conditions (Scott 1987). This way of response is due, in part, agent style (Kets de Vries and Miller 1986; LaPorle and Consolini 1991), which is also related to the norms in, or culture of, thc organization (Parsons 1956; Blumberg 1987)2. By agent style: we mean the general way in which the agent approaches the problem. However, the link between organizatiomd culture (e.g., as seen in agent style) and perfonnance hits received insufficient attention (Saffold 1988). This is due, in p~u’t, to the complex and somclimes controversial natures of culture, agent style, lind pcrll~nn~utcc. Agent style varies on many dimensions. We are here concerned with pn~activeness/reactiveness, as there are strong links between this aspect of agent style and perform;race. Wc define an agent to be proactive if the agent engages in decision making and information gathering whenever possible. In contrast, a reactive agent is one that waits until being asked or until absolutely necessary to gather information or make a decision (L,’trson el al. 1986). The link between agent style and perfonnance, however, hits received insufficient attention. The conventional evaluation of agent style typically regards proactive style as being better for the organization than reactive style. Organizations composed of proactive agents are supposed to respond to organizational problems faster than organizations composed of reactive agents. A consequence is that organizations of proactive agents should outperform org~mizations of reactive agents (Pauchant et al. 1990). The wisdom is that proactive organizations are more