Search results

The purpose of this paper was to investigate the relationships among the intellectual ability of artificial intelligence (AI), cognitive emotional processes and the positive and negative reactions of human members. The authors also examined the moderating role of AI status in teams.

The authors designed an experiment and recruited 120 subjects who were randomly distributed into one of three groups classified by the upper, middle and lower organization levels of AI in the team. The findings in this study were derived from subjects’ self-reports and their performance in the experiment.

Regardless of the position held by AI, human members believed that its intelligence level is positively correlated with dependence behavior. However, when the AI and human members are at the same level, the higher the intelligence of AI, the more likely it is that its direct interaction with team members will lead to conflicts.

This paper only focuses on human–AI harmony in transactional work in hybrid teams in enterprises. As AI applications permeate, it should be considered whether the findings can be extended to a broader range of AI usage scenarios.

These results are helpful for understanding how to improve team performance in light of the fact that team members have introduced AI into their enterprises in large quantities.

This study contributes to the literature on how the intelligence level of AI affects the positive and negative behaviors of human members in hybrid teams. The study also innovatively introduces “status” into hybrid organizations.

The purpose of this paper is to understand how women with a diagnosis of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder approach medication decision making in pregnancy.

The study was co-produced by university academics and charity-based researchers. Semi-structured interviews were conducted by three peer researchers who have used anti-psychotic medication and were of child bearing age. Participants were women with children under five, who had taken anti-psychotic medication in the 12 months before pregnancy. In total, 12 women were recruited through social media and snowball techniques. Data were analyzed following a three-stage process.

The accounts highlighted decisional uncertainty, with medication decisions situated among multiple sources of influence from self and others. Women retained strong feelings of personal ownership for their decisions, whilst also seeking out clinical opinion and accepting they had constrained choices. Two styles of decision making emerged: shared and independent. Shared decision making involved open discussion, active permission seeking, negotiation and coercion. Independent women-led decision making was not always congruent with medical opinion, increasing pressure on women and impacting pregnancy experiences. A common sense self-regulation model explaining management of health threats resonated with women’s accounts.

Women should be helped to manage decisional conflict and the emotional impact of decision making including long term feelings of guilt. Women experienced interactions with clinicians as lacking opportunities for enhanced support except in specialist perinatal services. This is an area that should be considered in staff training, supervision, appraisal and organization review.

This paper uses data collected in a co-produced research study including peer researchers.

This paper aims to investigate a double puzzle, empirical and theoretical. Empirically, can the authors document the influence of groups on financial decisions in investments and trading? Theoretically, if decisions in a group context can be documented, how can we account for them, against the background of the normative models, according to which financial decisions are individualized and atomized? Based on interviews and ethnographic observations with fund managers, analysts and traders, the authors document here decision-making in finance. Theoretically, the authors argue that financial decisions can be explained if, in addition to cognitive processes, the authors take into account the impact of social interactions on the decision-making process. Social interactions are not restricted to imitation processes, and can be seen here as the efforts deployed by decision-makers at maintaining and managing the context of their decisions. The authors present and discuss empirical evidence and argue that the study of social interactions can productively contribute to understanding how decisions are made in finance.

The data analyzed here have been gathered between 2001 and 2011, and include: interviews with investment professionals (fund managers and analysts) from the UK and Turkey; interviews with individual investors from the UK and the USA; and observations with individual investors from the UK and the USA. This captures decision activities conducted in different regulatory frameworks of those countries. The authors focussed in the interviews on general decision-making practices.

Conclusion the authors have sought to answer a double puzzle, empirical and theoretical. Empirically, the puzzle is how investors and traders resort to groups in their decision-making. Theoretically, the puzzle consists not only in providing an explanation for such processes but also in taking into account that they do not fit the normative models of decisions in mainstream finance. The argument has been that in addition to the cognitive processes identified and discussed in behavioural finance, the authors need to take into account the impact of social processes as well. Social processes include the efforts deployed by financial decision-makers at maintaining and managing the contexts within which decisions are made. The work of context maintenance is intrinsic to the logic of decision-making. The authors have identified, documented and discussed here the social dynamics in financial decisions with respect to performance, managing group relationships and possible conflicts.

Managing relationships within groups is not without consequences with regard to trading decisions. Oftentimes, avoiding group conflicts – or being confronted with them – leads to decisional adjustments, which have less to do with returns on trades than with the necessity of accommodating social relationships. As several of the interviewees emphasized, making decisions implies consensus and reaching consensus requires accommodating relationships.

This study aims to explore and clarify the mechanism by which cognitive heuristics influence strategic decision-making during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in an emerging economy.

Data collection was conducted through a survey completed by 213 top-level managers from firms located in the twin cities of Pakistan. A convenient, purposively sampling technique and snowball method were used for data collection. To examine the relationship between cognitive heuristics and strategic decision-making, hypotheses were tested by using correlation and regression analysis.

The article provides further insights into the relationship between cognitive heuristics and strategic decision-making during the COVID-19 pandemic. The results suggest that cognitive heuristics (under-confidence, self-attribution and disposition effect) have a markedly negative influence on the strategic decision-making during the COVID-19 pandemic in an emerging economy.

The article encourages strategic decision-makers to avoid relying on cognitive heuristics or their feelings when making strategic decisions. It provides awareness and understanding of cognitive heuristics in strategic decision-making, which could be very useful for business actors such as managers and entire organizations. The findings of this study will help academicians, researchers and policymakers of emerging countries. Academicians can formulate new behavioural models that can depict the solutions to dealing with an uncertain situation like COVID-19. Policymakers and strategic decision-making teams can develop crisis management strategies based on concepts from behavioral strategy to better deal with similar circumstances in the future, such as COVID-19.

The paper’s novelty is that the authors have explored the mechanism by which cognitive heuristics influence strategic decision-making during the COVID-19 pandemic in an emerging economy. It adds to the literature in strategic management, explicitly probing the impact of cognitive heuristics on strategic decision-making; this field is in its initial stage, even in developed countries, while little work has been done in emerging countries.

The peer review history for this article is available at https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/IJSE-10-2021-0636.

Practitioners in particular have noted that kids are growing older younger (KGOY) and academic research has in parallel shown that children are becoming more involved in the final stages of purchase decisions, albeit in a limited number of product categories studied. This paper aims to investigate this market.

This quantitative and qualitative study examines the relatively under‐researched, but increasingly important, tweenager market across a number of product categories and the extent to which ten to 12 year olds are involved in the final stages of purchase decision making. Further to this, the paper considers whether a liberal versus traditional approach to decisions made within the family (gender role orientation (GRO)) affects the degree of involvement.

The findings suggest that GRO is indeed a factor in family decision making but that the relationship is far from a simple one. The authors posit why perceptions of involvement are sometimes inconsistent and why some kids may not be growing older younger in the way previously thought, but may simply believe they are more involved in purchase decision making as a consequence of parental strategies as well as the influences of media, school and peers.

The paper describes the implications for marketing practitioners and academic researchers.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the current management perceptions regarding conflict within teams, specifically looking at capital investment appraisals, with the aim of improving team performance.

The research was undertaken in two stages. The first stage is based on a postal questionnaire survey relating to the appraisal of capital investments, addressed to large UK organisations. The second stage was conducted through semi-structured interviews, which were followed by a short-questionnaire sent out by e-mail, and designed from the information obtained from the interviews. The research is both qualitative and quantitative.

From the exploratory study, the author was able to identify and further investigate what the author’s respondents termed “personal” and “departmental” conflicts, as well as what the author perceived to be “good” (positive) conflict and “bad” (negative) conflict. The author finds that controlled “departmental” conflict may lead to enhanced decision making, while “personal” conflict may be destructive and lead to non-optimal decision making. The author also identified the importance of the investment appraisal “procedure” as distinct from the individual models used, and suggests that this is one way of controlling conflict within teams.

The research is limited by the fact that it is based on individual perceptions of a small sample number. However, the sample consists of some of the most senior executives from the largest UK organisations whose views are usually difficult to obtain by academics.

It provides senior managers with a comprehensive view, by their peers, and a better understanding of team conflict, especially with regard to “personal” and “departmental” conflicts; thus, allowing them to manage teams more efficiently in the future.

The research is unique in that it focusses on conflict within teams that are given the specific task of appraising capital projects and it theorises on what the respondents’ terms “departmental” and “personal” conflict. It brings up-to-date, managements’ current perception of team conflict and contributes to the ongoing search for a better understanding of conflict within business teams, and ultimately to an enhanced team performance and improved decision making.

Managers must make numerous strategic decisions in order to initiate and implement a business model innovation (BMI). This paper examines how managers perceive the management team interacts when making BMI decisions. The paper also investigates how group biases and board members’ risk willingness affect this process.

Empirical data were collected through 26 in-depth interviews with German managing directors from 13 companies in four industries (mobility, manufacturing, healthcare and energy) to explore three research questions: (1) What group effects are prevalent in BMI group decision-making? (2) What are the key characteristics of BMI group decisions? And (3) what are the potential relationships between BMI group decision-making and managers' risk willingness? A thematic analysis based on Gioia's guidelines was conducted to identify themes in the comprehensive dataset.

First, the results show four typical group biases in BMI group decisions: Groupthink, social influence, hidden profile and group polarization. Findings show that the hidden profile paradigm and groupthink theory are essential in the context of BMI decisions. Second, we developed a BMI decision matrix, including the following key characteristics of BMI group decision-making managerial cohesion, conflict readiness and information- and emotion-based decision behavior. Third, in contrast to previous literature, we found that individual risk aversion can improve the quality of BMI decisions.

This paper provides managers with an opportunity to become aware of group biases that may impede their strategic BMI decisions. Specifically, it points out that managers should consider the key cognitive constraints due to their interactions when making BMI decisions. This work also highlights the importance of risk-averse decision-makers on boards.

This qualitative study contributes to the literature on decision-making by revealing key cognitive group biases in strategic decision-making. This study also enriches the behavioral science research stream of the BMI literature by attributing a critical influence on the quality of BMI decisions to managers' group interactions. In addition, this article provides new perspectives on managers' risk aversion in strategic decision-making.

Collegiality is often discussed and analyzed as a challenged form of governance, a form of working that used to function well in universities prior to the emergence of contemporary and modern forms of governance. This seems to suggest that collegiality used to dominate, while other forms of governance are now taking over. The papers in volume 86 of this special issue support the notion of challenged collegiality, but also show that for the most part, nostalgic notions of “the good old days” are neither true nor helpful if we are to revitalize academic collegiality. After examining whether a golden age of collegiality ever existed, we discuss why collegiality matters. Exploring what are often described as limitations or “dark sides” of collegiality, we address four such “dark sides” related to slow decision-making, conflicts, parochialism, and diversity. This is followed by a discussion of how these limitations may be handled and what measures must be taken to maintain and develop collegiality. With a brief summary of the remaining papers under two headings, “Maintaining collegiality” and “Revitalizing collegiality,” we preview the rest of this volume.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the effect of peer pressure on joint consumption decisions among emerging adults. Building on prospect theory and characteristics of emerging adulthood, the authors propose that influence from peers (i.e. informational and normative influence) serves as a channel to understand how peer pressure shapes joint consumer behaviors at different levels of social capital.

An online survey is distributed to the emerging adults, aged 18 to 25, in the south, west, east and middle of the USA. Construct validity and reliability are tested by using confirmatory factor analysis. Structural equation modeling is used to test the mediating and moderating effects.

The results show that social capital moderates the relationship between peer pressure and group-oriented consumer decisions, such that the relationship is positive in groups with high-level social capital but negative in groups with low-level social capital. Furthermore, such effects tend to be achieved via peer influence. And peer influence is stronger in groups with high-level social capital than those with low-level social capital.

The current literature has shown contradictory results: it is usually believed that emerging adults may conform to pressure and engage in group-oriented decisions; however, some research has reported the opposite result. To better understand this relationship, the authors aim at a group-level factor – perceived social capital – as a boundary condition. This research contributes to the young consumer decision-making literature by involving the interplay among peer pressure, perceived social capital and peer informational and normative influence.

Two studies in the context of English‐French relations in Québec suggest that individuals who strongly identify with a group derive the individual‐level costs and benefits that drive expectancy‐value processes (rational decision‐making) from group‐level costs and benefits. In Study 1, high identifiers linked group‐ and individual‐level outcomes of conflict choices whereas low identifiers did not. Group‐level expectancy‐value processes, in Study 2, mediated the relationship between social identity and perceptions that collective action benefits the individual actor and between social identity and intentions to act. These findings suggest the rational underpinnings of identity‐driven political behavior, a relationship sometimes obscured in intergroup theory that focuses on cognitive processes of self‐stereotyping. But the results also challenge the view that individuals' cost‐benefit analyses are independent of identity processes. The findings suggest the importance of modeling the relationship of group and individual levels of expectancy‐value processes as both hierarchical and contingent on social identity processes.