Search results

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.

Grey target decision-making serves as a pivotal analytical tool for addressing dynamic multi-attribute group decision-making amidst uncertain information. However, the setting of bull's eye is frequently subjective, and each stage is considered independent of the others. Interference effects between each stage can easily influence one another. To address these challenges effectively, this paper employs quantum probability theory to construct quantum-like Bayesian networks, addressing interference effects in dynamic multi-attribute group decision-making.

Firstly, the bull's eye matrix of the scheme stage is derived based on the principle of group negotiation and maximum satisfaction deviation. Secondly, a nonlinear programming model for stage weight is constructed by using an improved Orness measure constraint to determine the stage weight. Finally, the quantum-like Bayesian network is constructed to explore the interference effect between stages. In this process, the decision of each stage is regarded as a wave function which occurs synchronously, with mutual interference impacting the aggregate result. Finally, the effectiveness and rationality of the model are verified through a public health emergency.

The research shows that there are interference effects between each stage. Both the dynamic grey target group decision model and the dynamic multi-attribute group decision model based on quantum-like Bayesian network proposed in this paper are scientific and effective. They enhance the flexibility and stability of actual decision-making and provide significant practical value.

To address issues like stage interference effects, subjective bull's eye settings and the absence of participative behavior in decision-making groups, this paper develops a grey target decision model grounded in group negotiation and maximum satisfaction deviation. Furthermore, by integrating the quantum-like Bayesian network model, this paper offers a novel perspective for addressing information fusion and subjective cognitive biases during decision-making.

Among the many influences on group decision making efficacy that have been identified by group researchers, the process that a group follows in arriving at a decision is widely regarded as one of the most important. This chapter reviews the research on group decision making processes for the purpose of explicating (a) the nature of group process, (b) the factors that influence group process, (c) the role that communication plays in group process, and (d) the influence of group process on decision making efficacy. The chapter concludes with suggestions for future research.

Purpose – The purpose of this chapter is to explore the implications of viewing group decision-making through the lens of a social dilemma.

Design/methodology/approach – The chapter reviews the literature on why group decision-making often fails to live up to its potential, and then applies the social dilemma perspective to develop new insights about how the limitations of group decision-making might be overcome.

Findings – Applying the social dilemma perspective to group decision-making provides several prescriptions for group decision-making improvement by highlighting a critical distinction between participation and engagement.

Limitations – An important limitation of applying the social dilemma perspective to group decision-making is that improving group engagement by redefining member duty carries the risk of energizing dissent that only questions the group's answer and not the group's question.

Practical implications – The chapter refocuses the dialogue about group decision-making effectiveness away from “just” participation to include group member engagement.

Social implications – A key social implication of this chapter is that all social behavior represents a social dilemma, and that viewing everyday social activities (such as group decision-making) as social dilemmas can help identify new ways to understand cooperation failures and thereby improve future cooperation in groups.

Originality/value – The chapter extends and re-energizes research on group decision-making by providing a fresh lens – the social dilemma perspective – through which to understand and improve group decision-making failures.

This chapter presents a new model for developing and assessing the decision competencies of executive decision-makers. Prior models consider individual and group decision-making but neglect to consider the impact of group-interactive decision-making on real-world problem-solving and sense-making activities. In the present study experimental protocols represent an approximation of a realistic business decision-making process, where decision-makers consult with groups of stakeholders and then make decisions on their own. The model juxtaposes decision competence with the level of decision confidence with which decisions are made. The study furnishes an objective test for this phenomenon, resulting in quantitative empirical evidence of either follow-the-herd (FTH) behavior, or group-forged individual decisions (GFID), or follow-my-own-mind (FMOM) individual decision behavior. The study investigates the impact of group-interactive decision processes on hubristic behavior – decision-makers who make poor/wrong decisions, but remain confident in their choices, judgments, and decisions. The resulting management decision competency model provides an inter-disciplinary matrix, of benefit to human resource development specialists, and provides scholars in organizational behavior and leadership development with guidance for current and future research into group dynamics and decision competencies.

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 monograph seeks to summarise the key influences of a role‐based perspective on leadership when making decisions as to how organisational resources can best be deployed.

Application of new frameworks provides insight into the leadership roles executives can adopt when part of formal, informal and temporary groups within the organisation's senior management team and those parts of the organisation for which they are responsible. The methodology adopted is qualitative, focusing on application of previously developed frameworks.

Adoption of an appropriate leadership role, and the timely switch from one role to another as circumstances change, are found to facilitate improvement in the ability of executives to mobilise organisational resources, and in so doing effectively address those challenges with which the organisation is faced.

A one‐organisation intensive case study of a multinational engineering company engaged in the design, development and manufacture of rotating turbomachinery provides the platform for the research. The research intent is to validate two frameworks in a different organisation of a similar demographic profile to those in which the frameworks were developed. The frameworks will require validating in organisations of different demographic profiles.

The concepts advanced, and implications discussed, provide an insight into the role‐based nature of leadership. The practical steps individual executives can take to develop their ability to adopt different leadership roles are highlighted.

This monograph is an investigation into, and study of the contribution of theory that provides insight into, the process by which executives effectively mobilise organisational resources. This differs from the original contributions to theory, which focused on methodology, data gathering and validation in contrast with the current study that is focused on practical application.

The purpose of this paper is to examine how the group decision-making process unfolds over time in a transorganizational system (TS) planning change.

A longitudinal qualitative case study was designed to enable researchers to identify different stages in the group decision-making process.

The findings from this case study indicated that the group decision-making process in a TS planning change could be conceptualized to include five distinct steps: working in solitude; starting a dialogue; finding a common goal; suggesting decision alternatives; and deciding among alternatives. The group proceeded through these steps sequentially over time.

The paper offers TS practitioners a framework to follow when making group decisions within TSs.

The study develops a conceptual framework that describes how the group decision-making process unfolds over time in a TS planning change. This framework can be tested in other contexts and advance theory in both the TS and group decision-making areas.

Managers spend a great deal of time in meetings making decisions critical to organisational success, yet the design aspects of meetings remain largely understudied. The purpose of this paper is to elaborate on the potential impact of one critical design aspect of meetings – namely, whether a decision to be taken (or the meeting in general) was scheduled or not – on the use of distributed information, information elaboration, conflict, speed of decision making, and, ultimately, decision-making effectiveness.

The research presented in this paper combines a literature review with empirical data obtained from questionnaires and direct observation of decision making meetings on organisational issues in a hospital. One meeting was scheduled, the other two were unscheduled. A second questionnaire was administered 12 months after the respective decision making meetings to explore and evaluate the efficiency of the decisions made and their implementation.

This paper suggests that a scheduled meeting with a shared agenda of all decisions to be taken may induce decision makers to form opinions upfront at the meeting, with these opinions eventually serving as sources of conflict during group discussion. Because of the nature of the conflict generated, these meetings are more likely to run long and to not deliver the expected outcomes.

The study contributes to the debate on group decision-making processes by examining the effect of meeting scheduling on information elaboration and conflict in real-world decision-making settings. Although robust evidence has supported the existence of relationships between information elaboration, conflict, and decision-making effectiveness, previous studies have mainly focused on the effects of these processes during scheduled meetings and experimental settings. The findings of the present study show the effect of meeting scheduling on decision-making effectiveness in real-world settings.

This paper aims to address the issue of modeling and model‐based management from a psycho‐ and sociological perspective, showing that the requisite decision‐making models are a necessary but not sufficient condition for taking the right decisions. To overcome this lack of a physical space, a “brain‐supporting environment” is proposed to support group decision making in complex situations.

Following the interdisciplinary character of management problems, findings from different fields are used to derive requirements for complex problem solving.

Procedural, structural and technological measures are proposed to debias individual and group decision making. Finally, a “brain‐supporting environment” is sketched in which humans, as well as humans and machines, interact in order to arrive at better decisions.

The paper points out ways that today's technologies can be used to enhance the ability to manage complexity and to prepare the management of organizations for the challenges of the twenty‐first century.

The paper contributes to the management of complex systems by integrating findings from different scientific disciplines in a comprehensive approach to support decision making.