Search results

The present study intends to foster understanding of how a traditional manufacturer can utilize the “simple rules” approach of managerial heuristics to facilitate its smart solution development (SSD) process.

The study uses an in-depth single case research strategy and 25 senior manager interviews to understand the application of simple rules in smart solution development.

The findings reveal process, boundary, preference, schedule, and stop rules as the dominant managerial heuristics in the case and identify how the manufacturer applies these rules during the innovation process phases of ideation, incubation, transformation, and industrialization for attaining project outcomes.

The study contributes to the new service development (NSD) literature by shedding light on simple rules and how managers may apply them to facilitate SSD. The main limitations stem from applying the qualitative case study approach and the interpretative nature of the study, which produces novel insights but prevents direct generalization to other empirical cases.

The resulting framework provides guidelines for managers on how to establish formal and clear simple rules that enable industrial solution providers to approach decision-making in smart solution development in a more agile manner.

The study comprises one of the first attempts to investigate managerial heuristics in the context of SSD and puts forward a plea for further NSD research applying psychological conceptualizations to enrich the simple rules perspective.

In order to better understand how heuristics are used in practice, the authors explore what type of heuristics is used in the managerial domain of financial advisors to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and what influences the shaping of these heuristics. In doing so, the authors detect possible fast-and-frugal heuristics in day-to-day decision-making of independent financial advisers who help owners of SMEs to acquire capital (e.g. loans, factoring, leasing and equity).

The authors inductively assessed the work of financial advisers of SMEs. Based on group discussions, the authors drew up a semi-structured interview-protocol with descriptive questions about how financial advisers come to a deal for their clients. The interviews of 19 professionals were analysed by relating them to the theory of fast-and-frugal heuristics.

Within their decision-making, advisers estimate the likelihood of acceptance by a few financial providers they know well in their personal network with a strong bias towards traditional banking products, although there are a large number of alternatives on the Dutch market. “Less is more” seems to be a relevant principle when defined as satisficing. Heuristics help advisers to deal with behavioural and economic limitations. Also, the authors have found that client interaction, previous working experience and the company the adviser is working for influences the shaping of the simple rules the adviser is using.

The study shows how difficult it is to understand the ecological rationality of a certain group of professionals and to understand the “less is more” principle. Financial advisers to SMEs use cognitive shortcuts and simple rules to advise SME-owners, based on previous experiences, but it is difficult to determine whether that leads to the same or even better solutions for them and their clients than using probability theory and financial optimisation models. Within heuristics, satisficing seems to be a dominant mechanism. Here, heuristics help advisers in recognising possibilities by searching for similarities between a current financing case and previous experiences. The data suggests that if “less is more” is defined as satisficing for one or more stakeholders involved, the principle dominates the decision making of financial advisers of SME's.

The authors suggest the relevance of a behavioural approach to finance by assessing the day-to-day decisions of financial advisers of SMEs. Also, the authors suggest that financial advisers are guided by previous experiences, and they do not fully assess a wide range of options in their work but need shortcuts to fulfil the needs of their clients.

The study comes close to day-to-day decision-making in finance by assessing how professionals make decisions. The authors try to understand types of heuristics in relation with “ecological rationality” and the less is more principle. The authors assess financial advisers of SME-companies, a group that has gotten little research attention until now. The influence of client interaction and of the company the adviser is working for is remarkable in the shaping of the advisers' simple rules.

The way organizations cope with uncertainty in strategic decision making is prominently discussed. Concepts such as heuristics and simple rules are gaining increasing attention in strategic management research. However, despite their importance, little is known how heuristics and simple rules operate. Our qualitative study reveals that, first, strategic decisions consist of three basic elements: single rules, rule patterns, and emotional handling. Second, we find that firms develop generalizable rule patterns which follow a sequential order of inter-linked rules. Based on the findings we introduce the concept of organizational heuristics as inter-linked rule patterns drawing on organizational experience.

So far, the simplicity of heuristics has been mostly studied at the rule level. However, actors' bounded rationality implies that small bundles of rules drive behavior. This study thus conducts a conceptual elaboration around such bundling. This leads to reflections on the various processes of heuristic emergence and to qualifications of the respective characteristics of basic heuristic classes.

Determining which rules – out of many possible ones – to select in one's small bundle constitutes a difficult combinatorial problem. Fortunately, past research has demonstrated that solutions can be found in evolutionary mechanisms. Those converge toward bundles that are somewhat imperfect yet cannot be easily improved, a.k.a., locally optimal bundles. This paper therefore identifies that heuristic bundles can efficiently emerge by social evolutionary mechanisms whereby actors recursively exchange, adopt and perform bundles of rules constitute processes of heuristic emergence.

Such evolutionary emergence of socially calculated small bundles of heuristics differs from the agentic process by which some simple rule heuristics emerge or from the biological calculation process by which some behavioral biology heuristics emerge. The paper subsequently proceeds by classifying heuristics depending on their emergence process, distinguishing, on the one hand, agentic vs evolutionary mechanisms and, on the other hand, social vs biological encodings. The differences in the emergence processes of heuristics suggest the possibility of comparing them on three key characteristics – timescale, reflectivity and local optimality – which imply different forms of fitness.

The study proceeds as a conceptual elaboration; hence, it does not provide empirics. At a microlevel, it enables classification and comparison of the largest possible range of heuristics. At a macrolevel, it advocates for further exploration of managerial bundles of rules, regarding both their dynamics and their substantive nature.

In the field, practitioners are often observed to socially construct their theory of action, which emerges as a bundle of heuristics. This study demonstrates that such social calculations provide solutions that have comparatively good qualities as compared to heuristics emerging through other processes, such as agentic simple rules or instinctive – i.e. behavioral biology – heuristics. It should motivate further research on bundles of heuristics in management practice. Such an effort would improve the ability to produce knowledge fitting the absorptive capacity of practitioners and enhance the construction of normative managerial theories and pedagogy.

Bundles of rules may also play a crucial role in the emergence of collective action. This study contributes to a performativity perspective whereby theories can become reality. It demonstrates how the construction of a managerial belief system may amount to the launching of a social movement and vice versa.

Overall, many benefits accrue from integrating the bundles of rules expressed and exchanged by practitioners under the heuristic umbrella. So far, in management scholarship, such emergent objects have sometimes been interpreted as naïve or as indicative of institutional pressures. By contrast, this study shows that socially calculated bundles may efficiently combine the advantages of individuals' reflective cognitive processes with those provided by massive evolutionary exchanges. In conclusion, the social calculations of small heuristic bundles may constitute a crucial mechanism for the elaboration of pragmatic theories of action.

The purpose of this guest editorial is to present an overview of the contributions in this special issue and proposes a positive approach to heuristics deriving from the growing interest in the decision-making topic with respect to the new challenges emerging in uncertain environments in management and marketing research.

The authors explore the reasons for a positive view of business actors' judgments and choices based on heuristics, not only in terms of effectiveness in practice, but their fit with human cognition and behavior, and the potential distinctiveness in contexts where technological devices and algorithms are more widespread, but not necessarily more appropriate.

The authors present and discuss the emergence and evolution of heuristics as a topic in the management literature, and the themes and insights proposed in the papers published in this special issue contributing to research aimed at systemizing a managerial perspective of the concepts and tools that may be useful for practitioners and researchers in this field.

The paper discusses the positive role that heuristics can play, offering some propositions for future research by framing heuristics as a set of tools (toolbox) for business actors in uncertain contexts, without constituting a cognitive limitation for effective solutions.

The aim of this research is to investigate the relationship between (dual) organizational identity and individual heuristics – simple rules and biases – in the process of strategy change. This paper offers a theory on identity reflexivity as a cognitive mechanism of strategy change in the context of organizational hybridity.

The authors draw on a 2-year ethnographic study at a Dutch social housing association dealing with the process of strategy change. The empirical data comprises of in-depth semi-structured interviews, ethnographic observations as well as secondary sources.

Conflicting identities at the organizational level influence heuristics at the individual level, since members tend to identify with their department's identity. Despite conflicting interpretations, paths of cognitive shortcuts – that the authors define as internal and external identity reflexivity – are shared by the conflicting identities.

The findings of this research are subject to limitations typical of a qualitative case-study, such as possibly being context dependent. The authors argue that this research contributes to the understanding of how individual heuristics relate to organizational heuristics, and suggest that the process of identity reflexivity can contribute to the alignment of conflicting identities enabling strategy formation in the context of a dual-identity organization.

Understanding how managers with conflicting identities achieve agreements is important to help organizational leaders to pursue sustainability-oriented strategy change.

Given the pressure experienced by mission-driven organizations to integrate multiple sustainability demands in their mission, understanding managers' decision-making mechanism when adapting to new, often conflicting, sustainability demands is important to accelerate societal sustainability transitions.

This paper addresses the process of new strategy design in the context of a socially driven business. This context fundamentally differs from the one addressed by the existing heuristics literature with respect to organizational environment and role, and specific competing demands.

Our editorial argues that categories theory can be advanced by embracing heuristics research, and the insight that audiences often evaluate items based on multiple valued criteria. Thus, rather than building on extant theory – which suggests that categories embody specific evaluative criteria, or that audiences operate according to a set “theory of value” – the authors argue that hybrids research would benefit from attending to the underlying processes that actors use to weigh and balance the diverse considerations that guide their decisions. The authors define and discuss three commonly used heuristics (satisficing, lexicographic preferences, and elimination by aspects), and show how these might lead audiences to support different types of hybrid entities.

Following Philip Selznick’s lead in using pragmatist social science to understand issues of public concern we conducted a study of failed innovation in the commercial construction industry (CCI). We find that social heuristics – collectively constructed and maintained interpretive decision-making frames – significantly shape economic and non-economic decision-making practices. Social heuristics are the outcome of industry-based “institutionalization processes” and are widely held and commonly relied on in CCI to reduce uncertainty endemic to decision-making; they provide actors with both a priori and ex post facto justifications for economic decisions that appear socially rational to industry co-participants. In the CCI – a project-centered production network – social heuristics as shared institutions sustain network-based social order but in so doing discourage novel technologies and impede innovation. Social heuristics are actor-level constructs that reflect macro-level institutional arrangements and networked production relations. The concept of social heuristics offers the promise of developing a genuinely social theory of individual economic choice and action that is historically informed, contextually situated, and neither psychologically nor structurally reductionist.

Organizational wicked problems are ill-defined phenomena arising in complex environments with intertwined and evolving interests. This paper aims to use a nonlinear epistemological approach to explore how multiple management decision tools work together to form configurational paths to deal with organizational wicked problems and to propose some heuristic toolkits for tackling them.

Based on interviews with 53 senior executives dealing with 62 organizational wicked problems, this paper uses grounded theory to construct an antecedent theoretical framework and then uses qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) to conduct configuration analysis on the strategy portfolios that can tackle organizational wicked problems.

This paper used grounded theory to identify six theoretical dimensions as management decision tools for dealing with organizational wicked problems: change adaptation, goal performing, administration, mechanical integration, organic integration and entrepreneuring. In addition, this paper used QCA to explore and propose three heuristic toolkits – synergy oriented, institution oriented and innovation oriented – as multiple equivalent paths to help deal with organizational wicked problems.

This paper uses configuration analysis instead of the net effect analysis of the traditional econometric method and captures multiple antecedent conditions for decision-makers to deal with organizational wicked problems from a holistic perspective. This paper constructs three heuristic toolkits and matches each of them with the most suitable type of organizational wicked problem, constructing a complete research chain of “identifying–tackling” the organizational wicked problem and providing a reference for organizations facing similar situations in future practice.

In recent years, traditional legal systems have been increasingly challenged by the rapid and wide-ranging changes induced by modern technology and science which constantly transform our economies and societies. The rise of a new type of scholarship in contemporary legal thought can be understood in the light of the growing disjunction between the traditional methods of law dealing with social problems and the overall pragmatic spirit of the globalized economies. The intrinsic conservatism of traditional law is sometimes (more or less explicitly) accused of being inadequate to cope with the problems raised by the application of new technologies and sciences, or worse, of being an impediment to the development of the full potential of the modern economies.