Search results

The purpose of this chapter is to describe an accounting ethics course whose purpose, in part, is to short circuit the process that leads to foolish ethical decisions by professional accountants. In addressing how to make ethical decisions, the course deliberately includes processes intended to develop wisdom and to impede reflexive decisions that reflect the five fallacies of thinking. The approach described represents an active, engaging approach to increasing dialogical and dialectical reasoning in students’ pursuit of wisdom through individual selection of outside reading, engaging speakers, and the use of ethics accountability groups. The course is adaptable to large and small class settings where the professor desires extensive interaction among students, and it creates an environment designed to help students develop self-chosen principles to guide their professional lives. Students take responsibility for developing self-determined principles to guide their professional lives. Clearly identifying these principles provides students a basis for resisting ethical compromises in their careers. The course focuses students on developing wisdom and recognizing the weaknesses in a purely calculation-based moral reasoning.

The identification of fallacies in both the professional and personal environment is discussed. Several commonly encountered fallacies are briefly described and examples included. After the fallacies have been identified, three specific tools available for dealing with fallacies when they arise are examined. These tools are described in limited detail and provide a solid framework for further personal development.

Why do respected planners so often fail to predict seismic events? Here are some reasons, and a better way to plan: scenario planning.

While some studies have found that cognitive biases are detrimental to entrepreneurial performance, others have conjectured that cognitive biases may stimulate entrepreneurial action. This study uses a typology of availability and representative heuristics to examine how two patterns of biases affect entrepreneurial performance. Drawing on ideas from cognitive science, this study predicts that various levels of biases in each pattern stimulate entrepreneurial behavior and performance.

A profile-deviation approach was employed to analyze data from 253 entrepreneurs and zero-truncated Poisson regression and the zero-truncated negative binomial regression to test hypotheses.

This study finds some positive associations between a particular level of cognitive biases in each of the two patterns and entrepreneurial behavior and performance. Results show that the patterns of biases often stimulate and never hurt entrepreneurial behavior and performance. The opposite holds for a lack of cognitive biases, which hurts and never stimulates entrepreneurial behavior and performance.

This study examines patterns of cognitive biases of entrepreneurs instead of single biases. The study broadens the perspective on the heuristics and cognitive biases of entrepreneurs by examining patterns of biases emanating from the availability and the representativeness heuristic that make a difference for entrepreneurial behavior and performance. The study also brings the “great rationality debate” closer to the entrepreneurship field by showing that a normative rule based on statistics and probability theory does not benefit entrepreneurial behavior and performance.

Does staffing contribute to organizational effectiveness and sustained competitive advantage, or are many of staffing’s implications merely cross-level fallacies? This article provides a critical examination of staffing research and practice, and proposes a multilevel model of staffing that ties together micro (e.g. personnel selection), meso (e.g. team staffing), and macro (e.g. organizational strategy, Human Resources practices) theory, research, and practice. The model is both integrative and prescriptive, providing a basic organizing structure for examining staffing research within and across levels. The article begins with a review of multilevel theory, followed by a review and critique of the dominant staffing paradigms from a multilevel perspective. It is shown these single level paradigms cannot answer many of the primary questions of interest to staffing specialists. In contrast, the multilevel staffing model not only addresses these limitations, but also prompts a variety of new predictions that oftentimes run counter to prevailing wisdom. Staffing specialists are challenged to show how our science and practice contribute to better functioning organizations.

The purpose of this paper is to highlight the prominent cognitive biases that influence Lean practices in organisations that have a multi-cultural work environment which will aid the organisational managers and academics in enhancing the understanding of the human thought process and mitigate them suitably.

A multiple case study was conducted in organisations that were previously committed to Lean practices and had a multi-cultural work environment. This research was conducted on five companies based on 99 in-depth semi-structured interviews and seven process observations that sought to establish the system-wide cognitive biases present in a multi-cultural Lean environment.

The novel findings indicate that nine new biases influence Lean implementation and practices in a multi-cultural environment. This study also found strong connectivity between Lean practices and 45 previously identified biases that could affect positively or negatively the lean methodologies and their implementation. Biases were resilient enough that their influence on Lean in multi-cultural workplaces, even with transient populations, did not demonstrate cultural differentiation.

Like any qualitative research, constructivism and narrative analyses are subjected to understanding based on knowledge gained on the subject, and data may have been interpreted differently. Constructivist co-recreation of process scenarios based result limitations is therefore acknowledged. The interactive participation in exploring the knowledge sought after and interaction that could have a probable influence on the participant need to be acknowledged. However, the research design, multiple methods of data collection, generalisation based on data collection and analysis methods limit the effects of these and findings are reliable to a greater extent.

The results can provide an enhanced understanding of biases and insights into a new managerial approach to take remedial steps on biases’ influence on Lean practices that can result in improved productivity and well-being from a business process perspective. Understanding and mitigating the prominent biases can aid Lean manufacturing processes and support decision makers and line managers in improving lean methodologies’ effectiveness and productivity. The biases can be negated and used to implement decisions with ease. The influence of biases and the model could be used as a basis to counter implementation barriers.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study that connects the cognitive perspectives of Lean business processes in a multi-cultural environment to identify the cognitive biases that influence Lean practices in organisations that were previously committed to Lean practices. The novel findings indicate that nine new biases and 45 previously identified biases influence Lean implementation and practices in a multi-cultural environment. The second novelty of this study shows the connection between cognitive biases, Lean implementation and practices in multi-cultural business processes.

The equation of unified knowledge says that S = f (A,P) which means that the practical solution to a given problem is a function of the existing, empirical, actual realities and the future, potential, best possible conditions of general stable equilibrium which both pure and practical reason, exhaustive in the Kantian sense, show as being within the realm of potential realities beyond any doubt. The first classical revolution in economic thinking, included in factor “P” of the equation, conceived the economic and financial problems in terms of a model of ideal conditions of stable equilibrium but neglected the full consideration of the existing, actual conditions. That is the main reason why, in the end, it failed. The second modern revolution, included in factor “A” of the equation, conceived the economic and financial problems in terms of the existing, actual conditions, usually in disequilibrium or unstable equilibrium (in case of stagnation) and neglected the sense of right direction expressed in factor “P” or the realization of general, stable equilibrium. That is the main reason why the modern revolution failed in the past and is failing in front of our eyes in the present. The equation of unified knowledge, perceived as a sui generis synthesis between classical and modern thinking has been applied rigorously and systematically in writing the enclosed American‐British economic, monetary, financial and social stabilization plans. In the final analysis, a new economic philosophy, based on a synthesis between classical and modern thinking, called here the new economics of unified knowledge, is applied to solve the malaise of the twentieth century which resulted from a confusion between thinking in terms of stable equilibrium on the one hand and disequilibrium or unstable equilibrium on the other.