Is data-driven decision-making driven only by data? When cognition meets data

This paper aims in the context of data-driven decision making (DDDM) at investigating how biases related to the intuitive and rational types of human reasoning interact and how the trust in data changes applying the parallel-competitive theory. Using ethnographic research based on participatory observations, we explore the case of a traditional transportation firm in the northern UK and its earliest use of data to inform strategic decisions. We found that biases are grouped into what we called cognition trap, data trap, and trap recognition zones. We further observed three facets of trust in data as decision makers were falling into the three trap zones. These findings contribute to the parallel-competitive theory by unveiling the intriguing synergy of the intuitive and rational types of reasoning in DDDM and providing fine-grained insights related to biases and trust changes. The study also enlarges our understanding of the inception and nature of cognitive and data biases in the DDDM context. Managerial implications are also highlighted and further discussed.     

THE ESCALATION OF COMMITMENT IN SEQUENTIAL DECISION MAKING: SITUATIONAL AND PERSONAL MODERATORS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS*

Two laboratory studies manipulated variables in order to observe their effect on the escalation of individuals' commitment to earlier investment decisions. The experimental results indicated that escalation of commitment to a failing course of action is not a general phenomenon. Information pertinent to the future prospects of reinvestment and to decision alternatives provided main effects. Neither study showed a main effect for initial success vs. failure. Decision-maker gender consistently influenced decisions in both studies through interactions with success/failure feedback and through the communicated attributions of “powerful others” regarding the causes of previous decision outcomes. Implications for theory and research are discussed.     

Information Technology Project Escalation: A Process Model*

Information technology (IT) a common and costly problem. While much is known about the factors that promote escalation behavior, little is known about the actual escalation process. This article uses an in‐depth case study to construct a process model of escalation, consisting of three phases: drift, unsuccessful incremental adaptation, and rationalized continuation. Each phase encompasses several within‐phase escalation catalysts and the model also identifies triggering conditions that promote transition from one phase to the next: project framing (antecedent condition), problem emergence, increased problem visibility, and imminent threat to project continuation (triggering the outcome deescalation). The results show that escalation is not necessarily the result of collective belief in the infallibility of a project. Rather, escalation results from continued unsuccessful coping with problems that arise during a project. Furthermore, the results suggest that the seeds of escalation are sown early: the very manner in which a project is framed contributes to whether or not the project will become prone to escalation. As problems ensue, repeated mismatches between attempted remedies and underlying problems contribute to fueling the escalation process. Implications for research and practice are discussed.     

The Effects of Personality Type on Choices Made in Strategic Decision Situations*

Jung's personality-theory typology is used as a framework for exploring the effects of cognitive style on the type and radicalness of choices made in strategic decision situations. Extending the work of Haley and Stumpf [23], it is proposed that individuals with different personality-type preferences exhibit cognitive styles that are associated with specific biases in the pattern of choices they make. Through participation in an interactive behavioral simulation, 407 participants confronted over one hundred ill-structured decision situations and proposed whatever actions they perceived appropriate. The results support the hypothesized relationships that individuals with different personality-type preferences (i.e., sensing-thinking, intuition-thinking, sensing-feeling, and intuition-feeling) take patterns of actions that reflect specific biases (i.e., selective perception, positivity, social desirability, and reasoning-by-analogy, respectively). The implications of these findings for evaluating the likely effectiveness of strategic decisions and making senior-level staffing decisions are discussed.     

Determinants of group-level overconfidence in teams: A quasi-experimental investigation of diversity and tenure

Teams of business leaders make most strategic decisions in organizations. However, although a large body of research has analyzed cognitive biases of individual leaders, little is known about how those biases affect teams on the group level. Therefore, on the basis of research into group decision making and group diversity, we analyze demographic diversity and group tenure as two important determinants of overconfidence in groups. We report findings from a quasi-experimental field study involving 46 management teams, which suggest that diversity and tenure have separate, direct effects on group overconfidence. More specifically, we show that demographic diversity reduces group overconfidence, while group tenure increases it. These findings add a dynamic dimension to the conceptualization of group overconfidence in teams.     

COGNITIVE STYLE AND THE USEFULNESS OF INFORMATION*

The desirability of a merger/acquisition alternative depends in part on the perceptions of the decision maker. What sources of information are “useful” to the decision maker & Does the set of useful information remain constant for all decision makers; if not, do individuals using similar information sets have similar information processing characteristics? Do these sets vary as feedback is obtained during the decision process? To answer these questions, graduate students participated in a modified Delphi experiment, and the resulting data were analyzed by the two-way aligned-ranks nonparametric test. These test results affirm that in a merger/acquisition scenario, decision makers with different cognitive styles prefer different sets of information and these sets vary dynamically as feedback is incorporated in the decision-making process. Furthermore, information that contains worker and community welfare considerations is identified as “useful” five times more frequently by decision makers with a “feeling” cognitive style than those with a “thinking” style.     

User Perceptions of Decision Support Effectiveness: Two Production Planning Experiments*

Decision support systems continue to be very popular in business, despite mixed research evidence as to their effectiveness. We hypothesize that what-if analysis, a prominent feature of most decision support systems, creates an “illusion of control” causing users to overestimate its effectiveness. Two experiments involving a production planning task are reported which examine decision makers' perceptions of the effectiveness of what-if analysis relative to the alternatives of unaided decision making, and quantitative decision rules. Experiment 1 found that almost all subjects believed what-if analysis was superior to unaided decision making, although using what-if analysis had no significant effect on performance. Experiment 2 found that decision makers were indifferent between what-if analysis and a quantitative decision rule which, if used, would have led to significant cost savings. Thus, what-if analysis did create an illusion of control: decision makers perceived performance differences where none existed, and did not detect large differences when they were present. In both experiments, decision makers exhibited difficulty realizing that their positive beliefs about what-if analysis were exaggerated. Such misjudgments could lead people to continue using what-if analysis even when it is not beneficial and to avoid potentially superior decision support technologies.     

Debiasing illusion of control in individual judgment: the role of internal and external advice seeking

This paper builds on behavioral strategy and strategic decision making literatures to propose a stronger integration of information acquisition behaviors in debiasing research. We argue that the advice-seeking behavior of executives—as their dominant way of information acquisition—may have a fundamental effect on cognitive biases in individual judgment. Empirical results of a vignette-based survey of 186 top executives in German SMEs support this claim. We posit that internal and external advice affect individual judgment differently and that external advice, in particular, is likely to be effective for debiasing. These results suggest new avenues for debiasing research that go beyond the active intervention techniques that have been the focus of debiasing research thus far.     

How Believing in Ourselves Increases Risk Taking: Perceived Self-Efficacy and Opportunity Recognition

What effect does positive and negative feedback about past risk taking have on the future risk taking of decision makers? The results of an experimental study show that subjects who are led to believe they are very competent at decision making see more opportunities in a risky choice and take more risks. Those who are led to believe they are not very competent see more threats and take fewer risks. The feelings of self-competence and self-confidence on one task did not generalize to a similar task. Perception of opportunities was unexpectedly not related to the perception of threats. As executives bring their personal perceptual biases to firm decision making, our results identify a serious built-in bias in SWOT analysis (the analysis of firms' strengths and weaknesses as related to potential opportunities and threats). Executives who believe that they and their firm are very competent will take more risks and vice versa. Our results also provide evidence that the perceived likelihood of an event depends on whether the event is a loss or a gain. Human decision making is subject to the general bias that outcome expectations are not independent of outcome valuations.     

Management illusions and biases: Their impact on strategic decisions

Strategic decision-making often involves a great deal of uncertainty and ambiguity. Because managers are subject to ‘bounded rationality’ their cognitive processes may result in systematic decision biases. This paper summarizes research in the areas of cognitive psychology and behavioural decision theory dealing with human cognitive biases which may influence strategic decision-making. Examples of the probable operation of these biases in strategy formulation are given and conjectures about specific decision errors resulting from the biases are offered.     

Judgmental Forecasting: Cognitive Reflection and Decision Speed

This research analyzes how individual differences affect performance in judgmental time‐series forecasting. Decision makers with the ability to balance intuitive judgment with cognitive deliberation, as measured by the cognitive reflection test, tend to have lower forecast errors. This relationship holds when controlling for intelligence. Furthermore, forecast errors increase for very fast or very slow decisions. We provide evidence that forecast performance can be improved by manipulating decision speed.     

Feedback in DSS as a Source of Control: Experiments with the Timing of Feedback

Well-designed feedback can improve decision making but to date there has been no comprehensive study of feedback in decision support systems (DSS) that could guide developers in its design. This work examines the opportunities and means to enhance cognitive control in decision making by providing appropriate feedback with DSS. It concentrates on the timing of feedback, which has been shown to affect the use of feedback and also demonstrates the potential advantages of using information technology over and above manual decision environments. Two experiments test the effects of controlling the timing of cognitive feedback on the user's cognitive control. The first tests the effect of timing one source of cognitive feedback, and the second tests the effect of timing two sources of feedback. The findings suggest that the design of feedback should become a routine part of the development of DSS.     

Hypotheses for an Interpretative Model of Organizational Decision-making at Strategic Level

Abstract. Many problems that decision makers have to solve concern strategic environments. In such situations, the structural uncertainty they must face is overcome by using their representations of reality: people take decisions on the basis of their cognitive maps. In collective high level decision-making, conflicts can rise among different frames and definitions of the problem. The process through which the actors can reach a joint solution has a bargaining nature. The decision-makers' cognitive maps contain, besides the personal view of the problem to be solved, the perception of the position and bargaining power of the other actors. Strategic moves (commitments, threats…) can modify the partners' perceptions of the possibilities of success of their policy. As such, the decision-makers' cognitive maps finally become “complementary”, permitting an agreement.     

The effect of cognitive diversity on the illusion of control bias in strategic decisions: An experimental investigation

By integrating cognitive diversity into debiasing literature, this paper contributes towards opening the black box of executive judgment. Based on information processing theory we investigate the role of cognitive diversity in strategic decision making. We apply a vignette-based experimental research design to examine the effect of cognitive diversity in teams on decision maker's illusion of control. The results of these experiments provide evidence for a positive influence of high cognitive diversity for debiasing judgment while similarly indicating no such effect for groups with low cognitive diversity. These findings suggest that group composition aspects can play an important role for improving judgment in decision making teams and open promising new avenues for studying debiasing in behavioral strategy research.     

Cognitive and Motivational Biases in Decision and Risk Analysis

Behavioral decision research has demonstrated that judgments and decisions of ordinary people and experts are subject to numerous biases. Decision and risk analysis were designed to improve judgments and decisions and to overcome many of these biases. However, when eliciting model components and parameters from decisionmakers or experts, analysts often face the very biases they are trying to help overcome. When these inputs are biased they can seriously reduce the quality of the model and resulting analysis. Some of these biases are due to faulty cognitive processes; some are due to motivations for preferred analysis outcomes. This article identifies the cognitive and motivational biases that are relevant for decision and risk analysis because they can distort analysis inputs and are difficult to correct. We also review and provide guidance about the existing debiasing techniques to overcome these biases. In addition, we describe some biases that are less relevant because they can be corrected by using logic or decomposing the elicitation task. We conclude the article with an agenda for future research.     

Affective reactions influence investment decisions: evidence from a laboratory experiment with taxation

We experimentally investigate the effect of taxation of gains and losses on investment behavior. Based on the insights of economic research and psychological concepts, we expect subjects to react to taxation with behavioral and affective changes. Our main results are threefold: first, we show that taxation on gains and the possibility to deduct losses bias investment behavior, but in different directions. Since net payoffs are identical across all tax scenarios and therefore the same investment behavior is to be expected, these differences are in contrast to what a standard theory would predict. Second, we observe that different tax regulations have different effects on the affective and cognitive perception of our subjects. Third, with respect to possible connections of the affective and cognitive ratings, tax regulations, and investment decisions, we are able to show that arousal and risk perception fail to influence the decision making of participants, while there is a highly significant influence of valence perception on choice patterns.     

治理主体干预对公司多元化战略的影响路径——基于管理者过度自信的间接效应检验

本文突破委托代理理论,以控制幻觉的基本假说为基础,从管理者过度自信的视角分析并检验了大股东、债权人与政府的干预对公司多元化战略的影响路径.研究结果表明,管理者过度自信促进了上市公司实施多元化战略的倾向;大股东与债权人的干预对多元化战略具有显著的抑制效应,这种效应一方面来自大股东与债权人的干预对管理者机会主义行为的削弱,另一方面来自控制幻觉的缓解对管理者过度自信的抑制.政府的干预对多元化战略并未产生显著的直接影响,但却显著地抑制了管理者的过度自信,从而间接地降低了上市公司的多元化水平.