Search results

This study aims to answer the following research question: “How do meaningful coincidences influence management decisions?” This question has gained relevance mainly because of the increasing attention of scholars in explaining the irrational pressures that shape management decisions, which should be inevitably taken into account to discover the causative factors of firms’ performances.

A multiparadigm approach to theory building has been adopted, known as “metatriangulation.” This study consisted of exploring the interplay between the synchronicity concept of Jung and cognitive studies. As a result, this work proposes a conceptual framework that refers to both sensemaking and cognitive decision-making literature.

The framework proposes that the perceived certainty (or not) about the potential outcome for the well-being, coming from the occurrence of meaningful coincidences, elicits a set of positive (or negative) affective states. These states activate a series of cognitive errors that drive the assignment of a symbolic content to the coincidences, bringing different risk-oriented management decisions.

The provided model is purely conceptual and based on the current pool of knowledge available. As much as empirical evidence will be produced, this model may need revision. This framework proposes the interpretation of meaningful coincidences not only as the output of a number of information processing biases, but also as inputs, through the elicited affect heuristic, for the occurrence of other cognitive errors that drive management decisions.

The explained influence of irrational forces on management decisions, also considering luck and chance, can be fruitful to avoid these behaviors or to intentionally adopt them in selected cases, e.g. when looking for attractive unexploited opportunities within markets.

To the best of the author’s knowledge, this is the first work that attempts to unveil the impact of meaningful coincidences and, more in general, of irrational forces on management decisions. Moreover, the provided framework explains how superstitious events are sometimes looked for to guide decision-making.

This paper aims to present how Facebook overcame its liability of newness period, helping the interpretation of the same initial financial and organizational troubles faced by current unicorns.

In this study, the case study method has been used.

This story shows how the inclusion of active initial investors in the strategic team is pivotal for a firm’s survival. This case study depicts in depth the first years of life of the social network Facebook, focusing on the initial investors’ role for the survival of the firm.

This paper shows how an initial strategic team (especially the inexperienced) may benefit from the inclusion of active initial investors in terms of financed capital, and of further financing and refocusing of the strategic direction.

Does future thinking enhance managers’ innovative behavior? This study aims to posit that the ability to project events while considering current/future variables and their development (i.e. future thinking) – inextricably linked with the knowledge creation process – may enhance the manager’s accuracy and the number of potentially successful innovative ideas for organizations.

The authors use a between-group experiment to examine the innovation choices of 47 subjects with experience in evaluating the market potential of new products when asked to support or otherwise reject real-life innovation-related ideas. The authors test the accuracy of decisions made by participants primed to apply future thinking, practically implemented through abductive reasoning, in their decision-making.

The authors found a significant change in managers’ innovative choices, with participants primed for future thinking making significantly more accurate decisions than the control group. Those participants both correctly chose innovation-related ideas with significant future potential and rejected ideas with limited potential that ultimately failed.

This study explores how future thinking enhances managers’ innovative behavior in organizations. It provides empirical evidence on how future thinking, practiced through abductive reasoning, can work to foster innovative behavior, which is an antecedent of knowledge creation. Organizations that foster future thinking concurrently create knowledge, increasing their competitive advantage in the long run.

Why and how do cognitive distortions in managerial decision making occur? All organizations are imperfect systems (Katz and Kahn, 1966), with wrong decisions often just round the corner. As a consequence, addressing these important questions continues to be particularly lively in the management development area, especially in terms of its intended contribution to the de-biasing activity. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to provide the current scientific dialogue on the topic with updated lenses, which can also be innovative from some aspects.

The review framework is based on the recent, impactful article on biases in managerial decision making by Kahneman et al. (2011), and on Bazerman and Moore’s (2013) perspective on emanating heuristics, considered as the causes of biases. Accordingly, the authors derive four intertwined thematic clusters of heuristics, through which the authors systematically group and critically analyze the management literature mostly published on the topic since 2011.

From the analyzed clusters the authors propose an integrative framework of emanating heuristics, which focuses on the co-evolving relationships and potentially self-reinforcing processes in and between them.

The value of the contribution is threefold: from a methodological perspective, to the authors’ knowledge, the studies adopted as the basis of the analysis have not yet been simultaneously used as a comprehensive ground for updated reviews on this topic; from a conceptual perspective, the emerging integrative co-evolutionary framework can help explain the dangerous connections among cognitive traps and emanating heuristics; and from a practical perspective, the resulting framework can also be helpful for future de-biasing attempts in the business arena.

How can managers reduce information asymmetry in dyadic manager-external stakeholder relationships in a complex and evolving environment? Addressing this question has significant implications for firm survival, growth, and competitive advantage.

We have adopted a multiparadigm approach to theory building, known as metatriangulation. We integrate the dynamic capabilities, sensemaking, and evolutionary theory literatures to theorize how managers can relate to stakeholders in a complex and evolving environment.

We propose, via a conceptual framework and three propositions, “evolutionary sensemaking” as the managerial metacognitive dynamic capability that helps managers hone their understanding based on the evolutionary changes in the stakeholder’s interpretations of information quality preferences. The framework unfolds across three evolutionary stages: sensing preferences' variation of the stakeholder, seizing preferences, and transforming for complexity alignment and retention. The propositions focus on managing complexity in stakeholder information quality preference, employing cognitive capabilities to simplify, interpret, and align interpretations for effective information asymmetry reduction.

To develop the metacognitive dynamic capability of evolutionary sensemaking, managers need to train for and foster the underlying complex cognitive capabilities by enhancing their (1) perception and attention skills, (2) problem-solving and reasoning skills, and (3) language, communication, and social cognition skills, focusing specifically on reducing the complexity embedded in stakeholder cognition and diverse stakeholder preferences for information quality. Contrary to the current advice to “keep things simple” and provide “more” information to the stakeholders for opportunism reduction, trust-building, and superior governance, our framework suggests that managers hone their cognitive capabilities by learning to deal with the underlying complexity.

The proposed framework and propositions address research gaps in reducing information asymmetry. It enriches the dynamic capabilities literature by recognizing complexity (as opposed to opportunism) as an alternative source of information asymmetry, which needs to be addressed in this stream of research. It extends the sensemaking literature by identifying the complexity sources – i.e. stakeholder preferences for diverse information quality attributes and the associated cognitive preference interpretation processes. The article enhances evolutionary theory by delving into microprocesses related to information asymmetry reduction, which the existing literature does not thoroughly investigate.

This paper elucidates the role of anger in error management (EM) and organizational learning behaviors. The study explores how anger can catalyze learning, emphasizing its strategic implications.

A double-layered moderated-mediated model was developed and tested using data from 744 Chinese CEOs. The psychometric properties of the survey instrument were rigorously examined through structural equation modeling, and hypotheses were tested using Hayes's PROCESS macros.

The findings reveal that anger is a precursor for recognizing the value of significant errors, leading to a positive association with learning behavior among top management team members. Additionally, the study uncovers a triple interaction effect of anger, EM culture and supply chain disruptions on the value of learning from errors. Extensive experience and positive grieving strengthen the relationship between recognizing value from errors and learning behavior.

This study uniquely integrates affect-cognitive theory and organizational learning theory, examining anger in EM and learning. The authors provide empirical evidence that anger can drive error value recognition and learning. The authors incorporate a more fine-grained approach to leadership when including executive anger as a trigger to learning behavior. Factors like experience and positive grieving are explored, deepening the understanding of emotions in learning. The authors consider both negative and positive emotions to contribute to the complexity of organizational learning.

This study aims to investigate the relationship between shared leadership (SL) and decision quality, utilizing shared leadership theory (SLT) and behavioral decision theory (BDT). The authors will explore the mediating role of “decision comprehensiveness” in the SL–decision quality linkage. Additionally, the authors will examine how individual “self-leadership” and “debate” among team members moderate the relationship between SL and decision comprehensiveness.

The authors tested the hypothesized moderated mediation model using a sample of 506 professionals employed in 112 research and development (R&D) teams, along with their direct managers from large Italian firms. To examine the relationships, the authors employed confirmatory factor analyses and path analyses. In order to address endogeneity concerns, the authors incorporated an instrumental variable, namely delegation, into the analysis.

SL positively influences decision quality, mediated by decision comprehensiveness, where teams include comprehensive information in decision-making. The level of debate among team members positively moderates the SL–decision comprehensiveness relationship. High levels of self-leadership can harm SL by reducing decision comprehensiveness, indicating a downside. However, low or moderate levels of self-leadership do not harm decision comprehensiveness and can even benefit SL.

This is the first work to investigate the relationship between SL and decision quality, shedding light on the mechanisms underlying this association. By integrating SLT and BDT, the authors provide insights into how managers can make higher-quality decisions within self-leading teams. Moreover, this research makes a distinct contribution to the field of self-leadership by delineating its boundaries and identifying a potentially negative aspect within the self-influence process.

Unicorn companies, such as Facebook, Uber, and Airbnb, significantly impact our economies. This happens although they had a dramatic initial start – at least in terms of financial performance – that would have let any other “conventional” business close. In other words, Unicorns challenge the start-ups’ problems traditionally associated with early failure (liability of newness). This paper aims to understand what helps Unicorn firms initially survive despite huge losses.

By adopting a behavioral lens, this historical case study article focuses on key strategic decisions regarding the famous social media Unicorn Snapchat from 2011 to 2022. The case combines secondary data and a thematic analysis of Snapchat founders’ and investors’ interviews/comments to identify the behavioral antecedents leading to Snapchat’s honeymoon.

Snapchat network effect triggered cognitive biases of Snapchat founders’ and investors’ decisions, leading them to provide initial assets (i.e. beliefs/goodwill, trust, financial resources and psychological commitment) to the nascent Unicorn. Therefore, the network effect and biases resulted in significant antecedents for Snapchat’s honeymoon.

The authors propose a general, theoretical framework advancing the possible impact of biases on Unicorns’ initial survival. The authors argue that some biases of the Unicorns’ founders and investors can positively support a honeymoon period for these new ventures. This is one of the first case studies drawing on a behavioral approach in general and on biases in particular to investigate the liability of newness in the Unicorns’ context.

How has upper echelons theory (UET) (Hambrick and Mason, 1984) been evolving over time? Through the historical discussion, this paper aims to provide an updated – and also innovative from some aspects – big picture on this famous approach to strategic management. In fact, after more than 30 years since its original conceptualization, the authors believe that the UE field is mature enough for a critical attempt to provide all those scholars and practitioners interested in strategic leadership with a comprehensive ground for future analyses, a ground which, to the authors’ knowledge, is still missing.

The authors mostly use a historical narrative to offer a critical account of the conceptual and methodological developments occurring under UE lenses over time. The authors believe that the historical approach can be particularly useful because it can help understand and explain why and how these developments have been conjectured and implemented.

Two mainly intertwined insights emerge from our analysis: on the one hand, the developments subsequent to the seminal 1984 UE model have gradually, although constantly, reduced its strongly voluntarist assumptions on strategic leadership toward more moderated co-evolutionary lenses; on the other hand, the emerging psychological and cognitive moderators of UE variables are presently reinforcing the centrality of dominant coalitions, in that they affect their decision-making processes and strategic choices.

From the critical discussion, a possible updated UE model based on co-evolutionary lenses finally emerges. Prospective research avenues in this management field are also provided.

This paper aims to study how biases in decision-making processes could be reduced. In this vein, over the past 30 years, scholars interested in decision-making have been raising their interest in the development of quality control tools to mitigate the effects of cognitive distortions. However, they have often neglected the use of psychological instruments for understanding the role of decision-makers’ personality in the quality of the decision-making processes.

This is an intrinsic case study about an Italian complex organization (i.e. Consorzio ELIS) which tries to shed light on the identified research question. Three decision-makers responsible for the decision processes of three new business initiatives were interviewed using a recent quality control tool (i.e. checklist) and their personality types were tracked by performing MBTI® tests. The thematic analysis, approached by using NVivo software, and after six months of direct observations inside the organization, allowed an understanding of the decision processes and their distortions.

The results of this study show how initiatives with frequent quality control mechanisms and different stakeholders are more able to pass the decision phase than initiatives with no controls, few participants and little difference between personalities.

The results of this work show how reducing biases of decision-making processes in complex organizations can benefit from the simultaneous use of the checklist and MBTI® test. As demonstrated, when used together, they can make more effective use of and provide better results for both, as well as providing a better quality control of the decision-making processes. From that, an approach is proposed that both takes into account the two perspectives and can work together with other cognitive problem structuring methods.