Document Type : Research Article (Quantitative)

Authors

1 PhD student in Human Resource Management, Farabi Campus, University of Tehran

2 Assistant Professor, School of Management and Accounting, University of Tehran, Farabi Campus

3 Professor, Faculty of Management and Accounting, University of Tehran, Farabi Campus

4 Associate Professor, School of Management and Accounting, University of Tehran

10.22034/ijes.2021.529218.1047

Abstract

Purpose: In the classical era, the decision-making process was considered to be completely identifiable, but in the modern era, this assumption was increasingly challenged because decision-making is very complex and in various ways, intuitive, experimental, heuristic, static and dynamic rationality. It takes place in different situations and naturally the human brain may make mistakes in this process. Today, the concept of rational decision-making has been seriously criticized; Criticisms such as that the reasoning capacity of each person is limited and low and influenced by cognitive biases and hidden biases the aim of this study was to understand the decision-making orientations of organizational consultants based on the cognitive science approach.
Methodology: The present study was applied in terms of purpose and qualitative in nature and method. The statistical population of the study was the organizational consultants of an industrial town located in Tehran province in 2020. The sample size of 10 people was selected due to theoretical saturation and through snowball sampling. Structured interview method was used to collect data and reliability method between two coders (Cohen kappa coefficient) was used to determine the reliability, which was obtained as 0.86 and was confirmed. The validity was also based on the interview protocol. Data analysis was performed using open coding equivalent to qualitative content analysis in Maxqda 11 software.
Findings: Findings from interviews with consultants included: 3 main categories, 8 sub-categories, 28 concepts and 161 initial codes (3 main categories; excessive information, need to act quickly and lack of meaning) and (8 subcategories: availability, framing, reference effect, validation, representation, insistence, commitment and control illusion).
Conclusion: The results showed that there are strategic prescriptions for all three main categories, which can be used to greatly reduce bias. Holding workshops such as critical thinking due to deconstruction in the mental framework of individuals, recognizing their personality type and others, clarifying goals before seeing and reviewing options, carefully estimating information sources and increasing the time for decision making reduce this incidence It becomes biased.
 

Keywords

Arnott D. (1998). A taxonomy of decision biases. Caulfield: Monash University. School of information management and systems
Arnott D. (2006). Cognitive biases and decision support systems development: A Design Science Approach Information Systems journal. 16)1(: 55–78
Battaglio R, Belardinelli P, Bellé N. Cantarelli P. (2018). Behavioral public administration ad fontes: A synthesis of research on bounded rationality. Cognitive biases and nudging in public organizations, Public Administration Review, 00, (00):1-17.
Behimehr S. Mansourian. Y. (2018). The role of cognitive biases in scientific information behavior of postgraduate students in Kharazmi university. Human information interaction. 5(1): 1-16. (Persian)
Benson B. (2016). Cognitive bias cheat sheet, https://betterhumans.coach.me/cognitive-bias-cheat-sheet-55a472476b18
Beshears J. Gino F. (2015). Leaders as decision architects. Harvard business review. Pp: 52-62
Bizerman H E. Moore, D. (2017). Managers and challenges of income decision making in the psychology of decision making and judgment, translated by Ali sarzaim. Second edition, Kargadan publishing
Carter C. Kaufmann L. Michel A. (2007) Behavioral supply management: a taxonomy of judgment and decision making biases, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management. 37 (8): 631-669
Dror IE (2020), Cognitive and human factors in expert decision making: six fallacies and the eight sources of bias, analytical chemistry, 92: 7998-884
Drozdowski P, Rathgeb C, Dantcheva A, Damer N, Busch C. (2020). Demographic bias in biometrics: A survey on an emerging challenge. IEEE trans actions on technology and society. 1 (2): 89-104
Haidari A, Sayed Kalali N, Haidar E. (2014). An introduction to the riddle of development in the iranian management consulting industry. annual strategic management conference. www.strategicmanagement.ir
Haselton MG, Nettle D, Andrews PW. (2005). The evolution of cognitive bias. In Buss DM (ed.).The handbook of evolutionary psychology. hoboken, NJ, US: John Wiley & Sons Inc. pp. 724–746.
Hilbert M. (2012). Toward a synthesis of cognitive biases: How noisy information processing can bias human decision making, Psychological Bulletin.138(2): 211-237.
https://shaparak.associates/category/business-consulting
Hughes T. Dossett L. Hawley S. Telem, D. (2020). Recognizing heuristics and bias in clinical decision-making, annals of surgery. 271(5): 813-814.
Jahani h. (2021). Understanding cognitive biases in decision making process (Case study: management consulting industry), PhD thesis university of Tehran farabi campus, School of management and accounting (Thesis is not defended)
Khaleghi Baigi M, Qara Che M. (2010). Dynamic management consulting industry: A Strategic development tool. Strategic Management Studies. 3:107-121
Kharazi K. (2017). The impact of cognitive sciences on contemporary psychology, Cognitive science news. 34: 77-82 (Persian)
Kim H. Stolte1 M. Humphreys G W. (2019). The relations between temporal and social perceptual biases: Evidence from perceptual matching, attention, Perception, & Psychophysics ,81: 599–606 https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-018-01662-8
Mahmoodi A. Bang D. Olsen K. Zhao Y. A. Shi Z. Broberg K. Roepstorff A. (2015). Equality bias impairs collective decision-making across cultures. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences. 112(12). 3835-3840
Mobaraki M. (2012). Entrepreneurs' decision making models (methods, frameworks and mind maps). Samt Publications. Tehran
Murata A. Nakamura T. Karwowski W. (2015). Influence of cognitive biases in distorting decision making and leading to critical unfavorable incidents, www.mdpi.com/journal/safety,
Nouri P, Imanipour N, Talebi K, Zali M. (2018). Exploring positive outcomes of decision making biases in the field of entrepreneurial marketing. The Qualitative Report. 23(6):1364-1380.
Nouri P. (2017). Analysis of entrepreneurial marketing behavior with innovative ways and cognitive biases (Start-up entrepreneurs in nanotechnology and biotechnology). PhD thesis. University of Tehran, faculty of entrepreneurship. Department of entrepreneurship, New Business Entrepreneurship
Osmont A, Cassotti M, Agogué M, Houdé O, Moutier S (2015). Does mbiguity aversion influence the framing effect during decision making? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 22(2).
Pohl R. F. (2016). Cognitive illusions: Intriguing phenomena in thinking, Judgement and Memory. Psychology Press
Ramos J V. Rubio J. L. Delpero C. Mioni G. Stablum F. Gomez Milan E. (2014). Jumping to conclusion bias. BADE and feedback sensitivity in schizophrenia and schizotypy. Consciousness and cognition. 26: 133–144.
Sharma A. Nandi S. (2018). A review of behavioral decision making in the newsvendor problem, operation and supply chain management. 11 (4): 200 - 213
Stafford T, Holroyd J, Scaife R. (2018). Confronting bias in judging: A framework for addressing psychological biases in decision making. University of Sheffield. V:4.
Tweedale, J. W. (2014). A review of cognitive decision making within future mission systems. Procedia Computer Science. 35. 1043-1052.
Yin R. K. (2003) Case study research: Design and methods. 2nd ed. Thousand oaks California: Sage Publications.