Intuition in Management

E. Sadler‐Smith
{"title":"Intuition in Management","authors":"E. Sadler‐Smith","doi":"10.1093/ACREFORE/9780190224851.013.177","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"An extensive literature has accumulated during the past three quarters of a century on the topic of intuition in management. The beginnings of management intuition scholarship are to be found in Chester Barnard’s insightful speculations on the role and significance of logical and non-logical processes in managerial work. Barnard’s thinking impacted profoundly Herbert Simon’s foundational concept of bounded rationality, which shed much needed light on how managerial decision-making is accomplished in real-world settings by using intuition as well as analysis. In parallel, management researchers in common with scholars in a wide range of applied fields also drew on Daniel Kahneman, Amos Tversky, and colleagues’ seminal behavioral decision research and its focus on the systematic errors and biases that accrue in managers’ intuitive judgments as the result of the use of heuristics (e.g., representativeness, availability, anchoring and adjustment, and affect heuristics). In recent years management researchers have drawn on further insights from Klein and colleagues’ work in naturalistic decision-making (NDM) (e.g., the “recognition primed decision-making model,” RPD) to conceptualize managerial work as expert performance and in understanding expert-versus-novice differences using the “skill acquisition model” (SAM). In recent years managerial intuition research has alighted on the dual-process theories of Epstein, Evans, Stanovich, and others as a conceptual foundation for further theorizing and research in terms of System 1 (also referred to as Type 1) and System 2 (Type 2) processing. More recently still, research in neurology (e.g., the “somatic marker hypothesis”) and social cognitive neuroscience (e.g., the specification of complementary “reflexive (X)” and “reflective (C)” systems) has mapped the physiological and neural correlates of intuitive processing and begun to inform not only intuition research but decision research more widely in management and organization studies. These various developments have shed light on how intuitive decision-making is accomplished in managerial work across diverse management subfields including entrepreneurship, business ethics, human resources, and strategic management. More recently, scholars are turning to paradox theory and process philosophy as alternative ways of viewing the phenomenon of intuition in organizations.","PeriodicalId":294617,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Business and Management","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Business and Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ACREFORE/9780190224851.013.177","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

An extensive literature has accumulated during the past three quarters of a century on the topic of intuition in management. The beginnings of management intuition scholarship are to be found in Chester Barnard’s insightful speculations on the role and significance of logical and non-logical processes in managerial work. Barnard’s thinking impacted profoundly Herbert Simon’s foundational concept of bounded rationality, which shed much needed light on how managerial decision-making is accomplished in real-world settings by using intuition as well as analysis. In parallel, management researchers in common with scholars in a wide range of applied fields also drew on Daniel Kahneman, Amos Tversky, and colleagues’ seminal behavioral decision research and its focus on the systematic errors and biases that accrue in managers’ intuitive judgments as the result of the use of heuristics (e.g., representativeness, availability, anchoring and adjustment, and affect heuristics). In recent years management researchers have drawn on further insights from Klein and colleagues’ work in naturalistic decision-making (NDM) (e.g., the “recognition primed decision-making model,” RPD) to conceptualize managerial work as expert performance and in understanding expert-versus-novice differences using the “skill acquisition model” (SAM). In recent years managerial intuition research has alighted on the dual-process theories of Epstein, Evans, Stanovich, and others as a conceptual foundation for further theorizing and research in terms of System 1 (also referred to as Type 1) and System 2 (Type 2) processing. More recently still, research in neurology (e.g., the “somatic marker hypothesis”) and social cognitive neuroscience (e.g., the specification of complementary “reflexive (X)” and “reflective (C)” systems) has mapped the physiological and neural correlates of intuitive processing and begun to inform not only intuition research but decision research more widely in management and organization studies. These various developments have shed light on how intuitive decision-making is accomplished in managerial work across diverse management subfields including entrepreneurship, business ethics, human resources, and strategic management. More recently, scholars are turning to paradox theory and process philosophy as alternative ways of viewing the phenomenon of intuition in organizations.
管理中的直觉
在过去的四分之三个世纪里,关于管理中的直觉这个话题积累了大量的文献。切斯特·巴纳德(Chester Barnard)对管理工作中逻辑和非逻辑过程的作用和意义进行了深刻的思考,这是管理直觉学术研究的开端。巴纳德的思想深刻地影响了赫伯特·西蒙有限理性的基本概念,这一概念揭示了在现实世界中,管理决策是如何通过直觉和分析来完成的。与此同时,管理研究人员与广泛应用领域的学者一样,也借鉴了丹尼尔·卡尼曼、阿莫斯·特沃斯基及其同事的开创性行为决策研究,其重点是由于使用启发式(例如代表性、可用性、锚定和调整以及影响启发式)而在管理者的直觉判断中积累的系统性错误和偏见。近年来,管理研究人员进一步借鉴了克莱因及其同事在自然决策(NDM)(如“识别启动决策模型”RPD)方面的研究成果,将管理工作概念化为专家绩效,并使用“技能习得模型”(SAM)来理解专家与新手之间的差异。近年来,管理直觉研究开始关注Epstein、Evans、Stanovich等人的双过程理论,将其作为系统1(也称为类型1)和系统2(类型2)处理的进一步理论化和研究的概念基础。最近,神经学(如“躯体标记假说”)和社会认知神经科学(如互补的“反射(X)”和“反射(C)”系统的规范)的研究已经绘制了直觉处理的生理和神经相关性,并开始不仅为直觉研究提供信息,而且在管理和组织研究中更广泛地为决策研究提供信息。这些不同的发展揭示了直觉决策是如何在管理工作中完成的,这些管理工作涉及不同的管理子领域,包括企业家精神、商业道德、人力资源和战略管理。最近,学者们转向悖论理论和过程哲学作为观察组织中直觉现象的替代方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信