The relationship between enterprise risk management and managerial judgement in decision-making: A systematic literature review

IF 7.5 1区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS
Jason Crawford, Mirna Jabbour
{"title":"The relationship between enterprise risk management and managerial judgement in decision-making: A systematic literature review","authors":"Jason Crawford,&nbsp;Mirna Jabbour","doi":"10.1111/ijmr.12337","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Enterprise risk management (ERM) promises to improve decision-making and help organizations avoid wicked problems. Consequently, risk artefacts may play a significant role in managers’ decision-making processes, but little is known about the relationship between ERM and managerial judgement in decision-making (MJDM). The purpose of this paper is to present a systematic literature review of ERM, thereby filling this knowledge gap and providing an evidence-based foundation for improving practice and advancing knowledge and theory development. Based on an analysis and synthesis of 33 articles published between 2009 and 2021, we identify four contextual, five technical, three social and five cognitive factors that interact with MJDM. We find that <i>regulation and corporate governance</i>, <i>ERM artefact design reconfiguration and use</i>, <i>social capital interactions and spaces</i> and <i>perceptions</i> have the most support. We distinguish between three different modes of judgement: <i>risk measurement</i>, <i>risk envisionment</i> and <i>risk qualculation</i>. We find that risk qualculation, which employs quantitative and qualitative data and social interpretations of risks and uncertainties, is more likely to be useful in managerial decision-making, particularly when attempting to address wicked problems. We also find that human cognition significantly impacts ERM design, implementation and use, and how those change over time. This paper also develops a new narrative and conceptualization of the relationship between ERM and MJDM, which is presented in an integrative framework. Finally, we encourage researchers to adopt cognitive theories and related concepts that are better suited for examining the ERM–MJDM relationship and to take a cognitive turn in future ERM research.</p>","PeriodicalId":48326,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Management Reviews","volume":"26 1","pages":"110-136"},"PeriodicalIF":7.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ijmr.12337","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Management Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijmr.12337","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Enterprise risk management (ERM) promises to improve decision-making and help organizations avoid wicked problems. Consequently, risk artefacts may play a significant role in managers’ decision-making processes, but little is known about the relationship between ERM and managerial judgement in decision-making (MJDM). The purpose of this paper is to present a systematic literature review of ERM, thereby filling this knowledge gap and providing an evidence-based foundation for improving practice and advancing knowledge and theory development. Based on an analysis and synthesis of 33 articles published between 2009 and 2021, we identify four contextual, five technical, three social and five cognitive factors that interact with MJDM. We find that regulation and corporate governance, ERM artefact design reconfiguration and use, social capital interactions and spaces and perceptions have the most support. We distinguish between three different modes of judgement: risk measurement, risk envisionment and risk qualculation. We find that risk qualculation, which employs quantitative and qualitative data and social interpretations of risks and uncertainties, is more likely to be useful in managerial decision-making, particularly when attempting to address wicked problems. We also find that human cognition significantly impacts ERM design, implementation and use, and how those change over time. This paper also develops a new narrative and conceptualization of the relationship between ERM and MJDM, which is presented in an integrative framework. Finally, we encourage researchers to adopt cognitive theories and related concepts that are better suited for examining the ERM–MJDM relationship and to take a cognitive turn in future ERM research.

Abstract Image

企业风险管理与管理层决策判断的关系:系统文献综述
企业风险管理(ERM)承诺改善决策,帮助组织避免恶性问题。因此,风险假象可能在管理者的决策过程中发挥着重要作用,但人们对企业风险管理与决策中的管理判断之间的关系知之甚少。本文的目的是对ERM进行系统的文献综述,从而填补这一知识空白,为改进实践、推进知识和理论发展提供循证基础。基于对2009年至2021年间发表的33篇文章的分析和综合,我们确定了与MJDM相互作用的四个情境因素、五个技术因素、三个社会因素和五个认知因素。我们发现,监管和公司治理、ERM人工制品设计的重新配置和使用、社会资本互动以及空间和感知得到了最大的支持。我们区分了三种不同的判断模式:风险测量、风险设想和风险评估。我们发现,风险评估采用了定量和定性数据以及对风险和不确定性的社会解释,在管理决策中更有可能有用,尤其是在试图解决邪恶问题时。我们还发现,人类的认知显著影响ERM的设计、实施和使用,以及这些因素如何随着时间的推移而变化。本文还对ERM和MJDM之间的关系进行了新的叙述和概念化,这是在一个综合框架中提出的。最后,我们鼓励研究人员
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
CiteScore
14.60
自引率
7.40%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Management Reviews (IJMR) stands as the premier global review journal in Organisation and Management Studies (OMS). Its published papers aim to provide substantial conceptual contributions, acting as a strategic platform for new research directions. IJMR plays a pivotal role in influencing how OMS scholars conceptualize research in their respective fields. The journal's reviews critically assess the state of knowledge in specific fields, appraising the conceptual foundations of competing paradigms to advance current and future research in the area.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信