100% satisfaction guarantee Immediately available after payment Both online and in PDF No strings attached
logo-home
Samenvatting - Behavioral Decision Making (YF3005) $10.67   Add to cart

Summary

Samenvatting - Behavioral Decision Making (YF3005)

 37 views  0 purchase
  • Course
  • Institution

This document contains short and clear notes from the Leadership and Behavioral Decision Making course taught by Lieven Brebels in KULeuven, Antwerp and Brussels. This is in January, for all students who are doing an English Master.

Preview 3 out of 17  pages

  • December 29, 2023
  • 17
  • 2023/2024
  • Summary
avatar-seller
Behavioral Decision Making
Evidence-based practice (EBP) = the conscientious (effort), explicit (clarity) and judicious (critical of
quality) use of the best available evidence from multiple sources to increase the likelihood of a
favourable outcome
- About the process
- Not about certainties
- About probabilities and likelihoods
- About reducing uncertainty
- Used first to identify problem or opportunity and if (and only if) one identified. Then used to
identify possible solution or invention.
- 4 sources
 Scientific literature
 Stakeholders
 Organization
 Practioners
- 6 steps
 Asking: Translating a practical issue or problem into an answerable question
 When encountering a problem, take a step back and spend time thinking
about what the problem really is.
 Feels uncomfortable because we prefer talking about solutions and we are
incentivized to do things all the time
 Acquiring: Systematically searching for and retrieving the evidence (get all info
together)
 Appraising: Critically judging the trustworthiness and relevance of the evidence for
each study
 Aggregating: Weighing and pulling together the evidence
 Applying: Incorporating the evidence into decision-making process
 Assessing: Evaluating the outcome of the decision taken
- 3 key differences between evidence-based practice and what we already do
 Approach to use of evidence
 Conscientious: persevere, be diligent, build capacity and capability
 Explicit: share, discuss, capture
 Judicious: judge quality, don’t automatically trust, focus on the best evidence
 Multiple sources
 To triangulate and cross-check (get the same picture from different sources)
 To contextualize and make sense and better use of evidence from other
sources
 A structured and stepped approach
 Get evidence first and then consider evidence for possible solutions
 Helps dealing with being easily distracted and pushed off course
 Structure helps dealing with many obstacles
- May seen as irrelevant but also harmful
 Slows things down
 Raises questions about the purpose of activities
 Reduces decision-making autonomy
 Can open decision-makers up to unwelcome and unfamiliar scrutiny
 A fear that EBP may raise the ghost of decision past

1

, -
- Why not popular?
 Focusing way too much on ‘the science’
 Not acknowledging that universities and academics are part of the problem of low adoption not
part of the solution
 Framing it as part of the practitioner/academic divide/gap debate
 Implying that scientists are somehow better compared to managers when they are not
 Making EBP sound like a technocratic solution which can only be undertaken by experts, nerds,
wonks, brainiacs, elites…
 Being too myth-bustery - trends to alienate rather than engage - crucial to challenge dodgy stuff
but needs to be much more sophisticate
 Not sufficiently appreciating how the work context pulls practitioners away from EBP. Not
appreciating managers constraints and incentives
 Implying practitioners are making mistakes or are silly or odd or not thing straight
 Sounding (and being) smug and preachy – ‘you really should do this it’s good for you’
 Not being sufficiently clear about when an EBP approach makes more or less sense
 Not engaging effectively with reasonable objections to EBP
 Insufficient focus on the ‘diagnosis’ part of EBP and too much focus on using EBP to find a solution
 Positioning EBP as something individuals or teams can do when it requires structural and
systemic thinking and action
 Not emphasizing that the quality of decision-making is about the process not the
outcome
 Failing to clarify EBP is not a one-off thing but needs to be part of a long term process
 Not starting from where practitioners are now and what they can realistically do now
 Positioning EBP as about making rally very well-informed decisions rather than better-
informed decisions
 Focusing on the teeny-tiny incy-wincy proportion of practitioners who want and are able
to try EBP



- It’s the activation of your autonomic nervous system, this is known as nervous energy = you
increased energy or arousal leads to the likelihood of the dominant response occurring.
- Social loafing = a tendency to put forth less effort when working on a group task, if the
individual contributions aren’t evaluated.

Processes that can occur when individuals come together in a group
- Conformity = peer pressure: conformity is a tendency for people to bring their behaviours in
line with group norms --> it’s powerful in social situations
 Positive group behavior: lead to peace, harmony and happiness
 Negative group behavior: can be catastrophic
- Group polarization = a phenomenon in which group decision enhances or amplifies the
original opinion of group members and for this to happen several factors must be present.
 1: All the views do not have equal influence,
 So for a view point to influence a group’s final decision, it’s shared by the majority of
individuals in the group.
 2: In discussions about the topic, arguments made tend to favour the majority of
popular view and any criticism is directed to the minority view and this is called
confirmation bias.
- Group thinking: occurs when maintaining harmony among group members is more important
than carefully analysing the problem at hand.

2

,  Cohesive groups that are insulated from other people’s opinions and feel that they
are invulnerable

Causes of groupthink:
- In highly cohesive groups with strong leaders when the social pressure to maintain
conformity and harmony in the group overrides sound decision-making
- When the group isolates itself from outside ideas and influences and group members
overestimate the group
- When there is strong pressure on individuals resulting from external threat
- In case there is a lack of systematic procedures that guide accurate collection of evidence

Prevent groupthink:
- Breach group isolation
- Breach conformity
- Leadership style
 Leader impartiality until a decision is reached
 Encourage a norma of critical thinking in the group
- Generating alternatives and leave the possibility to re-evaluate decisions

 How does groups reach a consensus? Groups implement a procedure that is called robust
average
 Good collective decisions require 2 components: deliberation & diversity in opinions
 Make voice heard in societies by direct or indirect voting
 You have group-level things and individual-level things
 High cultural diversity groups: centralization leads to better performance
 High national diversity groups: uncertainty about team potency
 Individual intelligence is very different from group intelligence
 If you look at the groups average member intelligence (at the individual level) it only
explains a very limited amount in the differences in the group performance

- What determines variance in group performance?
 Compositional theories: focus on personal attributes of group members --> mixed
results (e.g. use all kinds of personal characteristics)
 Structural theories: focus on patterns of interactions among group members --> little
evidence and much debate (how is the network in the group and how do they work
together)
- Predictors of group performance:
 Diversity: distribution of differences among group members regarding grade, tenure,
gender, age and culture
 Workflow network density: average strength of relations in the group
 Workflow network centralization: structural aspects of how people work together
- Outcomes of group performance:
 Potency: generalized beliefs in the team about it’s performance capacities
 Performance: expert staff ratings of team’s final reports
- There are different kind of variables about teamwork and how they are related to each other




3

The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.

Quick and easy check-out

Quick and easy check-out

You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.

Focus on what matters

Focus on what matters

Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!

Frequently asked questions

What do I get when I buy this document?

You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.

Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?

Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.

Who am I buying these notes from?

Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller diedevdm. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

No, you only buy these notes for $10.67. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

66579 documents were sold in the last 30 days

Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now

Start selling
$10.67
  • (0)
  Add to cart