Article2006

Managers' opinions: reality or fiction

26 citations0/0 files storedManagement Decision

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills Leadership, Behavior, and Decision-Making Studies

Abstract

Purpose The current work aims to study the discrepancies that arise between the observed stimulus and the perception that managers form this reality. Individuals' bounded rationality, the complexity of the observed reality and the influence of the managers' beliefs are among the factors that give rise to these discrepancies. Thus, one can distinguish between different types of cognitive biases: simplification biases, affective influence biases, and interaction biases. Design/methodology/approach In the empirical application of this study, and using the narrative approach, this study analyses the opinions offered by CEOs of toy manufacturers about two questions: the current situation of their sector, and their firm's product portfolio. Findings The study reveals that managers' perceptions do not coincide with the information obtained from other bibliographic sources. Hence the results confirm the presence of biases in their opinions, which derive from simplification processes in the manager's cognitive process and from the influence of their belief schema. Research limitations/implications The adoption of the narrative approach determines the limitations of this research. On the other hand, the information used to test the managers' opinions is also the result of a perception process, which undoubtedly entails cognitive biases. Practical implications This work examines the cognitive biases that are produced throughout the process of individual perception. Thus, the proposed model of perception stresses the factors that distort individual perception: the complexity of the stimulus and the individual's belief schema. Originality/value This research analyses the reliability of managers' opinions using a qualitative methodology that includes various information sources.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 26 citations exist upstream.

References

1996Sensemaking in Organizations 1969The social psychology of organizing 1984Upper Echelons: The Organization as a Reflection of Its Top Managers 1972Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness 1992TOP MANAGEMENT TEAM DEMOGRAPHY AND CORPORATE STRATEGIC CHANGE.1920A constant error in psychological ratings.1987Categorizing Strategic Issues: Links to Organizational Action 2004Corporate social responsibility and consumers' attributions and brand evaluations in a product–harm crisis

Cited by

2009A longitudinal examination of intellectual capital reporting in Marks & Spencer annual reports, 1978–2008 2008Thinking of the organization as a system: The role of managerial perceptions in developing a corporate social responsibility strategic agenda 2015Priorities and perceptions of corporate social responsibility 2025A review of cognitive biases in strategic decision making 2016From Disillusion to the Development of Professional Judgment

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.