Advertisement

Foundations for Theory and Practice of Competence and Incompetence Training

  • Arch Woodside
  • Rouxelle de Villiers
  • Roger Marshall
Chapter
  • 651 Downloads

Abstract

An unfortunate proposition, confirmed by many research studies, is that human decision-making in general and management sense- and decision-making in particular, is imperfect (Kerr, MacCoun, & Kramer, 1996; Marewski, Gaissmaier, & Gigerenzer, 2010; Simon, 1960). In addition, several scholars in management claim that educational methods using different management paradigms serve to increase incompetency in thinking and deciding by executives (Armstrong & Brodie, 1994; Armstrong & Collopy, 1996; Armstrong & Green, 2007a). Businesses cannot afford to employ highly educated, highly-paid graduate managers who lack the competence to manage and lead their enterprises. Woodside (2012, p. 280) underlines this problem, “Training that results in inconsequential outcomes can represent substantial opportunity costs.” For MBA degree-granting schools of management to remain relevant to management practice, they need to respond to employer demands to produce graduates with the ability to use relevant management knowledge and make competent decisions. Given the complexity of the market place and the demands from employers to deliver graduate managers who are able to deal with inherent complexities in real-life contexts, educationalists continually re-engineer curricula. This perspective is the foundation for the key questions this book examines.

Keywords

Business School Emotional Intelligence Qualitative Comparative Analysis Decision Competency Frugal Heuristic 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Anderson, P. H., & Lawton, L. (2009). Business simulations and cognitive learning: Developments, desires and future directions. Simulation and Gaming, 40(2), 193–216. doi: 10.1177/1046878108321624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Armstrong, E. K. (2003). Applications of role playing in tourism management teaching: Evaluation of a learning method. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, 2(1), 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Armstrong, J. S., & Brodie, R. (1994). Effects of portfolio planning methods on decision making: Experimental results. International Journal of Marketing Research, 11(1), 73–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Armstrong, J. S., & Collopy, F. (1996). Competitor orientation: Effects of objectives and information on managerial decisions and profitability. Journal of Marketing Research, 23, 188–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Armstrong, J. S., & Green, K. C. (2005). Demand forecasting: Evidence-based method. In L. Moutinho & G. Southern (Eds.), Strategic marketing management: A business process approach. Hampshire: Cengage Learning EMEA.Google Scholar
  6. Armstrong, J. S., & Green, K. C. (2007a). Competitor-oriented objectives: Myth of market share. International Journal of Business, 12(1), 116–136.Google Scholar
  7. Armstrong, J. S., & Green, K. C. (2007b). Competitor-oriented objectives: Myth of market share. International Journal of Business, 12, 117–136.Google Scholar
  8. Baron, R. S., & Kerr, N. L. (2003). Group process, group decision, group action. Buckingham, PA: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Boyatzis, R. E., Stubbs, E. C., & Taylor, S. N. (2002). Learning cognitive and emotional intelligence competencies through graduate management education. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 1(2), 150–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brafman, O., & Brafman, R. (2008). Sway: The irresistible pull of irrational behavior. New York: Broadway Books.Google Scholar
  11. Brighton, H., & Gingerenzer, G. (2008). Bayesian brains and cognitive mechanisms: Harmony or dissonance? In N. Chater & M. Oaksford (Eds.), The probabalistic mind: Prospects for Bayesian cognitive science (pp. 189–208). London: Oxford Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Burns, R. B., & Burns, R. A. (2008). Business research methods and statistics using SSPS. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Campbell, A. (2005). Business failure rates highest in first two years. Retrieved April 24, 2011, from http://smallbiztrends.com/2005/07/business-failure-rates-highest-in.html
  14. Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research on teaching. In N. L. Gage (Ed.), Handbook on research on teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  15. Capon, N., Farley, J. U., & Hulbert, J. M. (1987). Corporate strategic planning. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Chalos, P., & Pickard, S. (1985). Information choice and cue use: An experiment in group information processing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(4), 634–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dickerson, J. F., & Duffy, M. (2002, January 27). Enron spoils the party. Time Magazine, 159(5), 19–25.Google Scholar
  18. Dunning, D., Johnson, K., Ehrlinger, J., & Kurger, J. (2003). Why people fail to recognize their own incompetence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 83–87. doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.01235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dunning, D., & Kruger, J. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121–1134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dunning, D., & Kruger, J. (2003). Unskilled and unaware of it: But why? A reply to Krueger and Meuller (2002). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(2), 189–192. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.82.2.189.Google Scholar
  21. Dyer, J. S., Fishburn, P. C., Steuer, R. E., Wallenius, J., & Zionts, S. (1992). Multiple criteria decision making, multiattribute utility theory: The next ten years. Management Science, 38, 645–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Einhorn, H. J., Hogarth, R. M., & Klempner, E. (1977). Quality of group judgment. Psychological Bulletin, 84(1), 158–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Feinstein, A. H., & Cannon, H. M. (2002). Constructs of simulation evaluation. Simulation and Gaming, 33(4), 425–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Feldman, D. C., & Lankau, M. J. (2005). Executive coaching: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of Management, 31, 829–848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Forsyth, D. R. (2006). Group dynamics (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson.Google Scholar
  26. Gigerenzer, G. (2004). Fast and frugal heuristics: The tools of bounded rationality. In D. Koehler & N. Harvey (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making (pp. 62–88). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gigerenzer, G. (2007). Gut feelings: The intelligence of the unconscious. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
  28. Gigerenzer, G. (2008). Why heuristics work. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 20–29. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2008.0058.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gigerenzer, G., & Brighton, H. (2009). Homo Heuristicus: Why biased minds make better inferences. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 107–143. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01006.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gigerenzer, G., & Murray. (1987). Thinking: From insight to intuitive statistics. In Intuition as cognitive statistics, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates Inc.Google Scholar
  31. Gigerenzer, G., & Todd, P. M. (1999). Fast and frugal heuristics. In ABC Research Group (Ed.), Simple heuristics that make us smart. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Gladwell, M. (2005). Blink: The power of thinking without thinking. New York: Little Brown Company.Google Scholar
  33. Goldstein, D. G., & Gigerenzer, G. (1999). The recognition heuristic: How ignorance makes us smart. In G. Gigerenzer, P. M. Todd, & A. R. Group (Eds.), Simple heuristics that make us smart (pp. 37–58). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Goldstein, D. G., & Gigerenzer, G. (2002). Models of ecological rationality: The recognition heuristic. Psychological Review, 109(1), 75–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.Google Scholar
  36. Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R. E., & McKee, A. (2002). Primal leadership: Realizing the power of emotional intelligence. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  37. Gosen, J., & Washbush, J. (2004). A review of the scholarship on assessing experiential learning effectiveness. Simulation and Gaming, 35, 270–293. doi: 10.1177/1046878104263544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gottliebsen, R. (2003). 10 Best and 10 worst decisions of Australian CEOs (1992-2002). Camberwell, VIC: Penguin.Google Scholar
  39. Green, K. C. (2002). Forecasting decisions in conflict situations: A comparison of game theory, role-playing and unaided judgment. International Journal of Forecasting, 18, 321–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Green, K. C. (2005). Game theory, simulated interaction, and unaided judgment for forecasting decisions in conflicts: Further evidence. International Journal of Forecasting, 21, 463–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Green, K. C. (2010). Forecasting methods. Retrieved November 19, from http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=16&Itemid=16
  42. Green, K. C. & Armstrong, J. S. (2009, July). Role-thinking: Standing in other people’s shoes to forecast decisions in conflicts. MPRA Paper, 16422, 1–8.Google Scholar
  43. Heath, C., & Gonzalez, R. (1995). Interaction with others increases decision confidence but not decision quality: Evidence against information collection views of interactive decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 61(3), 305–326. doi: 10.1006/obhd.1995.1024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hegarthy, W. H., & Simms, H. P. (1978). Some determinants of unethical decision behavior: An experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 451–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hilmer, K. M., & Dennis, A. R. (2000). Stimulating Thinking in Group Decision Making Symposium conducted at the meeting of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii.Google Scholar
  46. Hodges, B., Regehr, G., & Martin, D. (2001). Difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence: Novice physicians who are unskilled and unaware of it. Academic Medicine, 76(10), 587–589.Google Scholar
  47. Hsu, E. (1989). Role-event gaming simulation in management education. Simulation and Games, 20(4), 409–438. doi: 10.1177/104687818902000402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in organizations: From I-P-O models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 517–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Insabato, A., Pannunzi, M., Rolls, E. T., & Deco, G. (2010). Confidence-related decision making. Journal of Neurophysiology, 104(1), 539–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  51. Janis, I. L., & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  52. Jonsson, F. U., Olsson, H., & Olsson, J. (2005). Odor emotionality affects the confidence in odor naming. Chemistry Senses, 30, 29–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kerr, N. L., MacCoun, R. J., & Kramer, G. P. (1996). Bias in judgment: Comparing individuals and groups. Psychological Review, 103(4), 687–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Keys, B., & Wolfe, J. (1988). Management education and development: Current issues and emerging trends. Journal of Management, 14, 205–229. doi: 10.1177/-14920638801400205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Klein, J. H., Moon, B., & Hoffman, R. R. (2006). Making sense of sensemaking 1: Alternative perspectives. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 21(4), 70–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Marewski, J. N., Gaissmaier, W., & Gigerenzer, G. (2010). Good judgments do not require complex cognition. Cognitive Process, 11, 103–121. doi: 10.1007/s10339-009-0337-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Michaelsen, L. K., Watson, W. E., Schwartzkopf, A., & Black, R. H. (1992). Group decision making: How you frame the question determines the answer. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(1), 106–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Mintzberg, H. (2004). Managers not MBAs: A hard look at the soft practice of managing and management development. San Francisco: Berrett- Koehler Publishers.Google Scholar
  59. Morrison, A., & Wensley, R. (1991). Boxing up or boxed in? A short history of the Boston Consulting Group share/growth matrix. Journal of Marketing Management, 1(7), 105–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Nemeth, C. J., Brown, K., & Rogers, J. (2001). Devil’s advocate versus authentic dissent: Stimulating quantity and quality. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31(6), 707–720. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Omodei, M. M. (2005). More is better? Problems of self-regulation in naturalistic decision making settings. In H. Montgomery, R. Leipshitz, & B. Brehmer (Eds.), How professionals make decisions (pp. 25–42). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  62. Oscamp, S. (1965). Overconfidence in case-study judgments. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 29(3), 261–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Park, G., & DeShon, R. P. (2010). A multilevel model of minority opinion expression and team decision-making effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 824–833. doi: 10.1037/a0019939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Parker, L. E. (1993). When to fix it and when to leave: The relationship among perceived control, self-efficacy, dissent and exit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 949–959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Penn, W. Y., & Collier, B. D. (1985). Current research in moral development as a decision support system. Journal of Business Ethics, 4(2), 131–136. doi: 10.1007/BF00383566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Pfeffer, J., & Fong, C. T. (2002). The end of business schools? Less success than meets the eye. Academy of Management & Education, 1, 78–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Schank, R. C. (1994). What we learn when we learn by doing. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Schank, R. C. (1995). What we learn when we learn by doing. Institute for the Learning Sciences, Northwestern University. http://cogprintes.org/637/1/LearnbyDoing_Schank.html
  70. Schank, R. C., Berhman, T. R., & Macpherson, K. A. (1999). Learning by doing. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  71. Schippmann, J. S., Prien, E. P., & Katz, J. A. (1990). Reliability and validity of in-basket performance measures. Personnel Psychology, 43(4), 837–859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Schooler, L. J., & Hertwig, R. (2005). How forgetting aids heuristic inference. Psychological Review, 112, 610–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Schulz-Hardt, S., Frey, D., Luthgens, C., & Moscovici, S. (2000). Biased information search in group decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4), 655–669. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.78.4.655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Schwenk, C. R. (1984). Devil’s advocacy in managerial decision-making. Journal of Management Studies, 21(2), 153–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Schwenk, C. R. (1988). Effects of devil’s advocacy on escalating commitment. Human Relations, 41(10), 769–782. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(90)95501-A.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Schwenk, C. R. (1990). Effects of devil’s advocacy and dialectical inquiry on decision making: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 47, 161–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Shanteau, J. (1992). How much information does an expert use? Is it relevant? Acta Pshychologica, 81, 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Shaw, M. (1981). Group dynamics: The psychology of small group behavior (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  79. Simon, H. A. (1947). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organization. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  80. Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63, 129–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Simon, H. A. (1960). The new science of management decision. New York: Harper & Row.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Simon, H. A. (1976). Administrative behavior (3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  83. Simon, H. A. (1987, February). Making management decisions: The role of intuition and emotion. Academy of Management Executive, 58–59.Google Scholar
  84. Simon, H. A. (1990). Invariants of human behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Simpson, J. C. (1987). Wall Street’s courting of MBAs proceeds apace despite scandals. Wall Street Journal, p. 1.Google Scholar
  86. Spanier, N. (2011). Competence and incompetence training, impact on executive decision-making capability: Advancing theory and testing. Doctoral thesis, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, NZ.Google Scholar
  87. Stasser, G. L., & Titus, W. (1985). Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: Biased information sampling during group discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1467–1478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Todd, P. M. (2001). Fast and frugal heuristics for environmentally bounded minds. In G. Gigerenzer & R. Selten (Eds.), Bounded rationality: The adaptive toolbox (Vol. Dahlem Workshop Report, pp. 51–70). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  89. Todd, P. M., & Gigerenzer, G. (2000). Simple heuristics that make us smart. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(5), 727–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Todd, P. M., & Gigerenzer, G. (2003). Bounded rationality to the world. Journal of Economic Psychology, 24, 143–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Todd, P. M., & Gigerenzer, G. (2007). Environments that make us smart: Ecological rationality. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(3), 167–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Trevino, L. K., & Youngblood, S. A. (1990). Bad apples in bad barrels: A causal analysis of ethical decision-making behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(4), 378–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Weick, K. E. (1988). Enacted sensemaking in crisis situations. Journal of Management Studies, 25(4), 305–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Weick, K. E. (1990). The vulnerable system: An analysis of the Tenerife air disaster. Journal of Management, 26(3), 571–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  96. Weick, K. E. (2007). Drop your tools: On reconfiguring management education. Journal of Management Education, 31(1), 5–16. doi: 10.1177/1052562906293699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Weick, K. E. (2010). Reflections on enacted sensemaking in the Bhopal disaster. Journal of Management Studies, 47(3), 537–550. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00900.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organizational Science, 16(4), 409–421. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1050.0133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Wilson, T. D. (2002). Strangers to ourselves: Discovering the adaptive unconscious. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  100. Wilson, T. D. (2011). Redirect: The surprising new science of psychological change. London: Little Brown and Company.Google Scholar
  101. Woodside, A. G. (2012). Incompetency training: Theory, practice and remedies. Journal of Business Research, 65(2012), 279–293. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.10.025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Zimbardo, P., Butler, L., & Wolfe, V. (2003). Cooperative college examinations: More gain, less pain when students share information and grades. Journal of Experimental Education, 71, 101–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arch Woodside
    • 1
  • Rouxelle de Villiers
    • 2
  • Roger Marshall
    • 3
  1. 1.Boston CollegeChestnut HillUSA
  2. 2.Department of MarketingUniversity of WaikatoHamiltonNew Zealand
  3. 3.Department of Marketing, Advertising, Retailing & SalesAuckland University of TechnologyAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations