Upload
nucb
View
3.085
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
2010
Decision Making Presentation
Here you can enter
your own personal message.
Just select all of this existing text and start typing your own message.
A Multilevel Analysis
3 Levels
Maladaptive Cycles
2 Types of TRE for 3 levels Two-edged mechanism Conclusion
+ Intensify
- Reduce
Individual Group Organization
Dual Nature of TRE
Frame of Article
2010/5/114
Environmental
Change
Information
Restriction Threats
(Lost / Cost)
Constriction
in Control
Rigidity in
Response (well-learned /
dominant response)
Intensification of Threat (Radical Change)
***↑Maladaptive Cycles ↑
Reducing of Threat (Incremental Change)
↓Functional Adaption↓
***Conclusion mentioned that when adversity results from radical change,
organizational control and press efficiency may be dysfunction due to
[Resource Scarcity]. (page 519)
Single-Level & Multilevel Analysis
Organizations: Mechanistic Shift
Administrator
Acts as IND / Interests of IND
actors
IND.
[Cognitive Changes]
Groups- GroupthinkCohesiveness
Leadership & Control Individuals
1. INF Process
2. Behavior Response
Stress/Anxiety/ Arousal
Pressure
Uniformity
INDIVIDUAL
GROUP
ORGANIZATION
(1)
(2)
(3)
2010/5/117
Individual Level Effects
(1). Three Manipulated Variables--
SAA
(2). Two Key-point for research on
SAA
(3). Three Aspects for Summary
Model
2010/5/118
Stress, Anxiety, Physiological
Arousal• Psychological Stress is manipulated by experimental
context to test “Performance-Failure” feedback.
• 3 Variables-
• ❶Perception Arena: Visual vs. Stimuli.
• ❷Problem Solving & Learning
• ❸Motor Performance : Stress vs. Training
• ☑support “Hull-Spence Theory of Motivation”.
• ☑Dominant response are irrelevant.
STRESS
2010/5/119
Trained
NON-STRESS
Untrained
STRESS
TS
uTSuTnS ≽
2010/5/1110
Stress, Anxiety, Physiological
Arousal• 2 Sub stream Studies-
• ❶Correlation [Anxiety] vs. [Performance Indicator]
Anxiety↑; Visual Stimulation ↓
• ❷ [ Experimental Manipulations ]
≋ [ Stress Study]
ANXIETY
2010/5/1111
Stress, Anxiety, Physiological
Arousal❶Effect of Arousal on Perception
❷ Learning
❸Motor Performance
[ Psychological ] [ Physical]
AROUSAL
Stress & Anxiety AROUSAL
Complementary
Model of Individual Threat-Response
STRESS
ANXIETY
AROUSAL
Threat
Situation
[Psychological]
STRESS &
ANXIETY
Link
[Physical]
Natural
Cognitive
Indicates SAA
Properties of
Individual Behaviors
GROUP Level Effects
TRE on Group Cohesiveness
• Intergroup Conflict vs. Intragroup Bias
• Intergroup ➞ External Threat Hypotheses
•TRE on Group Leadership & Control• When? ➞ External Threat relates to Collective Goals
• External Threats ≠ Failure
Pressure toward Uniformity
•Collective Achievements
•Individual dependent on Group more
Group1 Group 2
Intragroup Bases
Intergroup Hostility
Manipulated
Sociometric
Choices
Sociometric
Choices
Inside Threats
Outside Threats
Outside Threats
Intergroup
Ties ⤵
Intragroup
Relations
⤴
Receive Failure Information (Cont’ next in ORG )
Failure➞ Leader’s Influence ⤵⤵⤵
Centralized Authority
Collective Achievements
External Threats Preexisting
Leadership Replacement
Decentralized Power
Collective Goals Individuals
Group Syndrome:
Pressure toward
uniformity,
self-censorship of
deviant beliefs by
other members
(individuals)
Pressure on opinions / Belief
Individuals
perceive
uniformity as
necessary to reach
collective goals
Dependent on Group ⤴⤴
Internal Attribution
Outside Threats
Outside Threats
⤵⤵Cohesiveness
& Instable Leadership & Dissensions
Input New Information & Loosening
Control
Likelihood of Failure
Likelihood of
Success⤴
Cohesiveness⤴Leadership ⤴➵Uniformity
Information Restriction & Control
External Attribution
2010/5/1118
Organizational Level Effects
1. The Effects of Threat
on Information
Process.
2. The Effects of Threat
in Control
(Mechanistic Shift)
2010/5/1119
Information Process
Detect Threats
information
Received Failure
information
Found Reality-Threat
INF Search Decreased
Decision Made
INF SearchReintensify
Subordinates solicited Advices
ONLY to confirm decision
Outcomes
2010/5/1120
Mechanistic Shift
1. Organizational
Hierarchy
2. Formation;
Standardized;
Centralized
Exception:
Natural Disasters
2010/5/1121
Model of Organization Response
Threats
2010/5/1122
Multilevel TRE Theory LEVEL
ORGANIZATION
GROUP
INDIVIDUAL
ANALYSIS
(Mechanistic Shift)
1.Restricting INF
2. Move control to higher level
Expectation of successfully
Resisting Threats
1. Information Processing
2. Behavior Response
2010/5/1123
Individual-Level Effect in Group Settings
Individual
Group
Organization
May be explained by [ Cognitive Changes] in the individuals who compose the group.
2010/5/1124
Group Effects in Org Individuals
GroupORG
Any rigidity generated by
[ Groupthink] process
under threats may be
manifested or regarded as
[Organizational Actions].
2010/5/1125
Individual Effects in ORG Individual
ORG
1. Decision originates with
administrator acting alone,
so regarded as “Individual”
2. Organizational challenges
usually cover [ interests of
individual actors].
3. Individual may exacerbate
the power differential
between subunits and
administrators.
Individual in Organizations
*Individuals in
organization may be
central or peripheral
interests.
*Middle-level
administrators
express loyalty to
subunits or groups.
Conclusion
Extinction
Survival
Extinction-Survival 2-Edged Mechanism Amplified.
Supplementary Case The Icelandic volcano Eyjafjallajokullis a vivid and latest evidence tochallenge the conclusion of TRT. Theinitial position of Europe’sregulators was that the safe level ofvolcanic ash was zero, thusgrounding all flights in the broadswathes of sky which computermodels said could be tainted. Thefact that this regulatory stancechanged in the face of an affluentcadre of displaced people, airlinesfeeling pinch, a looming threat tosome supply chains and an election(constituency in Britain), makes it allthe more suspicious.
TRT in Organization Behavior
In the field of organization behavior,there are two conflict theories inexplaining the risk-taking-drivenbehaviors. Threat-rigidity theoryasserts that organizations will behaveconservatively under threat conditions;meanwhile, “Prospect theory” arguesthat organizations will behave in arisk-taking manner when they is belowa specific self-perceived reference point.