What does it take to kill a megaproject? The reverse escalation of commitment

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jose Rodrigo Juarez Cornelio ◽  
Tristano Sainati ◽  
Giorgio Locatelli
Keyword(s):  
Escalation Of Commitment

Process Accountability as a De-Escalation Technique

2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 63-74
Author(s):  
Klaus Moser ◽  
Hans-Georg Wolff ◽  
Roman Soucek
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Processes ◽  
Information Search ◽  
Employment Relationship ◽  
Escalation Of Commitment ◽  
Tunnel Vision ◽  
Course Of Action ◽  
Performance Problems ◽  
Over Time ◽  
Biased Information

Abstract. Escalation of commitment occurs when a course of action is continued despite repeated drawbacks (e.g., maintaining an employment relationship despite severe performance problems). We analyze process accountability (PA) as a de-escalation technique that helps to discontinue a failing course of action and show how time moderates both the behavioral and cognitive processes involved: (1) Because sound decisions should be based on (hopefully unbiased) information search, which requires time to gather, the effect of PA on de-escalation increases over time. (2) Because continuing information search creates behavioral commitment, the debiasing effect of PA on information search diminishes over time. (3) Consistent with the tunnel vision notion, the effects of less biased information search on de-escalation decrease over time.

Vicarious entrapment: Your sunk costs, my escalation of commitment

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian C. Gunia ◽  
Niro Sivanathan ◽  
Adam Galinsky
Keyword(s):  
Sunk Costs ◽  
Escalation Of Commitment

Decision rules, escalation of commitment and sensitivity to framing in group decision-making

2016 ◽  
Vol 54 (7) ◽  
pp. 1649-1668 ◽  
Author(s):  
Petru Lucian Curseu ◽  
Sandra G. L. Schruijer ◽  
Oana Catalina Fodor
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Decision Rule ◽  
Group Decision Making ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Decision Rules ◽  
Escalation Of Commitment ◽  
Group Level ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Collaborative Decision

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to test the influence of collaborative and consultative decision rules on groups’ sensitivity to framing effect (FE) and escalation of commitment (EOC). Design/methodology/approach – In an experimental study (using a sample of 233 professionals with project management experience), the authors test the effects of collaborative and consultative decision rules on groups’ sensitivity to EOC and FE. The authors use four group decision-making tasks to evaluate decision consistency across gain/loss framed decision situations and six decision tasks to evaluate EOC for money as well as time as resources previously invested in the initial decisions. Findings – The results show that the collaborative decision rule increases sensitivity to EOC when financial resources are involved and decreases sensitivity to EOC when time is of essence. Moreover, the authors show that the collaborative decision rule decreases sensitivity to FE in group decision making. Research limitations/implications – The results have important implications for group rationality as an emergent group level competence by extending the insights concerning the impact of decision rules on emergent group level cognitive competencies. Due to the experimental nature of the design, the authors can probe the causal relations between the investigated variables, yet the authors cannot generalize the results to other settings. Practical implications – Managers can use the insights of this study in order to optimize the functioning of decision-making groups and to reduce their sensitivity to FEs and EOC. Originality/value – The study extends the research on group rationality and it is one of the few experimental attempts used to understand the role of decision rules on emergent group level rationality.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document