scholarly journals Böndernas agerande inför och anpassning till storskiftet i sydvästra Finland

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 ◽  
pp. 66-83
Author(s):  
Kirsi Laine
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
Agricultural Change ◽  
Household Economy ◽  
Early Nineteenth Century ◽  
Important Method ◽  
Individualism And Collectivism ◽  
Low Costs ◽  
Individual Decisions ◽  
New Perspective

This article examines peasants’ goals and means of negotiation in the reallocation of land or enclosure reform called storskifte in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century in Southwest Finland. It stresses the agency of peasants and their actions in the quest for best practices. The study is based on the meeting minutes of the storskifte reform of 230 villages with mainly freeholders or crown tenants as stakeholders. This article shows how peasants balanced between individualism and collectivism in their decision making because their goals were opposite. They aimed to increase the freedom of work and decision making in the household economy. At the same time, the cooperation with neighbours was an important method of decreasing the workload and costs of farming. Sources indicate that peasants made agreements with each other so they could combine both goals. They achieved independence as farmers as well as low costs by combining consolidation of land with mutual agreements about cooperation in specific issues, but they allowed each other to do individual decisions, too. This kind of flexible solution-seeking behaviour provides a new perspective on the discussion about peasants and agricultural change.

Centralization and Effectiveness of Reward Management in Multinational Enterprises

2018 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 55-65 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Tekieli ◽  
Marion Festing ◽  
Xavier Baeten
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Social Identity Theory ◽  
Multinational Enterprises ◽  
Role Identity ◽  
Management Decision ◽  
Role Identities ◽  
Management Decision Making ◽  
New Perspective ◽  
Subsidiary Managers ◽  
The Relationship

Abstract. Based on responses from 158 reward managers located at the headquarters or subsidiaries of multinational enterprises, the present study examines the relationship between the centralization of reward management decision making and its perceived effectiveness in multinational enterprises. Our results show that headquarters managers perceive a centralized approach as being more effective, while for subsidiary managers this relationship is moderated by the manager’s role identity. Referring to social identity theory, the present study enriches the standardization versus localization debate through a new perspective focusing on psychological processes, thereby indicating the importance of in-group favoritism in headquarters and the influence of subsidiary managers’ role identities on reward management decision making.

A Unifying Principle for a Researcher Learning Safety: Reduce Uncertainty!

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Camilla Kao ◽  
Russell Furr
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
Mission Statement ◽  
Safety Information ◽  
Health And Safety ◽  
Mission Statements ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Physical And Chemical

Conveying safety information to researchers is challenging. A list of rules and best practices often is not remembered thoroughly even by individuals who want to remember everything. Researchers in science thinking according to principles: mathematical, physical, and chemical laws; biological paradigms. They use frameworks and logic, rather than memorization, to achieve the bulk of their work. Can safety be taught to researchers in a manner that matches with how they are trained to think? Is there a principle more defined than "Think safety!" that can help researchers make good decisions in situations that are complex, new, and demanding?<div><br></div><div>Effective trainings in other professions can arise from the use of a mission statement that participants internalize as a mental framework or model for future decision-making. We propose that mission statements incorporating the concept of <b>reducing uncertainty</b> could provide such a framework for learning safety. This essay briefly explains the definition of <b>uncertainty</b> in the context of health and safety, discusses the need for an individual to <b>personalize</b> a mission statement in order to internalize it, and connects the idea of <b>greater control</b> over a situation with less uncertainty with respect to safety. The principle of reducing uncertainty might also help <b>non-researchers</b> think about safety. People from all walks of life should be able to understand that more control over their situations provides more protection for them, their colleagues, and the environment.</div>

Formulating Industry-Academic Collaborations That Work: Best Practices to Ensure a Strong Relationship After the Agreements are Signed

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 169-177
Author(s):  
Michael B. Dilling ◽  
Anne C. DiSante ◽  
Ross Durland ◽  
Christine E. Flynn ◽  
Leonid Metelitsa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
Product Development ◽  
Strong Relationship ◽  
Governance Structure ◽  
Collaborative Relationships ◽  
Skill Sets ◽  
Pragmatic Aspects

Collaborations between academia and industry are growing in scope, duration, and sophistication. The best collaborations recognize the unique strengths and skill sets of both parties and are structured to leverage what each party does best. In many cases, these collaborations develop into long-term relationships, and it is important to develop the systems and structures needed to support these relationships to ensure that they meet the needs of both sides. Successful collaborations require the formulation of a governance structure to facilitate communication, decision-making, assessment of progress, and the inevitable changes of direction that accompany product development. This panel explored the pragmatic aspects of successfully structuring collaborations and managing the relationships after the deal is done. Several dominant themes associated with successful collaborative relationships emerged from the discussion, and these will be explored in this article.

scholarly journals A new measure of group decision-making efficiency

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Cheng-Ju Hsieh ◽  
Mario Fifić ◽  
Cheng-Ta Yang
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Information Processing ◽  
Group Decision Making ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Detection Task ◽  
Detection Sensitivity ◽  
System Level ◽  
Workload Capacity ◽  
Individual Decisions ◽  
Collective Benefit

Abstract It has widely been accepted that aggregating group-level decisions is superior to individual decisions. As compared to individuals, groups tend to show a decision advantage in their response accuracy. However, there has been a lack of research exploring whether group decisions are more efficient than individual decisions with a faster information-processing speed. To investigate the relationship between accuracy and response time (RT) in group decision-making, we applied systems’ factorial technology, developed by Townsend and Nozawa (Journal of Mathematical Psychology 39, 321–359, 1995) and regarded as a theory-driven methodology, to study the information-processing properties. More specifically, we measured the workload capacity CAND(t), which only considers the correct responses, and the assessment function of capacity AAND(t), which considers the speed-accuracy trade-off, to make a strong inference about the system-level processing efficiency. A two-interval, forced-choice oddball detection task, where participants had to detect which interval contains an odd target, was conducted in Experiment 1. Then, in Experiment 2, a yes/no Gabor detection task was adopted, where participants had to detect the presence of a Gabor patch. Our results replicated previous findings using the accuracy-based measure: Group detection sensitivity was better than the detection sensitivity of the best individual, especially when the two individuals had similar detection sensitivities. On the other hand, both workload capacity measures, CAND(t) and AAND(t), showed evidence of supercapacity processing, thus suggesting a collective benefit. The ordered relationship between accuracy-based and RT-based collective benefit was limited to the AAND(t) of the correct and fast responses, which may help uncover the processing mechanism behind collective benefits. Our results suggested that AAND(t), which combines both accuracy and RT into inferences, can be regarded as a novel and diagnostic tool for studying the group decision-making process.

The value of sociality

foresight ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 309-328 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evgeniya Lukinova ◽  
Mikhail Myagkov ◽  
Pavel Shishkin
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Utility Function ◽  
Social Relationship ◽  
Social Utility ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Individual Level ◽  
Know How ◽  
General Utility ◽  
The Social ◽  
Individual Decisions

Purpose – This paper aims to study the value of sociality. Recent experimental evidence has brought to light that the assumptions of the Prospect Theory by Kahneman and Tversky do not hold in the proposed substantive domain of “sociality”. In particular, the desire to be a part of the social environment, i.e. the environment where individuals make decisions among their peers, is not contingent on the framing. Evolutionary psychologists suggest that humans are “social animals” for adaptive reasons. However, entering a social relationship is inherently risky. Therefore, it is extremely important to know how much people value “sociality”, when the social outcomes are valued more than material outcomes and what kinds of adaptations people use. Design/methodology/approach – We develop a new theory and propose the general utility function that features “sociality” component. We test the theory in the laboratory experiments carried out in several countries. Findings – Our results suggest that when stakes are low the theory of “sociality” is successful in predicting individual decisions: on average, people do value “sociality” and it surpasses the monetary loss. Originality/value – The main contribution of this paper is the breakdown of the risk attitudes under low stakes and individual level of decision-making. Another advancement is the ability to formalize the social utility or the theory of “sociality” in an economic model; we use general utility function that we define both on the outcomes and on the process of the decision-making itself and test in laboratory studies.

scholarly journals Groups Make Better Self-Interested Decisions

2012 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 157-176 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary Charness ◽  
Matthias Sutter
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Group Decision Making ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Economic Behavior ◽  
Economic Research ◽  
Individual Decision ◽  
Bottom Line ◽  
Individual Decision Making ◽  
Cognitive Limitations ◽  
Individual Decisions

In this paper, we describe what economists have learned about differences between group and individual decision-making. This literature is still young, and in this paper, we will mostly draw on experimental work (mainly in the laboratory) that has compared individual decision-making to group decision-making, and to individual decision-making in situations with salient group membership. The bottom line emerging from economic research on group decision-making is that groups are more likely to make choices that follow standard game-theoretic predictions, while individuals are more likely to be influenced by biases, cognitive limitations, and social considerations. In this sense, groups are generally less “behavioral” than individuals. An immediate implication of this result is that individual decisions in isolation cannot necessarily be assumed to be good predictors of the decisions made by groups. More broadly, the evidence casts doubts on traditional approaches that model economic behavior as if individuals were making decisions in isolation.

scholarly journals Engaging Multidisciplinary Stakeholders to Drive Shared Decision-Making in Oncology

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabrielle Rocque ◽  
Ellen Miller-Sonnet ◽  
Alan Balch ◽  
Carrie Stricker ◽  
Josh Seidman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Oncology Practice ◽  
Development And Validation

Although recognized as best practice, regular integration of shared decision-making (SDM) approaches between patients and oncologists remains an elusive goal. It is clear that usable, feasible, and practical tools are needed to drive increased SDM in oncology. To address this goal, we convened a multidisciplinary collaborative inclusive of experts across the health-care delivery ecosystem to identify key principles in designing and testing processes to promote SDM in routine oncology practice. In this commentary, we describe 3 best practices for addressing challenges associated with implementing SDM that emerged from a multidisciplinary collaborative: (1) engagement of diverse stakeholders who have interest in SDM, (2) development and validation of an evidence-based SDM tool grounded within an established conceptual framework, and (3) development of the necessary roadmap and consideration of the infrastructure needed for engendering patient engagement in decision-making. We believe these 3 principles are critical to the success of creating SDM tools to be utilized both within and outside of clinical practice. We are optimistic that shared use across settings will support adoption of this tool and overcome barriers to implementing SDM within busy clinical workflows. Ultimately, we hope that this work will offer new perspectives on what is important to patients and provide an important impetus for leveraging patient preferences and values in decision-making.

Slouching Toward Disaster

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen A. Batzer ◽  
John S. Morse
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Gulf Of Mexico ◽  
Slow Motion ◽  
Deepwater Horizon ◽  
Complete Loss ◽  
Missing Information ◽  
Financial Loss ◽  
Low Profile ◽  
Decision Making Processes ◽  
Individual Decisions

“But, who cares, it’s done, end of story, [we] will probably be fine and we’ll get a good cement job.” This is an oft-repeated email quotation from one BP engineer to another on April 16, 2010, just four days before the Macondo well blew out in the Gulf of Mexico. Although these two men survived, 11 others did not. The well blowout also brought with it poisoning of the ecology and vast financial loss. This quote, part of a discussion about centralizers for the well (BP ended up with just six instead of the planned 16 or 21), seems to epitomize the attitude regarding a series of decisions made about the well’s design. The product of the decisions was complete loss and worse. However, the parties did not seem to be aware of the importance of their individual decisions or their consequences as they were making them. This disaster, like many others, seemed in retrospect to unfold in slow motion, and the players involved did not perceive the sheer cliff before them until they had transgressed its edge. This paper will examine decision-making processes in the Deepwater Horizon blowout and a series of other disasters, both high and low profile events. All of these preventable events stemmed from decision-making failures. These failures include disregarding existing information, failing to soberly extrapolate “what if?” when existing information contained uncertainty, failing to obtain vital missing information, failing to question decisions — particularly from those considered authoritative, and a cavalier attitude regarding rules because probably nothing will happen anyway. “Who cares?”

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document