迈向管理启发式观点:整合不同观点

IF 7.5 1区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS International Journal of Management Reviews Pub Date : 2024-10-10 DOI:10.1111/ijmr.12382
Radu Atanasiu, Christopher Wickert, Svetlana N. Khapova
{"title":"迈向管理启发式观点:整合不同观点","authors":"Radu Atanasiu, Christopher Wickert, Svetlana N. Khapova","doi":"10.1111/ijmr.12382","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Managerial heuristics – simple methods for solving problems – are critical for key functions, such as deciding, strategizing, and organizing. Yet, research on managerial heuristics has been siloed into divergent streams, creating polarization among empirical findings and sparking numerous calls for integration. The goal of this review is to integrate different understandings of the construct, different processes examined by extant research, and divergent perspectives on heuristics’ performance into a coherent conceptual framework. We systematically reviewed 54 articles focusing on two complementary processes: the creation and the use of managerial heuristics. We discovered that research which describes the performance of heuristics as suboptimal focuses on the study of innate heuristics which are used reflexively; meanwhile, research which frames heuristics positively focuses on the study of learned heuristics which are used deliberately. We, thus, propose that the two perspectives on managerial heuristics are not contradictory but complementary. Based on this novel differentiation, we, first, aggregate the inputs and outcomes of creating and of using managerial heuristics into an integrative framework built around the manager's cognitive effort; second, we propose managerial heuristics as storage devices for managerial experience, time, cognitive effort and information about the environment; and third, we discuss implications for future research.","PeriodicalId":48326,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Management Reviews","volume":"65 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Towards a heuristic view of managerial heuristics: Integrating divergent perspectives\",\"authors\":\"Radu Atanasiu, Christopher Wickert, Svetlana N. Khapova\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ijmr.12382\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Managerial heuristics – simple methods for solving problems – are critical for key functions, such as deciding, strategizing, and organizing. Yet, research on managerial heuristics has been siloed into divergent streams, creating polarization among empirical findings and sparking numerous calls for integration. The goal of this review is to integrate different understandings of the construct, different processes examined by extant research, and divergent perspectives on heuristics’ performance into a coherent conceptual framework. We systematically reviewed 54 articles focusing on two complementary processes: the creation and the use of managerial heuristics. We discovered that research which describes the performance of heuristics as suboptimal focuses on the study of innate heuristics which are used reflexively; meanwhile, research which frames heuristics positively focuses on the study of learned heuristics which are used deliberately. We, thus, propose that the two perspectives on managerial heuristics are not contradictory but complementary. Based on this novel differentiation, we, first, aggregate the inputs and outcomes of creating and of using managerial heuristics into an integrative framework built around the manager's cognitive effort; second, we propose managerial heuristics as storage devices for managerial experience, time, cognitive effort and information about the environment; and third, we discuss implications for future research.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48326,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Management Reviews\",\"volume\":\"65 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Management Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12382\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Management Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12382","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

管理启发式--解决问题的简单方法--对于决策、战略和组织等关键职能至关重要。然而,对管理启发式方法的研究却各自为政,形成了不同的研究流派,造成了实证研究结果的两极分化,并引发了众多关于整合的呼吁。本综述旨在将对启发式的不同理解、现有研究考察的不同过程以及对启发式绩效的不同观点整合到一个连贯的概念框架中。我们系统回顾了 54 篇文章,重点关注两个互补过程:管理启发式方法的创造和使用。我们发现,将启发式方法的表现描述为次优的研究侧重于对先天启发式方法的研究,这些启发式方法是反射性使用的;与此同时,对启发式方法进行积极评价的研究侧重于对后天启发式方法的研究,这些启发式方法是有意识使用的。因此,我们提出,关于管理启发式的两种观点并不矛盾,而是相辅相成的。基于这种新颖的区分,我们首先将创造和使用管理启发式方法的投入和结果汇总到一个围绕管理者认知努力的综合框架中;其次,我们提出管理启发式方法是管理经验、时间、认知努力和环境信息的存储设备;第三,我们讨论了对未来研究的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Towards a heuristic view of managerial heuristics: Integrating divergent perspectives
Managerial heuristics – simple methods for solving problems – are critical for key functions, such as deciding, strategizing, and organizing. Yet, research on managerial heuristics has been siloed into divergent streams, creating polarization among empirical findings and sparking numerous calls for integration. The goal of this review is to integrate different understandings of the construct, different processes examined by extant research, and divergent perspectives on heuristics’ performance into a coherent conceptual framework. We systematically reviewed 54 articles focusing on two complementary processes: the creation and the use of managerial heuristics. We discovered that research which describes the performance of heuristics as suboptimal focuses on the study of innate heuristics which are used reflexively; meanwhile, research which frames heuristics positively focuses on the study of learned heuristics which are used deliberately. We, thus, propose that the two perspectives on managerial heuristics are not contradictory but complementary. Based on this novel differentiation, we, first, aggregate the inputs and outcomes of creating and of using managerial heuristics into an integrative framework built around the manager's cognitive effort; second, we propose managerial heuristics as storage devices for managerial experience, time, cognitive effort and information about the environment; and third, we discuss implications for future research.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
14.60
自引率
7.40%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Management Reviews (IJMR) stands as the premier global review journal in Organisation and Management Studies (OMS). Its published papers aim to provide substantial conceptual contributions, acting as a strategic platform for new research directions. IJMR plays a pivotal role in influencing how OMS scholars conceptualize research in their respective fields. The journal's reviews critically assess the state of knowledge in specific fields, appraising the conceptual foundations of competing paradigms to advance current and future research in the area.
期刊最新文献
Uncovering the impact of digital technologies on strategising: Evidence from a systematic literature review One name for two concepts: A systematic literature review about meta‐organizations Career success and geographical location: A systematic review and future research agenda Towards a heuristic view of managerial heuristics: Integrating divergent perspectives The good, the bad and the evil: A unified conceptualization of negative leadership behaviour
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1