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.