Bandwagon is the tendency to adopt a technique, innovation, behavior, thought, process, or attitude because of its popularity or, that is the same, because that is what the sheer number of peers are doing.
It is usually described as something that hinders or limits one's ability to think rationally. In order to test how bandwagon works, I have created an agent-based model using NetLogo software.
This is the link to the page that explains what is this model about and how it works.
http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/models/community/Bandwagon%202D
The model can be reached here:
http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/models/community/run.cgi?Bandwagon%202D.1123.520.0
[put randomize on to get more interesting results!!]
Feel free to play with the model and use it. I am including some of its results in the introductory section of one of my latest papers on bandwagon that I may be able to submit soon to a journal.
More than extending rationality, bandwagon seems to be limiting its reach. However it might be that cognition may result expanded when mindless bandwagon ends, and mindful rationalization of what happened starts.
Enjoy!
P.S. More on this topic is about to come…
Thursday, December 23, 2010
The Interesting Case of Mr J
As a tradition for my organizational behavior class, I end the semester with oral exams. "What?!?" usually ask my scared students, "oral exams?" I am the only management (and business) professor within the College that sets up oral exams. There are several reasons for this choice. The most important are: (1) help students manage stress level when they speak on a face-to-face one-on-one meeting, (2) prepare them to think straight/logically when talking about professional subjects, (3) give me a break with paper evaluations.
Although these reasons may be interesting, they are only background information. What I find very interesting from the extendable rationality perspective is one of my student's behavior.
J came to the exam with a notebook and a pen. I asked the first question of the type "pick one topic." He started talking about motivation. Everything went well, and J defined the general concept, and went over intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. At that point, I asked him to define how expectancy theory work. This is when he started to draw something on the page while he was talking. It seemed that his ability to think was completed, maybe enhanced, or stimulated by replicating one of the figures found on the textbook. J was establishing a very peculiar relation with the drawing, and his words. Interactions with me--both explicit, such as comments, and implicit, e.g. body language--were also relevant in the process. I thought this was a good example of how rationality could be extended through external resources (e.g., the notebook and one's spoken words). However, I was even more surprised when the time for the second question came.
I asked J to talk about Human Resource Management. He watched me and said candidly that that was something he was not sure he could discuss. I insisted and told him that skipping that question affected his grade heavily. With a big deal of reluctancy, J started talking. His hand went over the sheet of paper and he started drawing another figure while talking. He remembered almost every single one of the five items that we discussed in class and that constitute the core of Human Resource Management. I was very impressed. The interaction between J, his words, his thoughts, and the picture he was drawing with the words he was writing helped him "solve the problem" and answer the question in an acceptable manner.
I leave the reader with some questions: Is it smart to bring a notebook while interviewing? What is the cognitive aid of this external resource? How does the matching between what is created on the paper, words written and spoken, emotions, cognitive brain status, and body language shape the cognitive process? What happens when what is created on paper does not match what one is talking about? What is that strengthen cognitive activities?
Although these reasons may be interesting, they are only background information. What I find very interesting from the extendable rationality perspective is one of my student's behavior.
J came to the exam with a notebook and a pen. I asked the first question of the type "pick one topic." He started talking about motivation. Everything went well, and J defined the general concept, and went over intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. At that point, I asked him to define how expectancy theory work. This is when he started to draw something on the page while he was talking. It seemed that his ability to think was completed, maybe enhanced, or stimulated by replicating one of the figures found on the textbook. J was establishing a very peculiar relation with the drawing, and his words. Interactions with me--both explicit, such as comments, and implicit, e.g. body language--were also relevant in the process. I thought this was a good example of how rationality could be extended through external resources (e.g., the notebook and one's spoken words). However, I was even more surprised when the time for the second question came.
I asked J to talk about Human Resource Management. He watched me and said candidly that that was something he was not sure he could discuss. I insisted and told him that skipping that question affected his grade heavily. With a big deal of reluctancy, J started talking. His hand went over the sheet of paper and he started drawing another figure while talking. He remembered almost every single one of the five items that we discussed in class and that constitute the core of Human Resource Management. I was very impressed. The interaction between J, his words, his thoughts, and the picture he was drawing with the words he was writing helped him "solve the problem" and answer the question in an acceptable manner.
I leave the reader with some questions: Is it smart to bring a notebook while interviewing? What is the cognitive aid of this external resource? How does the matching between what is created on the paper, words written and spoken, emotions, cognitive brain status, and body language shape the cognitive process? What happens when what is created on paper does not match what one is talking about? What is that strengthen cognitive activities?
Saturday, December 11, 2010
The Book
The book is now available!
Short Summary
“How do people make decisions in organizations?” is the question at the core of this book. Do people act rationally? Under what conditions can information and knowledge be shared to improve decision making? Davide Secchi applies concepts and theories from cognitive science, organizational behavior, and social psychology to explore the dynamics of decision making. In particular, he integrates “bounded rationality” (people are only partly rational; they have (a) limited computational capabilities and (b) limited access to information) and “distributed cognition” (knowledge is not confined to an individual, but is distributed across the members of a group) to build upon the pioneering work of Herbert Simon (1916-2001) on rational decision making and contribute fresh insights. This book is divided into two parts. The first part (Chapters 2 to 5) explores how recent studies on biases, prospect theory, heuristics, and emotions provide the so-called “map” of bounded rationality. The second part (Chapter 6 to 9) presents the idea of extendable rationality. In this section, Secchi identifies the limitations of bounded rationality and focuses more heavily on socially-based decision processes and the role of “docility” in teaching, managing, and executing decisions in organizations. The practical implications extend broadly to issues relating to change and innovation, as organizations adapt to evolving market conditions, implementing new systems, and effectively managing limited resources. The final chapter outlines an agenda for future research to help understand the decision making characteristics and capabilities of an organization.
You can find it here: amazon.com, springer.com (individual chapters are available for e-purchase)
“How do people make decisions in organizations?” is the question at the core of this book. Do people act rationally? Under what conditions can information and knowledge be shared to improve decision making? Davide Secchi applies concepts and theories from cognitive science, organizational behavior, and social psychology to explore the dynamics of decision making. In particular, he integrates “bounded rationality” (people are only partly rational; they have (a) limited computational capabilities and (b) limited access to information) and “distributed cognition” (knowledge is not confined to an individual, but is distributed across the members of a group) to build upon the pioneering work of Herbert Simon (1916-2001) on rational decision making and contribute fresh insights. This book is divided into two parts. The first part (Chapters 2 to 5) explores how recent studies on biases, prospect theory, heuristics, and emotions provide the so-called “map” of bounded rationality. The second part (Chapter 6 to 9) presents the idea of extendable rationality. In this section, Secchi identifies the limitations of bounded rationality and focuses more heavily on socially-based decision processes and the role of “docility” in teaching, managing, and executing decisions in organizations. The practical implications extend broadly to issues relating to change and innovation, as organizations adapt to evolving market conditions, implementing new systems, and effectively managing limited resources. The final chapter outlines an agenda for future research to help understand the decision making characteristics and capabilities of an organization.
You can find it here: amazon.com, springer.com (individual chapters are available for e-purchase)
Extending Rationality
Welcome to the extendable rationality blog!
This blog will keep those interested in extendable rationality (ER) informed on the following:
- progress and improvement on the theory;
- progress and improvement on theories, approaches, and models that are close to ER and may contribute to its development;
- empirical validation of the ER construct and related topics;
- comments and critics on the theory;
- interesting news and studies that may suggest ER is working;
- ideas that may eventually lead to scholarly work;
- anything related to ER.
If you want to publish and/or contribute in any way (besides posting comments), please use this email:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)