Journal of Organization and Human Behaviour

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access
Open Access Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Restricted Access Subscription Access

Organisational Decision-Making Behaviour: A Review of Decision-Making Theories


Affiliations
1 Centre for Ageing and Mental Health, Staffordshire University, United Kingdom
     

   Subscribe/Renew Journal


Recruitment decision-making following the evaluation of criminal record information is apparent in everyday organisational recruitment decisions across the western world. Specifically in the United Kingdom, employers are legally required to utilise an applicant's criminal record in the recruitment decision-making process in cases where the individual may come into contact with vulnerable persons. The most challenging situation a recruitment decision-maker faces is whether or not they allow an ex-offender re-enter society through employment in the labour market. In order to assess how the decision-maker will overcome common obstacles in the decision-making process and make their decision, an evaluation of existing decision-making theories will be presented. By identifying how recruitment decisions are being made in the first instance we may further our knowledge into this particular decision-making process, and in turn, attempt to better manage organisational recruitment challenges.

Keywords

Decision-Making, Risk, Reasoning, Organisation, Recruitment.
Subscription Login to verify subscription
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Apex Trust. (1991). The Hidden Workforce: Employing Exoffenders, Recruitment Policy and Practice. London: Apex Trust.

  • Aronson, E. (1968). Dissonance theory: Progress and problems. In: Abelson, R.P., Aronson, E., McGuire, W.J., Newcomb, T.M., Rosenberg, M.J., & Tannenbaum, P.H. (eds.), Cognitive consistency theories: A source book. Skokie, IL: Rand McNally.

  • Bakken, B. E. (1993). Learning and transfer of understanding in dynamic decision environments.Unpublished doctoral dissertation. MIT, Boston.

  • Bar-Hillel, M., & Neter, E. (1996). Why are people reluctant to exchange lottery tickets? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(11), 17-27.

  • Bazerman, M. H. (2005). Judgment in managerial decision making.(6th ed). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

  • Beach, L. R., & Mitchell, T. R. (1978). A contingency model for the selection of decision strategies. Academy of Management Review, 3(3), 439-49.

  • Bechara, A., Damasio, H., Tranel, D., & Damasio, A. R. (1997). Deciding advantageously before knowing the advantageous strategy. Science, 275 (5304), 1293-1295.

  • Benbenishty, R. (1992). An overview of methods to elicit and model expert clinical judgement and decision-making. Social Service Review, 66(4), 598-661.

  • Bernoulli, J. (1713). Arsconjectandi, Basel, Imprensis Thurnisiorumfratrum. English translation by Edith Dudley Sylla, Johns Hopkins UP, Baltimore, 2006.

  • Bernstein, P. L. (1998). Against the gods: The remarkable story of risk. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

  • Billings, R. S., & Scherer, L. A. (1988). The effects of response mode and importance on decision making strategies: Judgment versus choice. Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 41(1), 1-19.

  • Bock, P. (1993). The emergence of artificial cognition: An introduction to collective learning. Singapore: World Scientific.

  • Bonanni, C., Drysdale, D., Hughes, A., & Doyle, P. (2006). Employee background verification: measuring the crossreferencing effect. International Business & Economics Research Journal, 5(11), 1-8.

  • Bowling, A., & Ebrahim, S. (2005). Handbook of Research Methods in Health: Investigation, Measurement and Analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill.

  • Brehm, J. W., & Cohen, A. R. (1962). Explorations in cognitive dissonance. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

  • Brehemer, B. (1990). Strategies in real-time dynamic decision making. In: Hogarth, R. M. (ed.). Insights in decision making. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Buller, D. B., & Burgoon, J. K. (1994). Deception: Strategic and nonstrategic communication. In Daly, J. A., & Wiemann, J. M. (eds.). Strategic interpersonal communication. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

  • Busemeyer, J., Hastie, R., & Medin, D. L. (eds.) (1995). Decision making from a cognitive perspective. The psychology of learning and motivation. New York: Academic Press.

  • Bushway, S., Nieuwbeerta, P. & Blokland. A. (2011). The predictive value of criminal background checks: do age and criminal history affect time to redemption? Criminology, 49(1), 27-60.

  • Churchland, P. S. (1996).Feeling reasons. In Damasio, A, R., Damasio, H. & Christen, Y. (eds.). Neurobiology of Decision-making. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

  • Cialdini, R. (1987). Interpersonal influence: Being ethical and effective. In Oskamp, S. & Spacagan, S. (eds.). Interpersonal processes. California: Sage Publications.

  • Crozier, R. (1989). Post decisional justification: the case of DeLorean. In Montgomery, H. & Svenson, O. (eds.). Process and Structure in Human Decision Making. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

  • Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes' error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York: Putnam Sons.

  • Dunning, D. (2001). On the motives underlying social cognition. In: Schwarz, N. & Tesser, A. (eds.). Blackwell handbook of social psychology. Intraindividual processes. New York: Blackwell.

  • Elliot, A. J., & Devine, P. G. (1994). On the motivational nature of cognitive dissonance: dissonance as psychological discomfort. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67 (3), 382-394.

  • Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis; Verbal reports as data. (2nd ed). Cambridge: Bradfordbooks/MIT Press.

  • Festinger, L. A. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

  • Fletcher, D. R. (2003). Employers, recruitment and offenders: underlining the limits of work-focused welfare? Policy and Politics, 31(4), 497-510.

  • Forgas, J. P. (1995). Mood and judgment: The affect infusion model (AIM). Psychological Bulletin, 117(1), 39-66.

  • Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., & Kahneman, D. (2002). Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment. New York: Cambridge University Press

  • Gowda, R., & Fox, J. (2002). Judgments, decisions, and public policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Halpern, D. F. (1996). Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical v. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  • Hardin, R. (1997). One for All: The Logic of Group Conflict. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  • Harmon-Jones, E., & Mills, J. (1999).Cognitive dissonance: Progress on a pivotal theory in social psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

  • Hastie, R., & Dawes, R. (2001). Rational Choice in an Uncertain World: The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making. California: Sage Publications.

  • Hebenton, B., & Thomas, T. (1996). Sexual Offenders in the Community Reflections of Problems of Law Community and Risk Management in the USA England and Wales. International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 24(1).

  • Hogarth, R. M. (1981). Beyond discrete biases: Functional and dysfunctional aspects of judgmental heuristics. Psychological Bulletin, 9(2), 197-217.

  • Huber, O. (1989). Information-processing operators in decision making. In: Montgomery, H., & Svenson, O. (eds.). Process and structure in human decision making. New York:John Wiley & Sons.

  • Inohara, T. (2007). Self-consistency of decision rules for group decision making. European Journal of Operational Research, 180(3), 1260-1271.

  • Issacs, W., & Senge, P. (1994). Overcoming limits to learning in computer-based learning environments. In Morecroft, Modeling for learning organisations. Portland: Productivity Press.

  • Jabeur, K., & Martel, J. (2007). An ordinal sorting method for group decision-making. European Journal of Operational Research, 180(3), 1272-1289.

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (2000). Choices, Values, and Frames. New York: Cambridge University Press.

  • Karakul, M., & Qudrat-Ullah, H. (2007). How to improve dynamic decision making? Practice and Promise, In: Qudrat-Ullah, H. & Spector, M. & Davidson, I. (eds.). Complex Decision Making: Theory and Practice. USA: Springer-Verlag.

  • Khong, Y. F. (1992). Analogies at war: Korea, Munich, Dien Bien Phu, and the Vietnam decisions of 1965. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  • Koele, P., & Westenberg, M. R. M. (1995). A compensation index for multi-attribute decision strategies. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2(3), 398-402.

  • Kuhn, D. (1992). Cognitive development. In Bornstein, M. H. & Lamb, M. E. (eds.). Developmental psychology: An advanced textbook. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

  • Lakoff, G. (1991). Metaphor and war: The metaphor system used to justify the war in the Gulf. Journal of Urban and Cultural Studies, 2(1), 59-72.

  • Larson, D. W. (1985). Origins of containment: A psychological explanation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  • Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2000). Beyond valence: Toward a model of emotion-specific influences on judgment and choice. Cognition and Emotion, 14(4), 473-493.

  • Leary, M. R. (2005). Nuggets of social psychological wisdom. Psychology Inquiry, 16(4), 176-179.

  • Levin, I. P., & Jasper, J. D. (1995). Phased narrowing: A new process tracing method for decision making. Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 64(1), 1-8.

  • Loewenstein, G., & Lerner J. S. (2003). The role of affect in decision making. In: Davidson, R., Goldsmith, H. & Scherer, K. (eds.). Handbook of affective science. New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Loucks, N., Lyner, O., & Sullivan, T. (1998). Regulating the ‘Yellow Ticket': The employment of people with criminal records in the European Union and 'Coping with Convictions': A guide to good practice for employers. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 6(2), 195-210.

  • Maoz, Z. (1990). National choices and international processes. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

  • Maule, A. J., & Edland, A. C. (1997). The effects of time pressure on judgment and decision making. In Ranyard, R., Crozier, W. R., & Svenson, O. (eds.) Decision making: Cognitive models and explanation. London: Routledge.

  • McDermott, R. (2001). Risk-Taking in International Politics: Prospect Theory in American Foreign Policy. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.

  • Michalski, R. S. (1989). Two-tiered concept meaning, inferential matching, and conceptual cohesiveness. In: Vosniadou, S., & Ortony, A. (eds.). Similarity and analogical reasoning. New York: Cambridge University Press.

  • Miles, R. F., & Winterfeldt, D. V. (2007). Advances in Decision Analysis: From foundations to applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.

  • Mintz, A. (2002). International cognitive and rational theories of foreign policy decision Making. New York: Palgrave.

  • Mintz, A., & Geva, N. (1997).The poliheuristic theory of foreign policy decision making. In: Geva, N., & Mintz, A. (eds.). Decision Making on War and Peace: The Cognitive-Rational Debate. Nehemia. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

  • Mintz, A., Geva, N., Redd, S. B., & Carnes, A. (1997). “The effect of dynamic and static choice sets on political decision making: An analysis using the decision board platform. American Political Science Review, 91(3), 553-566.

  • Morcol, G. (2007). Handbook of decision making Volume 123 of Public administration and public policy. Boca Ratan: CRC Press.

  • Moser, K. S. (2000). Moser, Metaphor analysis in psychology: method, theory, and fields of application. Forum: Qualitative Social Research. Retrieved from http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/ view/1090/2387

  • Moxnes, E. (2000). Not only the tragedy of the commons: Misperceptions of feedback and policies for sustainable development. System Dynamics Review, 16 (4), 325-348.

  • Myers, D. G. (1987). Social Psychology.(2nd ed). New York: McGraw-Hill.

  • Myers, M. D. (1999). Investigating Information Systems with Ethnographic Research. Communication of the AIS, 2(23), 1-20

  • Naqvi, N., Shiv, B., & Bechara, A. (2006). The role of emotion in decision making: A cognitive neuroscience perspective. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(5), 260-264.

  • Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of Games and Economic Behaviour. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  • Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1953). Theory of games and economic behaviour.(3rd ed). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  • Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

  • Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. D. (1980). Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

  • Oliveira, A. (2007). Decision-making theories and models: A discussion of rational and psychological decision-making theories and models: The search for a cultural-ethical decision-making model. Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organisation Studies, 12(2), 12-17.

  • Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

  • Payne, J. W. (1976). Task complexity and contingent processing in decision making: an information search and protocol analysis. Organisational Behaviour and Human Performance, 16(2), 366-387.

  • Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1993). The adaptive decision maker. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

  • Perloff, R. M. (2003). The dynamics of persuasion.(2nd edition). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

  • Perry, R. W. (2004). The impact of criminal conviction disclosure on the self-reported offending profile of social work students. British Journal of Social Work, 34(7), 997-1008.

  • Pronin, E. (2007).Perception and misperception of bias in human judgment. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(1), 37-43.

  • Pronin, E., Puccio, C. T., & Ross, L. (2002). Understanding misunderstanding: Social psychological perspectives. In Gilovich, T., Griffin, G., & Kahneman, D. (eds.). Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Rahn, W. M., Aldrich, J. H. & Borgida, E. (1994). Individual and contextual variations in political candidate appraisal. American Political Science Review, 88(1), 193-200.

  • Ranyard, R., Crozier, W. R., & Svenson, O. (1997). Title Decision making: cognitive models and explanations. London: Routledge.

  • Robbins, S. P. & Judge, T. A. (2007). Organisational Behaviour.(12th ed). New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.

  • Sandal, N., Zhang, E., James, C. C., & Patrick, J. (2006). Poliheuristic Theory in Comparative Perspective: Theory and Evidence for Turkey and China. Annual meeting of the international studies association. San Diego.

  • Savage, L. J. (1954). The Foundations of Statistics. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

  • Shaffer, D. R., & Kipp, K. (2009). Developmental psychology: Childhood and adolescence. (8th ed). London: Cengage Learning.

  • Scholten, L., Knippenberg, D., Nijstad, B. A., & Dreu, C. K. W. (2007). Motivated information processing and group decision making: Effects of process accountability on information sharing and decision quality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(4) 539-552.

  • Schwarz, N. (1990). Feelings as information: Informational and motivational functions of affective states. In: Higgins, E. T. & Sorrentino, R. M. (eds.). Handbook of motivation and cognition foundations of social behaviour. New York: Guilford.

  • Shimko, K. (1994). Metaphors and foreign policy decision making. Political Psychology. 15(4), 655-71.

  • Simon, H. A. (1957). Models of man: Social and rational. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

  • Simon, H. A. (1979). Information processing models of cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 30(1), 363-396.

  • Simon, H. A. (1982). Models of Bounded Rationality. Cambridge: MIT Press.

  • Simon, L., Greenberg, J., & Brehm, J. (1995). Trivialization: The forgotten mode of dissonance reduction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(2), 247-260.

  • Slovic, P. (1975). Choice between equally valued alternatives. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1(3), 280-287.

  • Sniderman, P. M., Brody, R. A., & Tetlock, P. E. (1991). Introduction: Major themes. In Sniderman, P. M., Brody, R. A., Tetlock, P. E., Kuklinski, J. H., & Chong, D. (eds.). Reasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.

  • Sterman, J. D. (1989). Misperceptions of feedback in dynamic decision making. Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 43(3), 301-335.

  • Svenson, O. (1978). Risks of road transportation in a psychological perspective. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 10(4), 267-280.

  • Svenson, O. (1979). Process descriptions of decision making. OrganisationalBehaviour and Human Performance, 23(1), 86-112.

  • Svenson, O. (1992). Differentiation and consolidation theory of human decision making: A frame of reference for the study of pre- and post-decision processes. ActaPsychologic, 80(1-3), 143-168.

  • Svenson, O. (1996). Decision making and the search for fundamental psychological regularities: What can be learned from a process perspective? Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 65(3), 252-267.

  • Taliaferro, J. W. (2004). Power politics and the balance of risk: hypotheses on great power intervention in the periphery. Political Psychology, 25(2), 177-211.

  • Tedeschi, J. T., Schlenker, B. R., & Bonoma, T. V. (1971). Cognitive dissonance: Private ratiocination or public spectacle? American Psychologist, 26(8), 685-695.

  • Tetlock, P. E. (1992).The impact of accountability on judgment and choice: Toward a social contingency model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25(1), 331 - 376.

  • Tetlock, P. E., & Boettger, R. (1989). Accountability: A social magnifier of the dilution effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 57(3), 388-398.

  • Thompson, L., & Nadler, J. (2000). Judgmental biases in conflict resolution and how to overcome them. In: Deutsch, M., & Coleman, P.T. (eds.). The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice. California: Jossey-Bass.

  • Todd, P. M. (2000). The ecological rationality of mechanisms evolved to make up minds. American Behavioural Scientist, 43(6), 940-956.

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1986). Rational choice and the framing of decisions. Journal of Business, 59(4), 251-278.

  • Velásquez, J. (1998). When robots weep: emotional memories and decision-making. In Proceedings of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence. Wisconsin: AAAI Press.

  • Walsh, V. C. (1996). Rationality, Allocation and Reproduction. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

  • Wang, Y., Wang, Y., Patel, S., & Patel, D. (2004). A Layered Reference Model of the Brain. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 36(2), 124-133.

  • Wicklund, R. A., & Brehm, J. W. (1976). Perspectives on cognitive dissonance. New Jersey: Erlbaum .

  • Wilson, R. A., & Keil, F. C. (2001). The MITEncyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences. London: MIT Press.

  • Wilson, T. D., Lisle, D. J., Schooler, J. W., Hodges, S. D., Klaaren, K. J., & LaFleur S. J. (1993). Introspecting about reasons can reduce post-choice satisfaction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19(3), 331-339.

  • Zakay, D. (1990). The role of personal tendencies in the selection of decision-making strategies. Psychological Record, 40(2), 207-213.

  • Zakay, D. (1992). The influence of computerised feedback on overconfidence in knowledge. Behaviour and Information Technology, 11(6), 329-33.


Abstract Views: 390

PDF Views: 8




  • Organisational Decision-Making Behaviour: A Review of Decision-Making Theories

Abstract Views: 390  |  PDF Views: 8

Authors

Nageen Mustafa
Centre for Ageing and Mental Health, Staffordshire University, United Kingdom
Paul Kingston
Centre for Ageing and Mental Health, Staffordshire University, United Kingdom

Abstract


Recruitment decision-making following the evaluation of criminal record information is apparent in everyday organisational recruitment decisions across the western world. Specifically in the United Kingdom, employers are legally required to utilise an applicant's criminal record in the recruitment decision-making process in cases where the individual may come into contact with vulnerable persons. The most challenging situation a recruitment decision-maker faces is whether or not they allow an ex-offender re-enter society through employment in the labour market. In order to assess how the decision-maker will overcome common obstacles in the decision-making process and make their decision, an evaluation of existing decision-making theories will be presented. By identifying how recruitment decisions are being made in the first instance we may further our knowledge into this particular decision-making process, and in turn, attempt to better manage organisational recruitment challenges.

Keywords


Decision-Making, Risk, Reasoning, Organisation, Recruitment.

References