Advertisement

Psychological Foundations of Supply Chain Risk Management

  • Michael E. Smith
Part of the International Series in Operations Research & Management Science book series (ISOR, volume 124)

Population statistics may be useful in overall characterization of risk, but ultimately, as Zuckerman (2007) notes, the way that risk is experienced is a matter of subjective assessment as represented in individual perception. In a managerial context, it is aggregation and interaction of these individual assessments in relatively small (at least as compared with society) organizational groups that drives business strategies and adjustments at the tactical level. Thus, organizational risk management responses are a function of coordination of subjective perceptions at a level sufficient to gain coherence in the responses from key employees. Of course, supply chain risk management often involves coordination of responses requiring such coherence at the level of inter-organizational responses. While the emerging literature in supply chain risk management focuses on types, magnitudes, and appropriate responses to risk at the organizational and inter-organizational level, this chapter will focus on the roots of perceived risk in the psychology of critical persons because detection and assessment of risk still requires thinking, judgment, and decision making by individuals.

Keywords

Risk Management Supply Chain Management Complete Failure Supply Management Intuitive Judgment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adams J (1995) Risk. UCL Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Allman WF (1985) Staying alive in the 20th century. Science 85 6(8): 31-37Google Scholar
  3. Assaf M , Bonincontro C, Johnsen S (2006) Global sourcing & purchasing post 9/11. J. Ross Publishing, Fort Lauderdale FLGoogle Scholar
  4. Bateson G (1972) Steps to an ecology of mind: a revolutionary approach to man’s understanding of himself. Ballantine, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Bottom WP, Ladha K, Miller GJ (2002) Propagation of individual bias through group judgment: error in the treatment of asymmetrically informative signals. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 25(2): 147-159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brint AT (2000) Sequential inspection sampling to avoid failure critical items being in an at risk condition. The Journal of the Operational Research Society 51(9): 1051-1059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chun YH, Rinks DB (1998) Three types of producer’s and consumer’s risks in the single sampling plan. Journal of Quality Technology 30(3): 254-268Google Scholar
  8. Cialdini RB (1993) Influence: the psychology of persuasion (2nd edn). Quill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Cornfield J (1977) Carcinogenic risk assessment. Science 198(4318): 693-699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dawes RM, Faust D, Meehl PE (2002) Clinical versus actuarial judgment. In: Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahneman D (eds) Heuristics and biases: the psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 716-729Google Scholar
  11. Eastaway R, Wyndham J (1998) Why do buses come in threes? The hidden mathematics of everyday life. Barnes & Noble, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Eddy DM (1982) Probabilistic reasoning in clinical medicine. In: Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A (eds) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 249-267Google Scholar
  13. Eysenck MW, Keane MT (1995) Cognitive psychology: a student’s handbook (3rd edn). Lawrence Erlbaum, Hove UKGoogle Scholar
  14. Gigerenzer G (2004) Fast and frugal heuristics: the tools of bounded rationality. In: Koehler DJ, Harvey N (eds) Blackwell handbook of judgment & decision making. Blackwell Publishing, Malden MA, pp 62-88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Griffin D, Tversky A (1992) The weighing of evidence and the determinants of confidence. Cognitive Psychology 24(3): 411-435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Janis IL (1989) Crucial decisions: leadership in policymaking and crisis management. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Kahneman D, Frederick F (2005) A model of heuristic judgment. In: Holyoak KJ, Morrison RG (eds) The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 267-294Google Scholar
  18. Koehler DJ, Brenner L, Griffin D (2002) The calibration of expert judgment: heuristics and biases beyond the laboratory. In: Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahneman D (eds) Heuristics and biases: the psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 686-715Google Scholar
  19. Ledley RL, Lusted LB (1959) Reasoning foundations of medical diagnosis. Science 130(3366): 9-21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nisbett RE, Krantz DH, Jepson C, Kunda Z (2002) The use of statistical heuristics in everyday inductive reasoning. In: Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahneman D (eds) Heuristics and biases: the psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 510-533Google Scholar
  21. Reed, SK (1982) Cognition: theory and applications. Brooks/Cole Publishing, Monterey CAGoogle Scholar
  22. Roberts EB (ed) (1984) Managerial applications of system dynamics. MIT Press, Cambridge MAGoogle Scholar
  23. Ropeik D, Gray G (2002) Risk: a guide for deciding what’s really safe and what’s really dangerous in the world around you. Houghton Mifflin, BostonGoogle Scholar
  24. Russo JE, Schoemaker PJH (1989) Decision traps: the ten barriers to brilliant decisionmaking & how to overcome them. Doubleday, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Senge PM (1990) The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization. Doubleday/Currency, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Simon HA (1976) Administrative behaviour: a study of decision-making processes in administrative organizations (3rd edn). Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Simpson RH (1973) Hurricane prediction: progress and problem areas. Science 181(4103): 899-907CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Slovic P (1987) Perception of risk. Science 236(4799): 280-285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Slovic P, Fischoff B, Lichtenstein S (1982) Facts versus fears: understanding perceived risk. In: Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A (eds) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 463-492Google Scholar
  30. Smith ME, Buddress L (2006) How many suppliers? A Bayesian perspective. 4th Worldwide Research Symposium on Purchasing and Supply Chain Management. Institute for Supply Management and IPSERA. San Diego, CA, April 8, 2006, proceedings available at http://www.ht2.org/conference/pdf/107.pdf
  31. Sorenson SB, Manz JG, Peterson B, Berk RA (1998) News media coverage and the epidemiology of homicide. American Journal of Public Health 88(10): 1510-1514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stanovich KE (1999) Who is rational? Studies of individual differences in reasoning. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah NJGoogle Scholar
  33. Starr C, Whipple C (1980) Risk of risk decisions. Science 208(4448): 1114-1119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stich SP (1990) The fragmentation of reason. MIT Press, Cambridge MAGoogle Scholar
  35. Tenner E (1996) Why things bite back: technology and the revenge of unintended consequences. Alfred A. Knopf, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185(415): 1124-1131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Weinstein ND, Klein WM (2002) Resistance of personal risk perceptions to debasing interventions. In: Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahneman D (eds) Heuristics and biases: the psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 313-323Google Scholar
  38. Wolfe RN, Grosch JW (1990) Personality correlates of confidence in one’s decisions. Journal of Personality 58(3): 515-534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zeckhauser RJ, Viscusi WK (1990) Risk within reason. Science 248(4955): 559-564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zsidisin GA (2003) Managerial perceptions of supply risk. Journal of Supply Chain Management 39(1): 14-25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zsidisin GA, Ellram LM (2003) An agency theory investigation of supply risk management. Journal of Supply Chain Management 39(3): 15-27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zuckerman M (2007) Sensation seeking and risky behaviour. American Psychological Association, Washington DCCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael E. Smith
    • 1
  1. 1.Western Carolina UniversityCullowhee

Personalised recommendations