Advertisement

Impact of Cognitive Style on Group Decision and Negotiation

  • Sébastien Damart
  • Sonia Adam-LedunoisEmail author
Living reference work entry

Abstract

Numerous studies on group decision and negotiation have focused on the influence of the cognitive style of decision makers. Using number of instruments such as Kirton Adaption Innovation (KAI), Cognitive Style Index (CSI), Kolb Learning Style Inventory (KLS), Belbin team role self‐perception inventory, or the well-known Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), studies explore relationships between different dimensions of the personality traits of the individuals and the performance of group decisions. The results are very heterogeneous and sometimes contradictory, depending in particular on the decision contexts explored (strategic decision or not, etc.) and the type of measurement and proxy used to identify the cognitive style. When cognitive diversity is the variable used in these researches, it is no longer the influence of an individual cognitive style on the decision that becomes the object of study but the fact that several styles are represented among the members of a group of decision makers. Looking for an integrative group of decision makers, as it is finally proposed in this chapter through a cognitive mapping-based method, is then a way to increase group decision performance.

References

  1. Allinson CW, Hayes J (1996) The cognitive style index: a measure of intuition-analysis for organizational research. J Manag Stud 33(1):119–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Armstrong SJ, Priola V (2001) Individual differences in cognitive style and their effects on task and social orientations of self-managed work teams. Small Group Res 32(3):283–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Batra S, Vohra N (2016) Exploring the linkages of cognitive style and individual innovativeness. Manag Res Rev 39(7):768–785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Belbin M (1981) Management teams. Why they succeed or fail. Heineman, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Blaylock BK, Rees LP (1984) Cognitive style and the usefulness of information. Decis Sci 15(1):74–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bunderson JS, Sutcliffe KM (2003) Management team learning orientation and business unit performance. J Appl Psychol 88(3):552–560PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Colón-Emeric CS, Ammarell N, Bailey D, Corazzini K, Lekan-Rutledge D, Piven ML et al (2006) Patterns of medical and nursing staff communication in nursing homes: implications and insights from complexity science. Qual Health Res 16(2):173–188PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Damart S (2010) A cognitive mapping approach to organizing the participation of multiple actors in a problem structuring process. Group Decis Negot 19(5):505–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. de Visser M, Faems D (2015) Exploration and exploitation within firms: the impact of CEOs’ cognitive style on incremental and radical innovation performance. Creat Innov Manag 24(3):359–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Drenkard K (2012) The transformative power of personal and organizational leadership. Nurs Adm Q 36(2):147–154PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Driver MJ (1979) Individual decision making and creativity. In: Kerr S (ed) Organizational behavior. Grid Publishing, ColumbusGoogle Scholar
  12. Driver MJ, Brousseau KE, Hunsaker PL (1990) The dynamic decisionmaker. Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Eden C (1988) Cognitive mapping: a review. Eur J Oper Res 36:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eden C (2004) Analyzing cognitive maps to help structure issues or problems. Eur J Oper Res 159(3):673–686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Follett MP (1924) Creative experience. Longmans, Green & Co., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Garnabuci G, Dioszegi B (2013) Social networks, cognitive style and innovative performance: a contingency perspective. Acad Manag J 58(3):881–905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Green GI, Hughes CT (1986) Effects of decision support systems training and cognitive style on decision process attributes. J Manag Inf Syst 3(2):83–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gul FA, Teoh HY, Shannon R (1992) Cognitive style as a factor in accounting students’ performance on multiple choice examination. Acc Educ 1(4):311–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harren VA (1979) A model of career decision making for college students. J Vocat Behav 14:119–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Harrison DA, Price KH, Gavin JH, Florey AT (2002) Time, teams, and task performance: changing effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on group functioning. Acad Manag J 45(5):1029–1045CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hoch JE, Dulebohn JH (2017) Team personality composition, emergent leadership and shared leadership in virtual teams: a theoretical framework. Hum Resour Manag Rev 27(4):678–693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hough JR, Ogilvie D (2005) An empirical test of cognitive style and strategic decision outcomes∗. J Manag Stud 42(2):417–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jablokow KW, Defranco JF, Richmond SS, Piovoso MJ, Bilén SG (2015) Cognitive style and concept mapping performance. J Eng Educ 104(3):303–325Google Scholar
  24. Jung CG (1921) Psychological types. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  25. Kilduff M, Angelmar R, Mehra A (2000) Top management-team diversity and firm performance: examining the role of cognitions. Organ Sci 11(1):21–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kirton M (1989) Adaptors and innovators: styles of creativity and problem-salving. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Kurtzberg TR (2005) Feeling creative, being creative: an empirical study of diversity and creativity in teams. Creat Res J 17(1):51–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lawrence PR, Lorsch JW (1967) Organization and environment. Managing differentiation and integration. Harvard University, BostonGoogle Scholar
  29. Martins LL, Schilpzand MC, Kirkman BL, Ivanaj S, Ivanaj V (2013) A contingency view of the effects of cognitive diversity on team performance. Small Group Res 44(2):96–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mello AL, Rentsch JR (2015) Cognitive diversity in teams. Small Group Res 46(6):623–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Miller CC, Burke LM, Glick WH (1998) Cognitive diversity among upper-echelon executives: implications for strategic decision processes. Strateg Manag J 19(1):39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mitchell R, Nicholas S, Boyle B (2009) The role of openness to cognitive diversity and group processes in knowledge creation. Small Group Res 40(5):535–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mohammed S, Ringseis E (2001) Cognitive diversity and consensus in group decision making: the role of inputs, processes, and outcomes. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 85(2):310–335PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nutt PC (1986) Decision style and strategic decisions of top executives. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 30:39–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nutt PC (2002) Why decisions fail: avoiding the blunders and traps that Lead to debacles. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  36. Peeters MAG, van Tuijl HFJM, Rutte CG, Reymen IMMJ (2006) Personality and team performance: a meta-analysis. Eur J Personal 20(5):377–396 . Retrieved from.  https://doi.org/10.1002/per.588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Phillips WJ, Fletcher JM, Marks ADG, Hine DW (2016) Thinking styles and decision making: a meta-analysis. Psychol Bull 142(3):260–290PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rolfe P (2011) Transformational leadership theory: what every leader needs to know. Nurse Lead 9(2):54–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ruble TL, Cosier RA (1990) Effects of cognitive styles and decision setting on performance. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 46(2):283–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sauer J, Felsing T, Franke H, Ruttinger B (2006) Cognitive diversity and team performance in a complex multiple task environment. Ergonomics 49(10):934–954PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Scott SG, Bruce RA (1995) Decision-making style: the development and assessment of a new measure. Educ Psychol Meas 55(5):818–831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Simons T, Pelled LH, Smith KA (1999) Making use of difference: diversity, debate, and decision comprehensiveness in top management teams. Acad Manag J 42(6):662–673Google Scholar
  43. Smith DM, Kolb DA (1986) Leaming style inventory: user’s guide. McBer, BostonGoogle Scholar
  44. Stoyanov S, Jablokow K, Rosas SR, Wopereis IGJH, Kirschner PA (2017) Concept mapping—an effective method for identifying diversity and congruity in cognitive style. Eval Program Plann 60:238–244PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tegarden DP, Tegarden LF, Sheetz SD (2009) Cognitive factions in a top management team: surfacing and analyzing cognitive diversity using causal maps. Group Decis Negot 18:537–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tegarden DP, Tegarden LF, Smith W, Sheetz SD (2016) De-fusing organizational power using anonymity and cognitive factions in a participative strategic planning setting. Group Decis Negot 25(1):1–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tyler BB, Gnyawali DR (2009) Managerial collective cognitions: an examination of similarities and differences of cultural orientations. J Manag Stud 46(1):93–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Walton RE, McKersie RB (1965) A behavioral theory of labor negotiations. The economic journal, vol 76. McGraw Hill Book Company, LondonGoogle Scholar
  49. White KB (1984) MIS project teams: an investigation of cognitive style implications. MIS Q 8:95–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CNRS, DRM, [MLab]Université Paris-Dauphine, Université PSLParisFrance

Personalised recommendations