The Effects of Assumptions and Biases on Leadership Problem Solving and How to Mitigate Them
System 1 is fast, automatic, effortless, associative and often emotionally charged, and thus difficult to control or modify; and “System 2,” which is slower, serial, effortful, and deliberately controlled, and thus relatively flexible and potentially rule-governed. System 1 is essentially an autopilot system in which we do things easier and through repetition. It filters out things in the environment that are irrelevant at that moment; it has high efficiency. It is based on the idea that neurons that fire together, wire together. It primes an idea so that one idea is more easily activated (wakening of associations). System 1 has a bias towards making thinking cheap and enables one to deal with information overload. System 2 corrects and adjusts the perceptual blindness associated with system 1. It allows flexibility, giving nuance and precision more importance. Basically, system 1 is more associative and intuitive while system 2 is analytical and deliberative. This is the tendency to judge the frequency or likelihood of an event by the ease with which relevant instances come to mind. It operates on the assumption that if something can be recalled, it must be important or more important than alternative solutions that are not as readily recalled. A decision maker relies upon knowledge that is readily available rather than examine other alternatives or procedures; as a result, individuals tend to weigh their judgments toward more recent information, making new opinions biased toward that latest news.
In addition, a range of other credible articles is also noted in the study under discussion that indicates the scholar nature of the latter. The study assumptions may be referred to the hypotheses that were signalized earlier in this paper. As for the limitations, the authors relate them to the survey methods, pinpointing that students composed the sample, yet some of them were full-time workers. The above fact may create some bias in the validity of the results. The second limitation concerns the fact that the mentioned bias could affect the results of the study. The utilization of cross-sectional data is the third limitation, implying limited casualty consideration.
So rather than rely on the wisdom of experienced chairmen, the humility of CEOs, or the standard organizational checks and balances, we urge all involved in important decisions to explicitly consider whether red flags exist and, if they do, to lobby for appropriate safeguards. Decisions that involve no red flags need many fewer checks and balances and thus less bureaucracy. Some of those resources could then be devoted to protecting the decisions most at risk with more intrusive and robust protections.
Avey, James B., et al. “Exploring the Process of Ethical Leadership: The Mediating Role of Employee Voice and Psychological Ownership.” Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 107, no. 1, 2012, pp. 21–34.
Hassan, Shahidul, et al. “Ethical and Empowering Leadership and Leader Effectiveness.” Journal of Managerial Psychology, vol. 28, no. 2, 2013, pp. 133–146.
Johansson, Catrin, et al. “Conceptualizing Communicative Leadership.” Corporate Communications: An International Journal, vol. 19, no. 2, 2014, pp. 147–165.
Martin, S. L., et al. “Directive versus Empowering Leadership: A Field Experiment Comparing Impacts on Task Proficiency and Proactivity.” Academy of Management Journal, vol. 56, no. 5, 2012, pp. 1372–1395.
Mayer, D. M., et al. “Who Displays Ethical Leadership, and Why Does It Matter? An Examination of Antecedents and Consequences of Ethical Leadership.” Academy of Management Journal, vol. 55, no. 1, 2012, pp. 151–171.