| Summary: | Recent practice-based approaches to strategic decision-making research have
emphasized the importance of gaining a deeper understanding how managers think, act,
and interpret strategic decisions in practice. This focus on the micro aspects of strategic
decision-making has emerged from the critique that much of the ‘traditional’ decision-
making theory may not be actionable in practice. Research should therefore
concentrate on what managers do when they engage in strategic activities. This
practice-based perspective considers decision-making as a situated, context specific
activity, and research into the enactment of decisions constitutes an important part of
understanding decision-making. Such micro focus may reveal insights to the
similarities and differences between organizations and teams in the ways in which their
members approach decision-making tasks.
Studies on decision-making as a situated activity provide valuable insight into
managerial practice. However, few studies focus on the role of epistemic objects in
decision-making. This thesis makes a contribution by investigating the role of epistemic
objects as situated material artifacts in the collective decision-making context. Drawing
on extensive review of the literature on epistemic objects, sociomateriality, causal maps,
group decision-making, and managerial attribution biases, the thesis identifies an
under-researched area in our understanding how epistemic objects interact with
human activity in strategy making.
As an inductive research undertaking, the thesis makes a theoretical
contribution to knowledge by developing a conceptual framework how causal maps as
epistemic objects are enacted, interpreted, and used as a sociomaterial decision-making
‘tool-in-use’ by actors. The research reveals how the enactment of causal maps as a ‘safety net’ in collective decision-making increases cognitive conflict in decision-making
groups that results in the consideration of multiple decision outcomes and the
development of innovative solutions to decision problems. The research also shows
how the enactment of causal maps increases decision acceptance among the decision-
makers by making their individual knowledge claims visible to other group members,
and by motivating them to work collectively towards a shared goal. Furthermore, the
research reveals how causal maps act as a ‘shock absorber’ by deflecting the decision-
makers’ frustration and anger away from personal confrontation among group
members thereby preventing the emergence of affective conflict. Finally, the research
results indicate that the enactment of causal maps mitigates managerial biases such as
groupthink and the escalation of commitment bias. In terms of managerial contribution
the thesis offers a deeper insight to the affordances of causal maps, and how managers
can use causal mapping as a practical decision-making ‘tool-in-use’ to improve the
quality of decision-making processes by structuring conversations and debate,
developing a shared understanding of decision problems, and achieving closure and
decision acceptance of the decision outcomes.
The thesis concludes by making recommendations for future research and the
testing of the conceptual framework that may provide useful guidance for the future
development of strategy practice and managerial ‘tools-in-use’ for effective strategy
work.
|
|---|
