Abstract
In this chapter, we discuss and analyse the use of scenario interventions in organisations to overcome business-as-usual thinking—by promoting divergence of opinion and subsequent debate about the nature of the future. We show that cognitive biases at the level of individual participants in a scenario workshop can both help and hinder the progression of scenario thinking, and we go on to demonstrate how expert facilitation of the group process can help generate process-gain, with the result that individually held overconfidence is challenged and attenuated.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Ackerman, F., and C. Eden. 2012. Making strategy, mapping out strategic success. London: Sage.
Amason, A.C., and D.M. Schwieger. 1994. Resolving the paradox of conflict, strategic decision making and organisational performance. International Journal of Conflict Management 5: 236–253.
Bradfield, R. 2008. Cognitive barriers in the scenario development process. Advances in Developing Human Resources 10: 198–215.
Cairns, G., G. Wright, K. Van der Heijden, R. Bradfield, and G. Burt. 2006. Enhancing foresight between multiple agencies: Issues in the use of scenario thinking to overcome fragmentation. Futures 38: 1010–1025.
De Dreu, C. 2006. When too little or too much hurts: Evidence for a curvilinear relationship between task conflict and innovation in teams. Journal of Management 32: 83–107.
De Geus, A. 1988. Planning and learning. Harvard Business Review, March–April: 70–74.
De Geus, A. 1997. The living company. Harvard Business Review (Harvard Business Publishing) Reprint 97203: 51–59.
Eden, C. 1992. Strategic management as a social process. Journal of Management Studies 29: 799–811.
Eden, C., and J. Radford. 1990. Tackling strategic problems: The role of group decisions support. London: Sage.
Franco, A.L., and M. Meadows. 2007. Exploring new directions for research in problem structuring method: On role of cognitive style. Journal of Operational Research Society 58: 1621–1629.
Franco, A.L., M. Meadows, and S.J. Armstrong. 2013. Exploring individual differences in scenario planning workshops: A cognitive style framework. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 80: 723–734.
Gavetti, G.M., R. Henderson, and S. Giorgi. 2004. Kodak and the digital revolution (A). Harvard Business School Case Collection 705–448. (Revised November 2005)
Grinyer, P.H. 2000. A cognitive approach to group strategic decision taking: A discussion of evolved practice in the light of received results. Journal of Operational Research Society 51: 21–35.
Hodgkinson, G.P., and I. Clarke. 2007. Exploring the cognitive significance of organizational strategizing. Human Relations 60: 243–255.
Hodgkinson, G.P., and M.P. Healey. 2008. Toward a (pragmatic) science of strategic intervention: Design propositions for scenario planning. Organization Studies 29: 435–457.
Hodgkinson, G.P., and G. Wright. 2002. Confronting strategic inertia in a top management team: Learning from failure. Organizational Studies 23: 949–977.
Jung, C. 1923. Psychological types. London: Pantheon.
Kahneman, D. 2011. Thinking fast and slow. London: Penguin.
Korsgaard, M.A., D.M. Schweiger, and H.J. Sapienza. 1995. Building commitment, attachment and trust in strategic decision making teams: The role of procedural justice. Academy of Management Journal 38: 60–84.
Kuhn, K.M., and J.A. Sniezek. 1996. Confidence and uncertainty in judgmental forecasting: Differential effects of scenario presentation. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 9: 231–247.
Meissner, P., and T. Wulf. 2013. Cognitive benefits of scenario planning: Its impact on biases and decision quality. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 80(4): 801–814.
Miller, D. 1992. The Icarus paradox: How exceptional companies bring about their own downfall. Business Horizons 35(1): 24–36.
Moyer, K. 1996. Scenario planning at British Airways. Long Range Planning 29(2): 172–181.
Petit, V., and H. Bollaert. 2012. Flying too close to the sun? Hubris among CEOs and how to prevent it. Journal of Business Ethics 108: 265–283.
Phandis, S., C. Caplice, Y. Sheffi, and M. Singh. 2014. Effect of scenario planning on field experts’ judgment of long-range investment decisions. Strategic Management Journal 36: 1401–1411.
Phillips, L.D., and M.C. Phillips. 1993. Facilitated work groups: Theory and practice. The Journal of Operational Research Society 4: 533–549.
Schnaars, S.P., and M.T. Topol. 1987. The use of multiple scenarios in sales forecasting: An empirical test. International Journal of Forecasting 3: 405–419.
Schoemaker, P. 1993. Multiple scenario development: Its conceptual and behavioral foundation. Strategic Management Journal 14: 193–213.
Schoemaker, P.J.H., G.S. Day, and S.A. Snyder. 2013. Integrating organizational networks, weak signals, strategic radars and scenario planning. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 80: 815–824.
Schwartz, P. 2011. Learnings from the long view. San Francisco: Global Business Network.
Schweiger, D.M., and W.R. Sandberg. 1986. Group approaches for improving strategic decision making: A comparative analysis of dialectical enquiry, devils advocacy and consensus. Academy of Management Journal 29: 51–71.
Sull, D. N. 2005. Strategy as active waiting. Harvard Business Review (Harvard Business Publishing). Reprint R0509G: 1–11.
Tetlock, P.E. 2006. Expert political judgment: How good is it? How can we know? Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman. 1973. Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology 5(2): 207–232.
Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman. 1981. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211(4481): 453–458.
Van Der Heijden, K., R. Bradfield, G. Cairns, and G. Wright. 2002. The sixth sense, accelerating organizational learning with scenarios. Chichester: Wiley.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2016 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bryson, S., Grime, M., Murthy, A., Wright, G. (2016). Behavioral Issues in the Practical Application of Scenario Thinking: Cognitive Biases, Effective Group Facilitation and Overcoming Business-as-Usual Thinking. In: Kunc, M., Malpass, J., White, L. (eds) Behavioral Operational Research. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-53551-1_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-53551-1_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-53549-8
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-53551-1
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)