The following is a Academy of Management Managerial and Organizational
Cognition sponsored PDW?.
PDW: Collecting, Developing, and Using Group Cognition
Facilitated by Colin Eden and Fran Ackermann, Strathclyde Business School
Saturday 12:00pm - 2:00pm La Quinta Inn & Suites: Fiesta F
Abstract:
This PDW will allow participants to be involved in experiencing a computer
based networked system for collecting and using group cognition in both a
research and intervention setting. The workshop will: i) explore
collecting beliefs in the form of a causal map, allowing participants
directly to communicate with a representation of the developing map on a
public screen from computer consoles, ii) demonstrate the way in which the
group causal map can be used to facilitate changing group cognition, and
iii) show how group causal maps can be used to help management teams in
negotiating agreements with respect to the solution of messy problems, and
helping management teams develop strategy.
The PDW will therefore enable a ?hands-on? experience of an innovative
system for collecting, developing and using group cognition through the
development of causal maps. The system allows an interaction between PDW
participants in terms of belief structures about issues and views beyond
the superficial, and also to experience the analysis and evaluation of the
group causal map developed by participants. Participants will thus be
learning about, and suggesting, research uses in the context of group
cognition, but also be experiencing it in the active role of research
subjects.
If intending to be present then please bring a Windows laptop that runs
Internet Explorer and has wi-fi access. This is not essential, but would
allow full participation in the group support system.
For further information contact:
Colin Eden BSc PhD
Professor of Strategic Management and Management Science
Vice Dean and Director of the International Division
Strathclyde Business School
199 Cathedral Street
Glasgow
G4 0QU
T: +44 141 553 6155
E:
colin.eden@strath.ac.uk
Overview of the workshop:
Over the life of the MOC Division/Interest Group there has been a
continuing debate about the existence, and nature, of organizational and
group cognition ? is there such a thing, even though resumed (for example:
Bartunek, 1984; Bougon, Weick & Binkhorst, 1977)? Can such a reified
notion be helpful (as, for example, Calori, Lubatkin & Very, 1998; Weick &
Roberts, 1993)? Can it be collected and researched (examples include:
Axelrod, 1976; Bougon, 1992; Langfield-Smith, 1992)? In addition, there
has been interest in the role of interviews as a method for collecting
cognition given the extent that an interviewee will change their cognition
(reflecting Karl Weick?s well known aphorism ?how do I know what I think
until I hear what I say?). The PDW will provide an experiential vehicle
for exploring these issues.
Cognitive and causal mapping has been used extensively as a method for
representing cognition (for example, Bougon, 1983; Cossette & Audet, 1992;
Eden, 1992; Hodgkinson, Maule & Bown, 2004; Huff, 1990; Laukkanen, 1990),
where cognitive mapping is often taken to represent the beliefs of an
individual and causal mapping that of a group or organization (Stringer &
Bannister, 1979; Eden, Jones & Sims, 1979). Sometimes representations of
cognition are in the form of very small maps (usually for organizational
cognition, showing ~20 nodes), as compared to extensive, idiographic, and
subtle maps (usually for individuals ~ 90 nodes) (Bartunek, Gordon &
Weathersby, 1983; Eden & Ackermann, 1998).
Assuming that it is valid to consider a group constructing group
cognition, as they work together to agree decisions, solve problems, or
develop strategy (Boland, Greenberg, Park & Han, 1990), then the method
for capturing this map and its changing nature is likely to be a
challenge. The system used in the PDW encourages and permits the
collecting and analysing of large cognitive maps necessary when
considering group cognition.
In this PDW the use of a ?group support system? that allows the collection
of aggregated belief structure as a causal map will be introduced. The
system allows each member of a group to express their own beliefs to the
rest of the group as a causal belief that becomes a part of a group causal
map. The group support system will be demonstrated and evaluated as a
research and intervention tool by inviting the PDW participants to use the
system. They will become active participants in creating a group
cognition representation. The workshop thus will be ?hands-on? and
interactive throughout.
During the PDW a range of issues will be addressed by all of the
participants, namely: to what extent does such a system i) collect group
cognition? ii) adequately represent belief structures of the group? iii)
allow for real-time and appropriate analyses of the representation? iv)
provide a research data collection mechanism that will permit the
development of new knowledge and theories about group cognition? v)
provide a tool that allows group cognition representation in real time to
be used to facilitate strategy development and problem solving (Ackermann
& Eden, 2011; Eden & Ackermann, 1998; Huff & Jenkins, 2001)?
The group support system uses a specially designed software package ?
Group Explorer ? that enables participants to use their own laptop to
communicate through a wireless network. The network is controlled by
two ?master? computers: the first is a ?chauffeur? monitoring and managing
the activities of the participants and the second drives the publicly
visible representation of the developing causal map. This display of
belief structures builds on the use of Decision Explorer (a well-
established software package for the representation of causal maps) and
the belief maps are constructed following user controlled formalisms. The
system can allow the management of large maps through clustering
algorithms (up to 2000 nodes). The mapping software permits real time
analysis of maps: for example cluster analyses, hierarchical analyses, the
identification of high domain beliefs, and feedback loops (Bougon, Baird,
Komocar & Ross, 1990). The software is available to researchers and
interventionists.
The issues to be addressed in the PDW relate to:
i) Collecting group cognition
The PDW will allow an exploration of the role of anonymity in data
contributions to the construction of a group causal map. For example, to
what extent does a group mapping system benefit from anonymous input of
participants?
The system can allow the creation of group causal maps of significant
subtlety and detail in short periods of time (for example, greater than
100 nodes in 1 hour of group work). The PDW will therefore consider to
what extent does this provide more adequate and valid research data,
rather than, for example, superficial unthinking beliefs. Thus, to what
extent can such a system facilitate effective ?focus group? data
collection, where the research demands an understanding of causal beliefs
of a number of interacting research subjects?
ii) Representing belief structures of the group
The ?interviewees? are able to construct their own map (with relatively
little assistance from a researcher) and see the map grow through an
instant representation of causal beliefs. In addition, when required by
the researcher, the views of an individual can be seen in the context of
the views of others in the group ? thus, creating a group map. The PDW
will explore to what extent do the created causal maps represent
adequately group cognition?
iii) Analyzing group cognition
The PDW participants will experience the analyses of the group casual map
they have created. For example, the analyses may identify the relative
contribution of each participant to emergent clusters, and so the extent
to a single persons? views dominate or otherwise group cognition. Thus the
PDW will explore to what extent do the analyses detect the emergent
properties of group cognition (Eden, Ackermann & Cropper, 1992)?
iv) Research data collection for the development of new knowledge and
theories about group cognition
A continuous data log permits a time based exploration and analysis of
each person?s contributions and the extent to which they change their
beliefs and the saliency of their beliefs over the period of the session.
Similarly, the changing nature of group cognition can be undertaken
through the changing outcome from the various analyses. The PDW
participants will address the extent to which this facility provides rich
research opportunities ? particular with respect to the dynamics of group
cognition (Ackermann & Eden, 2010; Walsh, Henderson & Deighton, 1988).
v) Group cognition used to facilitate strategy development and
problem solving
Problem solving and strategy making typically takes place in small groups
within organizations. Group cognition, and its representation, is likely
to play an important role in the social processes of negotiating
agreements. Research in live settings (as opposed to students groups) is
challenging. The use of a group causal mapping system may facilitate such
research through an action research and case study method. These research
methods are problematic in terms of current views about research validity,
but may, nevertheless offer new insights into the realities of
organizational life. Techniques for strategy making ? including
collecting and using group cognition about competitive advantage,
stakeholders, strategic issues, and organizational purpose - are well
established. These techniques may offer significant research
opportunities that relate to ?strategizing-activities-and-practice??
The workshop?s format:
Participants will be invited to become a part of a group session where
each individual will be invited to contribute to the construction of a
causal map of the group cognition with respect to a topic likely to be of
interest to all. Possible vehicles for constructing a group map might be:
to address the conference theme of East meets West by asking the group for
the views on what will develop better East-West relationships within
academia; or wider topics such as: relieving world poverty, or protecting
the environment through the use of renewable energy.
To be actively involved, each participant will need a laptop of their own
or become a buddy of another participant who has a laptop. Those who do
not plan to attend all of the workshop will be invited to be observers
only.
As the workshop unfolds participation in constructing the group map will
be paused to allow, in turn, discussion about i) the usefulness and
validity of the system as a research tool for collecting group cognition,
ii) the appropriateness of analysis techniques embedded in the software
for research purposes ? particularly with respect to attaining validity
from the group about the conclusions suggested by analysis, iii) the
significance of the collection and analysis of group cognition for group
problem solving and strategy development, and so iv) the significance of
group cognition research in the context of organizationally based research
on negotiating and agreeing problem resolution, with the concomitant
implications for v) action research through active consulting.
Thus, the PDW is planned for a two hour session in which active
involvement is expected throughout.
References
Ackermann, F. and Eden, C. 2010. The Role of Group Support Systems:
Negotiating Safe Energy. In Kilgour, D. M. and Eden, C. (Eds.), Handbook
of Group Decision and Negotiation: 285-299. Dordrecht: Springer.
Ackermann, F. and Eden, C. 2011. Making Strategy: Mapping Out Strategic
Success. London: Sage.
Axelrod, R. 1976. Structure of Decision. Princeton: University of
Princeton Press.
Bartunek, J. 1984. Changing interpretative schemes and organizational
restructuring: the example of a religious order. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 29: 355-372 .
Bartunek, J. M., Gordon, J. R., and Weathersby, R. P. 1983. Developing
complicated understanding
in administrators. Academy of Management Review, 8: 273-284.
Boland, R. J., Greenberg, R. H., Park, S. H., and Han, I. 1990. Mapping
the Process of Problem Reformulation: Implications for Understanding
Strategic Thought. In Huff, A. S. (Eds.), Mapping Strategic Thought: New
York: Wiley.
Bougon, M., Weick, K., and Binkhorst, D. 1977. Cognition in organizations:
analysis of the Utrecht Jazz Orchestra. Administrative Science Quarterly,
22: 609-632.
Bougon, M. G. 1983. Uncovering Cognitive Maps: The Self Q Technique. In
Morgan, G. (Eds.), Beyond Method: 173-188. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Bougon, M. G. 1992. Congregate cognitive maps: A unified dynamic theory of
organization and strategy. Journal of Management Studies, 29: 369-389.
Bougon, M. G., Baird, N., Komocar, J., and Ross, W. 1990. Identifying
strategic loops: the Self-Q interviews. In Huff, A. S. (Eds.), Mapping
Strategic Thought: New York: Wiley.
Calori, R., Lubatkin, M., and Very, P. 1998. The Development of National
Collective Knowledge in Management. In Eden, C. and Spender, J.-C. (Eds.),
Managerial and Organizational Cognition: London: Sage.
Cossette, P. and Audet, M. 1992. Mapping of idiosyncratic Schema. Journal
of Management Studies, 29: 325-348.
Eden, C. 1992. On the Nature of Cognitive Maps. Journal of Management
Studies, 29: 261-265.
Eden, C. and Ackermann, F. 1998. Analysing and Comparing Idiographic
Causal Maps. In Eden, C. and Spender, J-C (Eds.), Managerial and
Organizational Cognition: 192-209. London: Sage.
Eden, C and Ackermann, F 1998. Making Strategy: The Journey of Strategic
Management. London: Sage.
Eden, C., Ackermann, F., and Cropper, S. 1992. The Analysis of Cause Maps.
Journal of Management Studies, 29: 309-324.
Eden, C., Jones, S., and Sims, D. 1979. Thinking in Organisations.
London: Macmillan.
Hodgkinson, G. P., Maule, A. J., and Bown, N. J. 2004. Causal cognitive
mapping in the organizational strategy field: A comparison of alternative
elicitation procedures. Organizational Research Methods, 7: 3-26.
Huff, A. and Jenkins, M. Editors 2001. Mapping Strategy. London: Wiley.
Huff, A. S. Editor 1990. Mapping Strategic Thought. New York: Wiley.
Langfield-Smith, K. 1992. Exploring the need for a shared cognitive map.
Journal of Management Studies, 29: 349-368.
Laukkanen, M. 1990. Describing Management Cognition: The Cause Mapping
Approach. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 6: 197-216.
Stringer, P. and Bannister, D. Eds. 1979. Constructs of Sociality and
Individuality. London: Academic Press.
Walsh, J. P., Henderson, C. M., and Deighton, J. 1988. Negotiated belief
structures and decision performance: an empirical investigation.
Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 42: 194-216.
Weick, K. E. and Roberts, K. H. 1993. Collective Mind in Organizations:
Heedful Interrelating on Flight Decks. Administrative Science Quarterly,
38: 357-381.
---
COGNET@aomlists.pace.edu
Discussion list for the AoM Managerial & Organizational Cognition Division
To post messages:
cognet@aomlists.pace.edu
To (un)subscribe:
http://aomlists.pace.edu (then select Subscriber?s Corner and follow the instructions).