IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v276y2019i3p1044-1055.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How stock-flow failure and general cognitive ability impact performance in operational dynamic control tasks

Author

Listed:
  • Strohhecker, Jürgen
  • Leyer, Michael

Abstract

Previous research has highlighted the importance of individual factors predicting human beings’ relatively poor performance in controlling dynamic operational systems. Taking an industrial and organizational (IO) psychology perspective within a behavioral operations research context, this study focuses on erroneous stock-flow thinking and general cognitive ability. It uses data from laboratory experiments to test a mediating structural equation model firmly grounded in IO psychology theory, proposing both a direct concave impact of general cognitive ability on control task performance and an indirect concave effect mediated by stock-flow thinking. With our results we are the first to demonstrate that stock-flow thinking serves as a mediator of general cognitive ability on performance, while at the same time, general cognitive ability non-linearly impacts performance. These findings contribute to theory building in behavioral operational research and demonstrate how adoption of perspectives other than the traditional paradigms used can help. It also has practical implications as it improves the relative assessment of different levers to increase operational control performance. We find that the total impact of general cognitive ability on control performance is higher than the direct effect of stock-flow thinking. Therefore, companies should add stock-flow thinking tests to their personnel selection toolbox, but put more weight on selecting operational managers with high cognitive abilities and somewhat less weight on training efforts that aim to reduce stock-flow failures.

Suggested Citation

  • Strohhecker, Jürgen & Leyer, Michael, 2019. "How stock-flow failure and general cognitive ability impact performance in operational dynamic control tasks," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 276(3), pages 1044-1055.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:276:y:2019:i:3:p:1044-1055
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2019.01.048
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221719300839
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ejor.2019.01.048?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Luccasen, R. Andrew & Thomas, M. Kathleen, 2014. "Monetary incentives versus class credit: Evidence from a large classroom trust experiment," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 232-235.
    2. Strohhecker, Jürgen & Größler, Andreas, 2013. "Do personal traits influence inventory management performance?—The case of intelligence, personality, interest and knowledge," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(1), pages 37-50.
    3. Coyle, R. G., 1983. "The technical elements of the system dynamics approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 14(4), pages 359-370, December.
    4. Camerer, Colin F & Hogarth, Robin M, 1999. "The Effects of Financial Incentives in Experiments: A Review and Capital-Labor-Production Framework," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 7-42, December.
    5. Cronin, Matthew A. & Gonzalez, Cleotilde & Sterman, John D., 2009. "Why don't well-educated adults understand accumulation? A challenge to researchers, educators, and citizens," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 116-130, January.
    6. Arunachalam Narayanan & Brent B. Moritz, 2015. "Decision Making and Cognition in Multi-Echelon Supply Chains: An Experimental Study," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 24(8), pages 1216-1234, August.
    7. Gary E. Bolton & Elena Katok, 2008. "Learning by Doing in the Newsvendor Problem: A Laboratory Investigation of the Role of Experience and Feedback," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 10(3), pages 519-538, September.
    8. John D. Sterman, 1989. "Modeling Managerial Behavior: Misperceptions of Feedback in a Dynamic Decision Making Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(3), pages 321-339, March.
    9. Jürgen Strohhecker, 2016. "Factors influencing strategy implementation decisions: an evaluation of a balanced scorecard cockpit, intelligence, and knowledge," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 89-119, February.
    10. Leopold-Wildburger, Ulrike & Strohhecker, Jürgen, 2017. "Strategy map concepts in a balanced scorecard cockpit improve performanceAuthor-Name: Hu, Bo," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 258(2), pages 664-676.
    11. Brown Kruse, Jamie & Thompson, Mark A., 2001. "A comparison of salient rewards in experiments: money and class points," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 113-117, December.
    12. Sterman, John., 1994. "Learning in and about complex systems," Working papers 3660-94., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    13. John D. Sterman & Linda Booth Sweeney, 2002. "Cloudy skies: assessing public understanding of global warming," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 18(2), pages 207-240, June.
    14. Becker, Kai Helge, 2016. "An outlook on behavioural OR – Three tasks, three pitfalls, one definition," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 806-815.
    15. Brent Moritz & Enno Siemsen & Mirko Kremer, 2014. "Judgmental Forecasting: Cognitive Reflection and Decision Speed," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 23(7), pages 1146-1160, July.
    16. Van den Bergh, Jorne & Beliën, Jeroen & De Bruecker, Philippe & Demeulemeester, Erik & De Boeck, Liesje, 2013. "Personnel scheduling: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 226(3), pages 367-385.
    17. Shane Frederick, 2005. "Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(4), pages 25-42, Fall.
    18. Hämäläinen, Raimo P. & Luoma, Jukka & Saarinen, Esa, 2013. "On the importance of behavioral operational research: The case of understanding and communicating about dynamic systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(3), pages 623-634.
    19. Mark Paich & John D. Sterman, 1993. "Boom, Bust, and Failures to Learn in Experimental Markets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(12), pages 1439-1458, December.
    20. Frisch, Deborah, 1993. "Reasons for Framing Effects," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 54(3), pages 399-429, April.
    21. Sterman, John & Booth Sweeney, Linda, 2002. "Cloudy Skies: Assessing Public Understanding of Global Warming," Working papers 4361-02, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    22. Holweg, Matthias & Bicheno, John, 2002. "Supply chain simulation - a tool for education, enhancement and endeavour," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(2), pages 163-175, July.
    23. Brocklesby, John, 2016. "The what, the why and the how of behavioural operational research—An invitation to potential sceptics," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 796-805.
    24. Diehl, Ernst & Sterman, John D., 1995. "Effects of Feedback Complexity on Dynamic Decision Making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 198-215, May.
    25. Scherbaum, Charles A. & Goldstein, Harold W. & Yusko, Kenneth P. & Ryan, Rachel & Hanges, Paul J., 2012. "Intelligence 2.0: Reestablishing a Research Program on g in I–O Psychology," Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(2), pages 128-148, June.
    26. Sterman, John D., 1989. "Misperceptions of feedback in dynamic decision making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 301-335, June.
    27. O'Keefe, Robert M., 2016. "Experimental behavioural research in operational research: What we know and what we might come to know," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 899-907.
    28. Rachel Croson & Karen Donohue, 2006. "Behavioral Causes of the Bullwhip Effect and the Observed Value of Inventory Information," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(3), pages 323-336, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Manuel Brauch & Andreas Größler, 2022. "Holistic versus analytic thinking orientation and its relationship to the bullwhip effect," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 38(2), pages 121-134, April.
    2. Sasongko Budi & Widarni Eny Lestari & Bawono Suryaning, 2020. "Training Analysis and Locus of Control on Self Efficacy and Work Ability of Employees," HOLISTICA – Journal of Business and Public Administration, Sciendo, vol. 11(1), pages 29-50, April.
    3. Hendijani, Rosa, 2021. "The effect of thinking style on dynamic systems performance: The mediating role of stock-flow understanding," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    4. Lane, David C. & Rouwette, Etiënne A.J.A., 2023. "Towards a behavioural system dynamics: Exploring its scope and delineating its promise," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 306(2), pages 777-794.
    5. Rosa Hendijani, 2021. "Analytical thinking, Little's Law understanding, and stock‐flow performance: two empirical studies," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 37(2-3), pages 99-125, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rosa Hendijani, 2021. "Analytical thinking, Little's Law understanding, and stock‐flow performance: two empirical studies," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 37(2-3), pages 99-125, April.
    2. Hendijani, Rosa, 2021. "The effect of thinking style on dynamic systems performance: The mediating role of stock-flow understanding," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    3. Lane, David C. & Rouwette, Etiënne A.J.A., 2023. "Towards a behavioural system dynamics: Exploring its scope and delineating its promise," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 306(2), pages 777-794.
    4. Strohhecker, Jürgen & Größler, Andreas, 2013. "Do personal traits influence inventory management performance?—The case of intelligence, personality, interest and knowledge," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(1), pages 37-50.
    5. Franco, L. Alberto & Hämäläinen, Raimo P. & Rouwette, Etiënne A.J.A. & Leppänen, Ilkka, 2021. "Taking stock of behavioural OR: A review of behavioural studies with an intervention focus," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 293(2), pages 401-418.
    6. Arunachalam Narayanan & Brent B. Moritz, 2015. "Decision Making and Cognition in Multi-Echelon Supply Chains: An Experimental Study," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 24(8), pages 1216-1234, August.
    7. Jürgen Strohhecker & Andreas Größler, 2012. "Implementing Sustainable Business Strategies," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(6), pages 547-570, November.
    8. Cronin, Matthew A. & Gonzalez, Cleotilde & Sterman, John D., 2009. "Why don't well-educated adults understand accumulation? A challenge to researchers, educators, and citizens," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 116-130, January.
    9. Yang, Y. & Lin, J. & Liu, G. & Zhou, L., 2021. "The behavioural causes of bullwhip effect in supply chains: A systematic literature review," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 236(C).
    10. David C. Lane & Birgit Kopainsky & David C. Lane, 2017. "‘Behavioural System Dynamics’: A Very Tentative and Slightly Sceptical Map of the Territory," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(4), pages 414-423, July.
    11. Leopold-Wildburger, Ulrike & Strohhecker, Jürgen, 2017. "Strategy map concepts in a balanced scorecard cockpit improve performanceAuthor-Name: Hu, Bo," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 258(2), pages 664-676.
    12. Varun Dutt & Cleotilde Gonzalez, 2012. "Human control of climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 111(3), pages 497-518, April.
    13. Stephen A. Spiller & Nicholas Reinholtz & Sam J. Maglio, 2020. "Judgments Based on Stocks and Flows: Different Presentations of the Same Data Can Lead to Opposing Inferences," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(5), pages 2213-2231, May.
    14. Haines, Russell & Hough, Jill & Haines, Douglas, 2017. "A metacognitive perspective on decision making in supply chains: Revisiting the behavioral causes of the bullwhip effect," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C), pages 7-20.
    15. Langley, Paul A. & Morecroft, John D. W., 2004. "Performance and learning in a simulation of oil industry dynamics," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 155(3), pages 715-732, June.
    16. Gogi, Anastasia & Tako, Antuela A. & Robinson, Stewart, 2016. "An experimental investigation into the role of simulation models in generating insights," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 931-944.
    17. Federico Cosenz & Guido Noto, 2016. "Applying System Dynamics Modelling to Strategic Management: A Literature Review," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(6), pages 703-741, November.
    18. Thompson, James P. & Howick, Susan & Belton, Valerie, 2016. "Critical Learning Incidents in system dynamics modelling engagements," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 945-958.
    19. Howick, Susan, 2005. "Using system dynamics models with litigation audiences," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 162(1), pages 239-250, April.
    20. Perera, H. Niles & Hurley, Jason & Fahimnia, Behnam & Reisi, Mohsen, 2019. "The human factor in supply chain forecasting: A systematic review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 274(2), pages 574-600.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:276:y:2019:i:3:p:1044-1055. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.