IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jadmsc/v10y2020i2p29-d355123.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Influence of Core Self-Evaluations on Group Decision Making Processes: A Laboratory Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Matteo Cristofaro

    (Department of Management and Law, University of Rome ‘Tor Vergata’, 00133 Roma, Italy)

  • Pier Luigi Giardino

    (Department of Management and Law, University of Rome ‘Tor Vergata’, 00133 Roma, Italy)

  • Luna Leoni

    (Department of Management and Law, University of Rome ‘Tor Vergata’, 00133 Roma, Italy)

Abstract

The personal trait called Core Self-Evaluations (CSE) has been receiving increasing attention from behavioral strategy scholars due to its ability to predict job performance and to explain some facets of decision-making processes. However, despite previous studies hypothesizing that managers with high values of CSE are intuitive thinkers, beyond any doubt of their capacities and that they significantly lead to positive results for their organization, no one has empirically investigated these assumptions. This gap can be substantiated by the following research question: “ How do high Core Self-Evaluations influence team decision-making processes? ”. Answering it provides insights on how the evaluations that decision makers make about situations (and the consequent actions that are implemented) highly depend on decision makers’ inner traits and their effect on cognition. To fill this gap, 120 graduate students—divided into groups of four—took part in a simulation game and were asked to make decisions acting the role of General Manager of a small-sized manufacturing firm. Tests aimed at identifying the CSE and intuitive/reflecting thinking approach of participants were administered; moreover, the performance resulting from their decision-making processes and their estimation of reached results were collected. Results show that an average level of CSE is preferable to balance intuitive and reflective thinking, as well as avoiding overconfidence bias and reaching the best performance possible. This work suggests that there is a huge misattribution in considering a high level of CSE as being beneficial for decision-making processes and consequent performance.

Suggested Citation

  • Matteo Cristofaro & Pier Luigi Giardino & Luna Leoni, 2020. "The Influence of Core Self-Evaluations on Group Decision Making Processes: A Laboratory Experiment," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-16, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jadmsc:v:10:y:2020:i:2:p:29-:d:355123
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3387/10/2/29/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3387/10/2/29/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nathan J. Hiller & Donald C. Hambrick, 2005. "Conceptualizing executive hubris: the role of (hyper‐)core self‐evaluations in strategic decision‐making," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(4), pages 297-319, April.
    2. Busic-Sontic, Ante & Czap, Natalia V. & Fuerst, Franz, 2017. "The role of personality traits in green decision-making," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 313-328.
    3. Carlstrom, Charles T & Fuerst, Timothy S, 1997. "Agency Costs, Net Worth, and Business Fluctuations: A Computable General Equilibrium Analysis," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 87(5), pages 893-910, December.
    4. Guoli Chen & Craig Crossland & Shuqing Luo, 2015. "Making the same mistake all over again: CEO overconfidence and corporate resistance to corrective feedback," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(10), pages 1513-1535, October.
    5. Zacharakis, Andrew L. & Shepherd, Dean A., 2001. "The nature of information and overconfidence on venture capitalists' decision making," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 311-332, July.
    6. Hoppe, Eva I. & Kusterer, David J., 2011. "Behavioral biases and cognitive reflection," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 110(2), pages 97-100, February.
    7. Kramer, Roderick M. & Newton, Elizabeth & Pommerenke, Pamela L., 1993. "Self-Enhancement Biases and Negotiator Judgment: Effects of Self-Esteem and Mood," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 110-133, October.
    8. Cristofaro, Matteo, 2020. "“I feel and think, therefore I am”: An Affect-Cognitive Theory of management decisions," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 344-355.
    9. Matteo Cristofaro, 2016. "Cognitive styles in dynamic decision making: a laboratory experiment," International Journal of Management and Decision Making, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 15(1), pages 53-82.
    10. Daylian M. Cain & Don A. Moore & Uriel Haran, 2015. "Making sense of overconfidence in market entry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(1), pages 1-18, January.
    11. Gianpaolo Abatecola & Matteo Cristofaro, 2019. "Ingredients of Sustainable CEO Behaviour: Theory and Practice," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-15, April.
    12. Gudmundsson, Sveinn Vidar & Lechner, Christian, 2013. "Cognitive biases, organization, and entrepreneurial firm survival," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 278-294.
    13. Irene Goll & Abdul M. A. Rasheed, 1997. "Rational decision‐making and firm performance: the moderating role of the environment," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(7), pages 583-591, August.
    14. Shane Frederick, 2005. "Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(4), pages 25-42, Fall.
    15. Cristofaro, Matteo, 2019. "The role of affect in management decisions: A systematic review," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 6-17.
    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. Matteo Cristofaro & Maria José Sousa & José Carlos Sanchéz-Garcia & Aron Larsson, 2021. "Contextualized Behavior for Improving Managerial and Entrepreneurial Decision-Making," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-5, February.
    2. Matteo Cristofaro & Pier Luigi Giardino, 2020. "Core Self-Evaluations, Self-Leadership, and the Self-Serving Bias in Managerial Decision Making: A Laboratory Experiment," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-23, September.
    3. Jesús Fernando Bejarano-Auqui, 2024. "Model of Business Management Based on the Theories of Management Thinking of the Mypes," Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, Richtmann Publishing Ltd, vol. 13, January.

    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. Matteo Cristofaro & Pier Luigi Giardino, 2020. "Core Self-Evaluations, Self-Leadership, and the Self-Serving Bias in Managerial Decision Making: A Laboratory Experiment," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-23, September.
    2. Anderson, Irina & Thoma, Volker, 2021. "The edge of reason: A thematic analysis of how professional financial traders understand analytical decision making," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 304-314.
    3. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Mjelde, James W., 2020. "Product availability in discrete choice experiments with private goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    4. Matteo Cristofaro & Maria José Sousa & José Carlos Sanchéz-Garcia & Aron Larsson, 2021. "Contextualized Behavior for Improving Managerial and Entrepreneurial Decision-Making," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-5, February.
    5. Alós-Ferrer, Carlos & Hügelschäfer, Sabine, 2016. "Faith in intuition and cognitive reflection," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 61-70.
    6. Corgnet, Brice & DeSantis, Mark & Porter, David, 2020. "The distribution of information and the price efficiency of markets," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    7. Jinrui Pan & Jason Shachat & Sijia Wei, 2020. "Cognitive reflection and economic order quantity inventory management: An experimental investigation," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 41(6), pages 998-1009, September.
    8. Ray Saadaoui Mallek & Mohamed Albaity, 2019. "Individual differences and cognitive reflection across gender and nationality the case of the United Arab Emirates," Cogent Economics & Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(1), pages 1567965-156, January.
    9. Kai Duttle & Keigo Inukai, 2015. "Complexity Aversion: Influences of Cognitive Abilities, Culture and System of Thought," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 35(2), pages 846-855.
    10. Brice Corgnet & Cary Deck & Mark DeSantis & David Porter, 2022. "Forecasting Skills in Experimental Markets: Illusion or Reality?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(7), pages 5216-5232, July.
    11. Mohammad Noori, 2016. "Cognitive reflection as a predictor of susceptibility to behavioral anomalies," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(1), pages 114-120, January.
    12. Daniel J. Benjamin & Sebastian A. Brown & Jesse M. Shapiro, 2013. "Who Is ‘Behavioral’? Cognitive Ability And Anomalous Preferences," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 11(6), pages 1231-1255, December.
    13. Ruffle, Bradley J. & Wilson, Anne E., 2019. "Tat will tell: Tattoos and time preferences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 566-585.
    14. Antonio Mastrogiorgio & Enrico Petracca, 2014. "Numerals as triggers of System 1 and System 2 in the ‘bat and ball’ problem," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 13(1), pages 135-148, June.
    15. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga Jr., Rodolfo M., 2017. "When does real become consequential in non-hypothetical choice experiments?," 2018 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2018, Jacksonville, Florida 266327, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    16. Andreea N. Kiss & Dirk Libaers & Pamela S. Barr & Tang Wang & Miles A. Zachary, 2020. "CEO cognitive flexibility, information search, and organizational ambidexterity," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(12), pages 2200-2233, December.
    17. David H. Weng & Yasuhiro Yamakawa, 2023. "I believe I can fly: how target venture CEO overconfidence affects acquisition completion," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 61(1), pages 127-151, June.
    18. Benjamin Enke & Uri Gneezy & Brian Hall & David Martin & Vadim Nelidov & Theo Offerman & Jeroen van de Ven, 2020. "Cognitive Biases: Mistakes or Missing Stakes?," CESifo Working Paper Series 8168, CESifo.
    19. Joshua Zonca & Giorgio Coricelli & Luca Polonio, 2020. "Gaze patterns disclose the link between cognitive reflection and sophistication in strategic interaction," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(2), pages 230-245, March.
    20. Ji Yong Lee & Rodolfo M. Nayga & Cary Deck & Andreas C. Drichoutis, 2020. "Cognitive Ability and Bidding Behavior in Second Price Auctions: An Experimental Study," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 102(5), pages 1494-1510, October.

    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:gam:jadmsc:v:10:y:2020:i:2:p:29-:d:355123. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.