IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Thinking about Thinking: Insights for Junior Officers in the New Zealand Defence Force


  • Margetts, Roger


As military thinkers our thinking is influenced by cognitive shortcuts or heuristics, and flawed by the associated predictable errors or biases. We are largely unaware of these effects and how they influence our decision outcomes. The current research seeks to create an approach that develops an awareness of heuristics and biases, and their effects on decision making. The aim is to answer two questions: (1) Have heuristics and biases important to the Military Appreciation Process (MAP) been identified? If so, have steps been formally taken to include heuristics and biases in the training and use of the MAP?; (2) Do instructors of junior officers believe that a heuristics and biases checklist could be developed to improve the use of the MAP by junior officers? A review of the heuristics and biases literature revealed two relevant outcomes. One was that the body of original and updated academic research on heuristics and biases and the effects on decision making remain valid. The second is that other military organisations acknowledge these effects and discuss measures to address them. However they have not taken the next step and formally enacted these measures. Exploratory qualitative research was undertaken to establish perspectives and understandings of the MAP by instructors and a key informant. Semi-structured interviews that incorporated a card sort exercise were conducted to identify which biases matched each step in the MAP. Participants strongly believe there is benefit and usefulness in developing a checklist that addresses the heuristics and biases associated with using the MAP. The results of the card sort exercise were analysed against criteria in three reference models – consensus, theoretical (based on a synthesis of the literature), and best fit. Parameters of fit were analysed at four levels. The analysis is summarised in a deceptively simple model that forms the basis of a usable checklist. The current research contributes to the heuristics and biases literature as it relates to military decision making processes. The mutual understanding of key heuristics and biases, and their match to individual steps of the MAP is seen as an important resource in the development of a checklist. Both instructors and a key informant believe that the checklist will assist them in improving the use of the MAP by junior officers.

Suggested Citation

  • Margetts, Roger, 2016. "Thinking about Thinking: Insights for Junior Officers in the New Zealand Defence Force," MBA Research Papers 6142, Victoria University of Wellington, School of Management.
  • Handle: RePEc:vuw:vuwmba:6142

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Stanley Deetz, 1996. "Crossroads---Describing Differences in Approaches to Organization Science: Rethinking Burrell and Morgan and Their Legacy," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(2), pages 191-207, April.
    2. Jim Sheffield, 2005. "Systemic knowledge and the V-model," International Journal of Business Information Systems, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 1(1/2), pages 83-101.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Mark G. Edwards, 2014. "Misunderstanding Metatheorizing," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(6), pages 720-744, November.
    2. Mats Alvesson & Jörgen Sandberg, 2020. "The Problematizing Review: A Counterpoint to Elsbach and Van Knippenberg’s Argument for Integrative Reviews," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(6), pages 1290-1304, September.
    3. Juha Kettunen, 2016. "Relationship Between Mission Statement And Scope Of Business: Evidence From Finland," Review of Business and Finance Studies, The Institute for Business and Finance Research, vol. 7(1), pages 69-78.
    4. Leonel Prieto, 2018. "Leadership Multiplicities before and during the Post-Truth Era," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 9(1), pages 1-23, December.
    5. Stephan Grapentin & Maureen Ayikoru, 2019. "Destination Assessment and Certification: Challenges and Opportunities," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 11(13), pages 1-24, July.
    6. Izhak Berkovich, 2018. "Beyond qualitative/quantitative structuralism: the positivist qualitative research and the paradigmatic disclaimer," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 52(5), pages 2063-2077, September.
    7. Sara L. McGaughey, 2006. "Reading as a method of inquiry: Representations of the born global," Management International Review, Springer, vol. 46(4), pages 461-480, August.
    8. Goles, Tim & Hirschheim, Rudy, 2000. "The paradigm is dead, the paradigm is dead...long live the paradigm: the legacy of Burrell and Morgan," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 249-268, June.
    9. Gallhofer, Sonja & Haslam, Jim & Yonekura, Akira, 2013. "Further critical reflections on a contribution to the methodological issues debate in accounting," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 191-206.
    10. Susanne Baumann & Othmar M Lehner & Heimo Losbichler, 2015. "A push-and-pull factor model for environmental management accounting: a contingency perspective," Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(3), pages 155-177, July.
    11. Douglas J. Crookes & Martin P. De Wit, 2014. "Is System Dynamics Modelling of Relevance to Neoclassical Economists?," South African Journal of Economics, Economic Society of South Africa, vol. 82(2), pages 181-192, June.
    12. Eero Vaara & Janne Tienari, 2011. "On the Narrative Construction of Multinational Corporations: An Antenarrative Analysis of Legitimation and Resistance in a Cross-Border Merger," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(2), pages 370-390, April.
    13. John Mingers, 2001. "Combining IS Research Methods: Towards a Pluralist Methodology," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 12(3), pages 240-259, September.
    14. Don Kerr & Luke Houghton, 2014. "The dark side of ERP implementations: narratives of domination, confusion and disruptive ambiguity," Prometheus, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(3), pages 281-295, September.
    15. Michael J. Zyphur & Dean C. Pierides, 2017. "Is Quantitative Research Ethical? Tools for Ethically Practicing, Evaluating, and Using Quantitative Research," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 143(1), pages 1-16, June.
    16. Olivera Marjanovic & Vijaya Murthy, 2016. "From product-centric to customer-centric services in a financial institution – exploring the organizational challenges of the transition process," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 479-497, June.
    17. Jean-Pascal Gond, 2011. "La responsabilité sociale de l’entreprise au-delà du fonctionnalisme : un cadre d’analyse pluraliste de l’interface entreprise - société," Revue Finance Contrôle Stratégie,, vol. 14(2), pages 37-66, June.
    18. Mats Alvesson & Cynthia Hardy & Bill Harley, 2008. "Reflecting on Reflexivity: Reflexive Textual Practices in Organization and Management Theory," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(3), pages 480-501, May.
    19. Marlei Pozzebon, 2004. "The Influence of a Structurationist View on Strategic Management Research," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(2), pages 247-272, March.

    More about this item


    Military; Decision; Bias;
    All these keywords.


    Access and download statistics


    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:vuw:vuwmba:6142. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Library Technology Services). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.