Maryse M.H. Chappin

Decision rules and group rationality: cognitive gain or standstill?

Recent research in group cognition points towards the existence of collective cognitive competencies that transcend individual group members’ cognitive competencies. Since rationality is a key cognitive competence for group decision making, and group cognition emerges from the coordination of individual cognition during social interactions, this study tests the extent to which collaborative and consultative decision rules impact the emergence of group rationality. Using a set of decision tasks adapted from the heuristics and biases literature, we evaluate rationality as the extent to which individual choices are aligned with a normative ideal. We further operationalize group rationality as cognitive synergy (the extent to which collective rationality exceeds average or best individual rationality in the group), and we test the effect of collaborative and consultative decision rules in a sample of 176 groups. Our results show that the collaborative decision rule has superior synergic effects as compared to the consultative decision rule. The ninety one groups working in a collaborative fashion made more rational choices (above and beyond the average rationality of their members) than the eighty five groups working in a consultative fashion. Moreover, the groups using a collaborative decision rule were closer to the rationality of their best member than groups using consultative decision rules. Nevertheless, on average groups did not outperformed their best member. Therefore, our results reveal how decision rules prescribing interpersonal interactions impact on the emergence of collective cognitive competencies. They also open potential venues for further research on the emergence of collective rationality in human decision-making groups.

Dynamic perspective on the relation between environmental policy and eco-efficiency: the case of wastewater treatment, waste and energy efficiency in the Dutch paper and board industry

The relation between environmental policy and innovation is complex. This paper aims to gain insight into the way accumulation of policy measures, or in other words, the increase of policy pressure, affects research activities and eco-efficiency. Three environmental domains have been researched for the Dutch paper and board industry: wastewater, waste and energy. Three trends (19802003) are identified for these topics: (1) development of environmental policy; (2) number research projects started and (3) eco-efficiency. We argue that if existing solutions and knowledge are not sufficient to reach the objectives, research activities will take place before eco-efficiency is improved. Moreover, we argue that an increase in policy pressure can cause competition between policy instruments. This may result in a smoothed and delayed increase in research activities (if existing knowledge is insufficient) and eco-efficiency improvement. This delayed eco-efficiency improvement was observed for wastewater and waste. It was not observed for energy efficiency.

Combining the technological innovation systems framework with the entrepreneurs’ perspective on innovation

ABSTRACT For their technological sustainability innovations to become successful, entrepreneurs can strategically shape the technological field in which they are involved. The technological innovation systems (TISs) literature has generated valuable insights into the processes which need to be stimulated for the successful development and implementation of innovative sustainability technologies. To explore the applicability of the TIS framework from the perspective of entrepreneurs, we conducted a case study in the Dutch smart grids sector. We found that the TIS framework generally matches the perspectives of entrepreneurs. For its use by entrepreneurs, we suggest a slight adaptation of this framework. The process ‘Market formation’ needs to be divided into processes that are driven by the government and processes that are driven by entrepreneurs. There should be a greater emphasis on collaborative marketing, on changing user behaviour and preferences and on the development of fair and feasible business models.

Seed Starting the Microfoundations of Strategy: A Butterfly Effect?

In this paper we focus on the development of the literature on microfoundations of strategy. The objective is to identify the building blocks that make up the microfoundations framework. We start from two seed papers, Felin & Foss (2005) and Gavetti (2005), and combine bibliometrics with network analysis on a selective set of papers. This leads to the identification of papers that contain important building blocks and an assessment of the accumulation of knowledge for developing the argument on the role of individuals and their interactions in the context of routines and capabilities. Our main finding is that the microfoundations framework appears to be very comprehensive. It encompasses more than the role of individuals and their interaction which was our departure point based on the seed papers. The results reveal that it is a combination of individual, social and organizational characteristics, and mechanisms that enables the micro level to travel to the macro level. Moreover the findings show that the importance of aggregation was emphasized by the seed papers and most central papers that were analyzed in-depth. There is convergence in the literature that both components and emergence are contingent on the strategic phenomenon or problem under study. The study also revealed that the accumulation did not really occur as expected by the authors. We identified a citation network that resembles a butterfly, a small body in the center and two large wings. It seems there are two large clusters for the seed papers (the wings) and only a limited number of papers that build on the two papers (the body). The field is still legitimizing itself. Time will tell whether the field will integrate and converge more on the specifics of the microfoundations framework and transform from a butterfly into a caterpillar. Alternatively, more clusters may arise due to the study of specific strategy phenomena.