When rational decision-making becomes irrational: a critical assessment and re-conceptualization of intuition effectiveness

Julmi, Christian Article When rational decision-making becomes irrational: a critical assessment and re-conceptualization of intuition effectiveness Business Research Provided in Cooperation with: VHB - Verband der Hochschullehrer für Betriebswirtschaft, German Academic Association of Business Research Suggested Citation: Julmi, Christian (2019) : When rational decision-making becomes irrational: a critical assessment and re-conceptualization of intuition effectiveness, Business Research, ISSN 2198-2627, Springer, Heidelberg, Vol. 12, Iss. 1, pp. 291-314, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40685-019-0096-4 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/233168 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ORIGINAL RESEARCH When rational decision-making becomes irrational: a critical assessment and re-conceptualization of intuition effectiveness Christian Julmi 1 Received: 27 November 2017 / Accepted: 26 February 2019 / Published online: 7 March 2019 The Author(s) 2019 Abstract Intuition can lead to more effective decision-making than analysis under certain conditions. This assumption can be regarded as common sense. However, dominant research streams on intuition effectiveness in decision-making conceptualize intuition inadequately, because intuition is considered either detrimental or as a form of analysis. Current findings in general intuition research show that intuition is a holistic form of information processing that is distinct from analysis and can be superior in some cases. To reconcile this mismatch, this article first critically assesses dominant conceptions on intuition effectiveness and then offers a re-conceptualization that builds on current findings of general intuition research. Basically, the article suggests the structuredness of the decision problem as the main criterion for intuition effectiveness, and proposes organization information processing theory to establish this link conceptually. It is not the uncertainty but the equivocality of decision problems that call for an intuitive approach. The article conclusively derives implications for further research and discusses potential restrictions and constraints. Keywords Rationality Intuition Analysis Decision-making effectiveness  Intuition effectiveness Equivocality Organization information processing theory &Christian Julmi [email protected]; https://www.fernuni-hagen.de/scherm/team/christian.julmi.shtml 1 Lehrstuhl fu ¨r Betriebswirtschaftslehre, insb. Organisation und Planung, Fakulta ¨tfu ¨r Wirtschaftswissenschaft, FernUniversita ¨t in Hagen, 58084 Hagen, Germany 123 Business Research (2019) 12:291–314 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40685-019-0096-4 1 Introduction In managerial decision research, there is a steadily growing interest in the role intuition plays in decision-making (Sadler-Smith 2016). Whereas research initially focused on the shortcomings of intuition in the decision-making process, the focus has slightly shifted towards the benefits of intuition, assuming that, under certain conditions, intuition may be as good as or even superior to analytical thinking (Aczel et al. 2011; Burke and Miller 1999; Dane et al. 2012; Dane and Pratt 2007). Although the concept of intuition suffered for a long time from a lack of definitional clarity (Salas et al. 2010), a widely accepted and commonly shared definition of intuition in the context of decision-making stems from Dane and Pratt (2007) who define intuition ‘‘as affectively charged judgments that arise through rapid, nonconscious, and holistic associations’’ (p. 33). This definition differentiates intuitive from analytical decisions as slow, conscious and sequential deliberations. It is consistent with the growing consensus that intuitive and analytic approaches refer to two distinct types of information processing systems (Dane et al. 2011; Dane and Pratt 2007; Epstein 1994; Evans 2010; Hodgkinson and Clarke 2007), implying that intuition cannot be reduced to a shortcut to deliberation (Betsch and Glo ¨ckner 2010). A recent meta-analysis indicating that intuition and analysis are two independent constructs strongly supports this view (Wang et al. 2017). Intuition must, therefore, be considered as a distinct capacity with its own strengths and weaknesses. Research on intuition effectiveness is essentially based on the assumption that intuition is not inferior to analysis and can lead to effective decisions (Dane 2011). Intuition effectiveness is tied to the ecological rationality of an intuitive approach, which refers to the degree a decision-making approach is adapted to the structure of the environment (Gigerenzer and Gaissmaier 2011; Gigerenzer and Todd 1999; Todd and Gigerenzer 2007). The concept of ecological rationality draws on Simon’s metaphor of rationality as a pair of scissors ‘‘whose two blades are the structure of task environments and the computational capabilities of the actor’’ (Simon 1990: 7). Accordingly, intuition is regarded as ecologically rational if it matches the structure of the environment more adequately than an analytical approach. In this case, intuition effectiveness is assumed to be higher than analysis effectiveness, and analytically approaching the decision problem is assumed to be irrational. Rationality should, therefore, be understood as something distinct from analysis, even though rational behaviour is often explicitly defined as analytical, logical and conscious (Dane et al. 2011; Dane and Pratt 2007; Denes-Raj and Epstein 1994; Epstein 1994; Evans 2010; Kaufmann et al. 2014; Reber et al. 2007). Otherwise, rational decision-making could be considered as being (ecologically) irrational in some cases, which creates a paradoxical constellation and should, therefore, be avoided. Besides, equating analysis with rationality implies that analysis is rational by definition (Evans and Stanovich 2013), although it is exactly this often implicitly held assumption that should be questioned in research on intuition effectiveness. Unfortunately, dominant conceptions on intuition effectiveness do either assume 292 Business Research (2019) 12:291–314 123 that intuition is not fundamentally different from analysis or that intuition can at best coincide with the analytically derived optimal solution. Against this background, the aim of the present paper is to critically assess dominant conceptions about intuition effectiveness, namely Simon’s concept of intuition, the heuristics and biases program and the fast and frugal heuristics program, to re-conceptualize intuition effectiveness in a way that corresponds to current findings of general intuition research in a better way. The paper suggests the structuredness of the decision problem as the main criterion for intuition effectiveness. Organization information processing theory is introduced as a promising frame to further study intuition effectiveness. As the theory considers the equivocality of an environment as being distinct from its uncertainty, the article shows that it is equivocality and not uncertainty that determines intuition effectiveness. The article conclusively derives implications for further research and discusses potential restrictions and constraints. In general, the term intuition can refer both to a process and an outcome. As the focus lies on the distinction between intuition and analysis as types of information processing, the article follows a process view of intuition which is sometimes referred to as intuiting (Crossan et al. 1999; Dane and Pratt 2007; Gore and SadlerSmith 2011; Sadler-Smith 2016; Sadler-Smith and Sparrow 2008; Sinclair 2010). Through this, we follow the argument ‘‘that researchers should concentrate on investigating the processes underlying intuition first before making strong claims about its performance’’ (Glo ¨ckner and Witteman 2010: 13). 2 A critical assessment of dominant conceptions on intuition effectiveness 2.1 Herbert Simon’s view on intuition Arguably, Simon proposed one of the most influential views on intuition in the context of decision-making (Akinci and Sadler-Smith 2012; Epstein 2010; Frantz 2003; Sadler-Smith 2016). Among others, it serves as a basis for the naturalistic decision-making approach (Klein 1998; Lipshitz et al. 2001) and the fast and frugal heuristics program (see below). Simon refers to intuition as subconscious information processing directly related to pattern recognition. As pattern recognition, intuition reflects the ability to recognize familiar patterns within an instance, for example, when recognizing the familiar face of a friend (Simon 1983). The key to this understanding of intuition is the experience of the decision maker leading to intuitive expertise over time. Through the long experience of a decision maker, familiar patterns emerge in a situation suggesting a specific solution. This can be a possible move for a chess player, a medical diagnosis for a medical doctor or a financial risk for a manager. Specific associations evolve over time and persist depending on their contribution to success in the past (Prietula and Simon 1989). For Simon, intuition and analysis do not represent two distinct types of information processing. He views intuition as analysis ‘‘frozen into habit and into the capacity for rapid response through recognition’’ (Simon 1987: 63). He Business Research (2019) 12:291–314 293 123 explicitly denied ‘‘that there is analytic thinking and intuitive thinking’’ (Simon 1993: 405). For him, intuition ‘‘is a sophisticated form of reasoning based on chunking that an expert hones over years of job-specific experience. Intuition grows out of experiences that once called for analytical steps’’ (Prietula and Simon 1989: 122). Intuition as a process, therefore, does not operate independently of analysis. Rather, intuition and analysis are two essential complementary components of the same kind of thinking process (Simon and Gilmartin 1973). The main difference between intuition and analysis is that the former operates subconsciously while the latter does not, ‘‘but there is no difference in the logic being applied’’ (Simon 1987: 61). Consequently, intuition and analysis are equally constrained by the bounded rationality reflected in the cognitive limitations of the decision maker. In this sense, both can be ecologically rational, as long as ‘‘it turns out that the behaviour prescribed is well adapted to its goals—whatever those goals might be’’ (Simon 1993: 393). To understand Simon’s view on analytic and intuitive information processing, one needs to look at his work in the field of artificial intelligence. Simon regarded the nature of human and computer information processing as being very much alike. According to Simon and Newell, both depend upon the same type of information processing leading to pattern recognition (Frantz 2003; Newell and Simon 1972; Simon 1978; Simon and Newell 1964). Comparing humans and computers, Simon and Newell assumed that there is a strong ‘‘similarity in their capacities for executing and organizing elementary information processes’’ (Simon and Newell 1964: 282). Just like a computer, the human information processing system ‘‘operates almost entirely serially, one process at a time, rather than in parallel fashion’’ (Simon 1978: 273). The computed units are explicit (i.e., discrete, countable and combinable), and the process can be decomposed into smallest units: the so-called elementary information processes. The problem with such a view is that it denies the fact that real decision problems are often open to multiple interpretations. Decomposing a situation into the smallest units to serially compute them is only possible when ambiguity has already been reduced to an unambiguous interpretation. This neglect of ambiguity is one of the main criticisms of Simon’s conception of human information processing. For example, Mumby and Putnam (1992) point out that there is no space for ambiguity in Simon’s view: instead of tolerating or embracing ambiguity to simultaneously recognize divergent or contradictory positions, ambiguity must be reduced to zero, leading to zero ambiguity tolerance. Similarly, Dreyfus (1999) emphasized in critical response to Simon that the human ability ‘‘to deal with situations which are ambiguous without having to transform them by substituting a precise description’’ (p. 107) is an implicit form of information processing that is fundamentally different from the formalizable logic of analysis. In general, implicit forms of information (or knowledge) that cannot be fully converted to explicit forms of information (or knowledge) have no room in Simon’s worldview (Foss 2003; Miller 2008). Simon’s view on intuition does acknowledge that intuitive decisions are based on rapid and unconscious processes, but it fails to accept that such processes are able to compute information holistically instead of sequentially. However, if intuitive and 294 Business Research (2019) 12:291–314 123 analytic thinking are assumed to apply to the same logic, the question of their respective effectiveness within certain environmental structures can hardly be answered (Hammond et al. 1987). The only reason why Simon did not view intuition as irrational is because it represents analyses, whether it is frozen into habit or not. Pattern recognition in the sense of Simon emerges solely from reproducing previous solutions that are strictly rule based, which is in stark contrast to recent works linking pattern recognition to holistic and parallel forms of thinking (Baldacchino et al. 2015; Betsch and Glo ¨ckner 2010; Sadler-Smith and Sparrow 2008). Beyond this, intuition is more than just reproduction. It also combines elements to produce new and creative solutions, making intuition a unique human ability (Akinci and Sadler-Smith 2012; Gobet and Chassy 2009; Sinclair 2010). 2.2 The heuristics and biases program When it comes to the detrimental use of intuition in decision situations, the heuristics and biases program of Kahneman and Tversky is arguably the most prominent line of research and the main foundation of the behavioural decision theory. The behavioural decision theory questioned the assumptions of normative decision theory by showing that people in real decision situations have unstable and ambiguous preferences (Slovic et al. 1977). The basis of this descriptive shift in decision theory was essentially based on the demonstration of three judgmental heuristics: representativeness, availability and anchoring (Kahneman and Tversky 1972,1973; Tversky and Kahneman 1973,1974). Representativeness, for example, states that people evaluate probabilities by the degree to which an object resembles a class. When representativeness is high, the probability that the object originated from this class is judged as high, although this might not be the case (Tversky and Kahneman 1974). Kahneman and Tversky used the term heuristics to refer to the intuitive use of such mental shortcuts that ‘‘are quite useful, but sometimes they lead to severe and systematic errors’’ (Tversky and Kahneman 1974: 1124). These intuitively used heuristics are simple rules of thumb people use to make a fast decision in an uncertain environment and to reduce the complexity of the task of assessing probabilities and expected outcomes (Cristofaro 2017). The focus of the heuristics and biases program lies on well-structured problems from which optimal solutions can be unequivocally derived. Accordingly, heuristics represent inferior strategies, which at best coincide with the optimal solution, but in many cases deviate from the ‘rational norm’. This deviation is referred to as bias (Artinger et al. 2015). While the correct answer is given by a formal rule, bias occurs as the discrepancy between the correct and the actual answer (Montibeller and von Winterfeldt 2015). Because, according to Kahneman and Tversky, heuristics are mainly used intuitively, intuition is unilaterally used to emphasize the downfalls of intuitive decision-making, as opposed to analytical decision-making. The latter is equated with rationality, because rationality is strictly understood as reasoning following the rules of probability theory (Chase et al. 1998). Hence, the results of the heuristics and biases program have often been interpreted as showing that intuitive decision-making is inferior to analytical decision-making (Kahneman 2011; Myers 2010; Nisbett and Ross 1980). Business Research (2019) 12:291–314 295 123 The picture becomes less clear, however, when one looks at how Kahneman and Tversky defined intuition. Much of their work leaves the term undefined, and different articles seem to apply different meanings (Hogarth 2010; Sturm 2014). Kahneman and Tversky (1982: 124) call a judgment ‘‘intuitive if it is reached by an informal and unstructured mode of reasoning, without the use of analytic methods or deliberate calculation’’. Later, Kahneman (2002: 449) defined intuition as ‘‘thoughts and preferences that come to mind quickly and without much reflection’’. Nevertheless, it was not until the early 2000s that Kahneman started to explicitly subscribe to a dual-process theory of intuition, according to which two systems or processes of decision-making are distinguished (Kahneman 2003,2011; Kahneman and Frederick 2002,2005). Following Stanovich and West (2002), these two systems are referred to as system 1 and system 2. Whereas ‘‘system 1 quickly proposes intuitive answers to judgment problems as they arise’’, ‘‘system 2 monitors the quality of these proposals, which it may endorse, correct, or override’’ (Kahneman and Frederick 2005: 267). System 1 follows intuitive heuristics, which are often faulty, and system 2 applies rules of logic and leads to correct solutions. System 1 operates effortlessly, automatically and fast. System 2, in contrast, is effortful, controlled and slow. Although Kahneman and Tversky initially viewed their work as being ‘‘consistent with the conception of bounded rationality originally presented by Herbert Simon’’ (Tversky and Kahneman 1986: S272–S273), their understanding of intuition is quite different. As outlined above, Simon rejected the idea of two independently operating systems. For Simon, intuition can be rational, because intuition is analysis (frozen into habit); for Kahneman and Tversky, intuition cannot be (boundedly or unboundedly) rational, because it is fundamentally different from analysis ascribed to rationality (Griffin et al. 2012). For the latter, intuition is only regarded as effective when people lack formal models for computing the probabilities in the face of uncertainty (Tversky and Kahneman 2002). However, this intuition effectiveness is based solely on the decision maker’s ignorance. Nevertheless and despite their differences, neither Simon’s nor Kahneman and Tversky’s approach is capable of incorporating intuition as a distinct type of information processing able to trump analysis under certain conditions. Kahneman and Tversky’s approach is, if at all, only valid in well-structured environments, whereas intuition is often said to be effective especially in ill-structured environments (Dane and Pratt 2007; Hogarth 2010; Magnusson et al. 2014; Pretz 2011; Sadler-Smith and Sparrow 2008; Salas et al. 2010). This focus on wellstructured problems is often linked to the fact that Kahneman and Tversky mainly derived their insights from experiments with clear settings, which lack the equivocality of real life decision problems (Bowers et al. 1990; Chase et al. 1998; Felin et al. 2017; Hodgkinson et al. 2008; Shapira 2008). 2.3 The fast and frugal heuristics program The fast and frugal heuristics program is often contrasted with the heuristics and biases program emphasizing the benefits of intuition instead of its detriments. According to Gigerenzer et al. (1999) and Gigerenzer and Gaissmaier (2011), 296 Business Research (2019) 12:291–314 123 decision makers can make effective decisions by intuitively relying upon heuristics or, synonymously, rules of thumb. Heuristics are conceptualized as simple serial rules that ignore part of the information. They are opposed to complex strategies that consider more information and apply more complex methods. Comparing heuristics and complex strategies, the fast and frugal heuristics program assumes that the use of heuristics can be quicker, more frugal and/or accurate (Gigerenzer and Gaissmaier 2011). The use of a heuristic within an environment is ecologically rational when there is a match between the heuristic and the environment. With their heuristic toolbox, Gigerenzer and colleagues specified several heuristics that might be applied to make adaptive decisions in specific environments (Gigerenzer and Selten 2001; Gigerenzer and Todd 1999; Mousavi and Gigerenzer 2014). For example, the take-the-best heuristic relies only on the most valid cue, and is ecologically rational in environments where a most valid cue can be unequivocally identified. On the other hand, the tallying heuristic gives the same weight to different cues, and is, therefore, ecologically rational in environments with several similarly valid cues (Fiedler and Sydow 2015). Although intuition and heuristics are closely linked to each other in the fast and frugal heuristics program, they are not synonymous. For Gigerenzer (2008: 16), intuition refers ‘‘to a judgment (1) that appears quickly in consciousness, (2) whose underlying reasons we are not fully aware of, and (3) is strong enough to act upon’’. This definition apparently follows the assumption that intuition is rapid and unconscious. A heuristic, on the other hand, is a strategy that can be used both consciously and unconsciously. However, only the ‘‘unconscious use of a heuristic is called an intuition’’ (Mousavi and Gigerenzer 2014: 1673). This implies that within the fast and frugal heuristics program and unlike the heuristics and biases program, a structural difference between intuition and analysis is not made. Rather, Gigerenzer et al. view themselves as direct followers of Simon’s view on intuition and analysis (Gigerenzer et al. 1999;2002) and reject the idea of dual-process theories in which intuition and analysis refer to distinct types of information processing systems (Gigerenzer 2010; Gigerenzer and Regier 1996; Kruglanski and Gigerenzer 2011). The problems already outlined regarding Simon’s view on intuition in this context apply here accordingly. As a consequence, Gigerenzer et al. do not essentially contrast the effectiveness of intuition compared to analysis, but of using simple compared to complex rules. Furthermore, the shift of emphasis from Simon’s view of intuition as pattern recognition to the definition of intuition as the use of heuristics is also problematic. The opinion that ‘‘good intuitions must ignore information’’ (Gigerenzer 2008: 85) contradicts the widely held view that, due to parallel processing, intuition is able to handle a huge amount of information (Betsch 2008b; Betsch and Glo ¨ckner 2010; Dijksterhuis 2004; Dijksterhuis and Nordgren 2006; Hensman and Sadler-Smith 2011; Lieberman 2000). Intuition is said to be more effective in complex decision situations precisely because the amount of information is too huge to be processed deliberately, but can be processed unconsciously. This implies that intuition relies on a different process than simply using low effort heuristics (Sinclair 2010). As simple rules, heuristics should rather be considered as shortcuts to deliberation than Business Research (2019) 12:291–314 297 123 as intuitive thinking. As Betsch (2008b: 11) puts it: ‘‘if one equates intuition with heuristic processing, one would neglect the nature and the power of intuition’’. Although it should not be ruled out that a simple rule may be the outcome of intuition, heuristics do not shed much light on the underlying process (Chater et al. 2018: 815). Even in theory, explaining the intuitive process as using heuristics leads to a homunculus problem (Dreyfus 1999; Kenny 1971), because it is not sufficient to apply a heuristic—it also has to be decided which heuristic to choose in a specific context. Although Gigerenzer et al. have identified so-called meta-heuristics (i.e., heuristics to decide which heuristic to use) (Goldstein et al. 2001), this just shifts the problem to a different level, raising the problem of how someone decides how to decide which heuristic to use (and so on), eventually leading to an infinite regress. Instead, it should be assumed that the understanding of which information to ignore or generalize is guided by a process that operates holistically and goes far beyond considering some simple rules. As Dreyfus (1999) states, (expert) decision makers have an intuitive grasp of a situation and zero in on the relevant aspects of the problem without going through a range of alternatives. 3 Re-conceptualizing intuition effectiveness 3.1 Implicit and explicit information processing As the previous chapter has shown, the dominant conceptions on intuition effectiveness are insufficient to adequately address the merit of intuitive decisionmaking and to account for intuition as a holistic form of thinking. From the perspective of these conceptions, intuition is either seen as a form of analysis (denying holistic forms of thinking) or it is under a general suspicion (being detrimental). However, when intuition is accepted as operating independently from analysis, both have to be distinguished from each other. In general, dual-process or dual-system theories assume that human information processing is accomplished by two substantially different, yet complementary, systems. Although terminology varies between the approaches, it is more or less agreed that one system operates analytically and the other intuitively (Sadler-Smith 2016). Regarding the interaction of both systems, a default-interventionist and a parallel-competitive view can be distinguished (Evans 2008). According to the first view, both systems operate in sequence. The intuitive system produces judgments by default that must be endorsed by the analytic system to correct or override faulty outcomes (Evans 2006; Stanovich and West 2000). This view is also reflected in the dual-process view adopted by Kahneman (see above). In contrast, the parallel-competitive view assumes that there are two forms of information processing: implicit and explicit information processing. The intuitive implicit information processing system deals with implicit information that is processed holistically. The analytic explicit information processing system sequentially processes explicit information (Epstein 1994; Sloman 1996; Smith and DeCoster 2000). This article adopts the parallelcompetitive view for two reasons. First, it is consistent with growing evidence from neurological and experimental studies (Alo ´s-Ferrer and Strack 2014; Healey et al. 298 Business Research (2019) 12:291–314 123 suggested to differentiate whether intuition is used to reduce or embrace equivocality. Equivocality can be reduced, for example, through the use of faceto-face communication (Daft and Lengel 1986; Zack 2007), group interpretive processes (Crossan et al. 1999; Daft and Weick 1986), metaphors as interpretive schemes (Hill and Levenhagen 1995), or routines (Becker and Knudsen 2005). On the other hand, there are also strategies to embrace equivocality, such as asking reflexive questions (Lu ¨scher and Lewis 2008), applying both/and thinking (Ashforth et al. 2014), or executing purposeful microshifts (Smith et al. 2016). In negotiation situations, for example, equivocality can foster effective decisions by maintaining social order without narrowing the communication flow. An analytically derived best solution may cause the parties to back away from negotiation, as room for interpretation is needed to individually claim having trumped the counterpart to ‘save face’ (Eden and Ackermann 2013). When equivocality is embraced, intuition can be linked to holism, which refers to ‘‘the complete, simultaneous, and typically conscious acceptance of both opposing orientations’’ (Ashforth et al. 2014: 1466). In the context of this article, holism represents the (conscious) acceptance of the (unconscious) intuitive system to take the lead in decision-making. Embracing equivocality seems to be especially important for task-driven equivocality. Obviously, when equivocality is constitutive for a decision problem, it cannot be reduced, but has to be embraced (Neill and Rose 2007). Nevertheless, embracing equivocality also seems a reasonable strategy when coping with people-driven equivocality, so these relationships should be further investigated. Regarding organization information processing theory, an examination should be carried out regarding which mechanisms of the organization to process equivocal information can be transferred to the individual, and to what extent organizational and individual mechanisms differ. Of course, equivocality alone is not sufficient for intuition to be an effective and thus ecological rational strategy (Dane et al. 2012). There are several other variables potentially moderating intuition effectiveness in decisions under equivocality that should be taken into account. First of all, existing research indicates that the quality of intuitive decision-making depends on having sufficient implicit knowledge and domain-specific expertise to adequately understand the decision context (Betsch 2008b; Dane et al. 2012; Dane and Pratt 2007; Hodgkinson et al. 2008; Reber et al. 2007; Sadler-Smith and Sparrow 2008; Salas et al. 2010). This is also emphasized by organization information processing theory, in which it is assumed that sufficient experience is necessary to interpret equivocal cues (Daft and Macintosh 1981). In addition, it has been shown that people differ in their preference to either rely on intuition or analysis, and that such a preference or thinking style influences intuition effectiveness (Betsch 2008a; Phillips et al. 2016; Stanovich and West 2000). Last but not least, the present article calls for a systematic exploration of cognitive biases that occur when equivocal situations are approached analytically. When the type of information processing and the degree of equivocality do not match, decision-making is supposed to be ineffective, which eventually is assumed to cause cognitive bias, defined as ‘‘systematic error in judgment and decisionmaking’’ (Wilke and Mata 2012: 531). In well-structured problems, intuition is less likely to pinpoint the optimal solution. As the optimal solution is unequivocal, Business Research (2019) 12:291–314 305 123 relying on intuition is error prone, leading to cognitive bias. This kind of bias— which mirrors the kind of biases within the heuristics and biases program (see above)—can be referred to as intuition bias (Kirkebøen and Nordbye 2017). However, there should also be an analysis bias when ill-structured problems are approached analytically. In this case, an analytical approach leads to a one-sided distortion of the problem by emphasizing certain aspects while simultaneously ignoring other aspects that are similarly relevant. When equivocality is an essential feature of a problem situation, an analytical precise approach improperly narrows the necessary room for interpretation. For example, the described findings from Rusou et al. (2013) indicate that trying to analytically approach aesthetic judgments causes analysis bias. Another potential analysis bias is the tendency to give into heuristic impulses. Research suggests that experiencing ambivalence tends to trigger cognitive discomfort, so people may try to prematurely reduce ambivalence despite its functionality (Guarana and Hernandez 2014,2016). On the other hand, resisting such impulses is assumed to positively influence holistic and thus implicit information processing (Ashforth et al. 2014). As applying heuristics reflects a rule-based approach (see above), following an analytical instead of an intuitive approach may cause analysis bias when equivocality is high. In general, further investigation is required into the assumption that analysis bias occurs when problems are non-decomposable and not amenable to analytical solutions. While the phenomenon of intuition bias is well researched, the study of analysis bias is extremely underrepresented. 5 Restrictions and constraints There are also some important restrictions and constraints. First of all, it may in some cases be difficult to decide whether specific aspects are uncertain or equivocal because, although uncertainty and equivocality are treated as independent constructs, they are undoubtedly related in real decision situations (Daft and Lengel 1986). For example, it seems that equivocality and uncertainty sometimes refer to different stages of the decision process and directly affect each other. Defining the situation may be a strategy to reduce equivocality, but may eventually increase uncertainty when subsequently choosing between alternatives (Lehner 1996). Intuition and analysis may accordingly be of different value in different stages of the decision process. As a result, the effectiveness of rule-based behaviour may be perceived differently depending on the stage under consideration in the decision process. Another difficulty lies in the comparison between intuition and analysis effectiveness. When a given problem is ill-structured, no objective criteria can be derived that determine the degree to which a decision is correct or biased. It cannot be ruled out that an analytical approach leads to a better decision than a poor intuitive judgment even in ill-structured problems. It is impossible to determine an objectively best intuitive judgment when structuredness is low. Even in wellstructured problems, the supposed standard of rationality is often subject to dispute (Hammond et al. 1987). Although, for example, the so-called ‘‘Linda-problem’’ 306 Business Research (2019) 12:291–314 123 precisely prescribes the correct solution (Tversky and Kahneman 1983), the problem has inspired scholars to give alternative interpretations of rational responses (Chase et al. 1998; Epstein 2010; Frisch 2001). Hammond et al. (1987) suggest that, to evaluate intuitive versus analytical performance, a direct comparison of a person’s use of intuition and analytical rules has to be done rather than an indirect comparison between a person’s intuitive process and an analytically derived rule. This seems reasonable, and focusing on choice transitivity appears to be a promising approach in this regard (Lee et al. 2009; Rusou et al. 2013). However, when the intuitive system is supposed to be of advantage because it can process implicit information holistically, the question arises whether intuition can be superior to the information processing of high-performance computers in equivocal situations (Jarrahi 2018). While computers may be good at sequentially aggregating and processing single data units, intuition may be the only way to cope with the meaningfulness of equivocal situations (Sadler-Smith and Sparrow 2008). We do not follow the widely held assumption that ‘big data’ always trumps intuition (McAffee and Brynjolfsson 2012), so human intuition may as well be compared with nonhuman analysis, or at least with human analysis supported by analytical tools. The question whether intuition is preferable because too much explicit information leads to ‘‘analysis paralysis’’ (Leybourne and Sadler-Smith 2006)or whether intuition is preferable independently from human specific restrictions should be treated separately. Although the present paper follows a process view of intuition, intuition effectiveness essentially depends on the value of its outcome. It may, therefore, be difficult to assess intuition effectiveness looking at the process only. Nonetheless, as the quality of a decision itself is subject to interpretation, we believe that a process view is especially helpful to predict the potential value of an analytic versus an intuitive approach under certain given constraints to prescribe an adequate way of approaching a decision problem. This should also include the possibility that intuition and analysis may work well together in semi-structured tasks (Shapiro and Spence 1997). 6 Conclusion The aim of the article was to provide a starting point for future research on intuition effectiveness. In essence, it suggests that future research should be based on three general assumptions. First, to properly assess intuition effectiveness, dominant assumptions about the nature of intuition have to be revised in favour of a parallelcompetitive view of human information processing. This not only reflects current findings in intuition research to a greater extent, but also allows a comparison of the intuitive and the analytic system without implicitly assuming the former as being somehow inferior or more error prone. Second, and in line with the literature, the article argues that the distinctive problem-dependent variable is the structuredness of the decision problem, whereby intuition effectiveness increases with a decrease of problem-structuredness. Third, the article suggests organization information processing theory as a promising framework to further explore this relationship, Business Research (2019) 12:291–314 307 123 because it focuses on equivocality as an indicator for intuition effectiveness instead of uncertainty. As a result, the article outlines a set of issues for further research resting upon these general assumptions, namely specifying the relationship between intuition and equivocality, examining the moderating effects of other variables, and devoting more attention to analysis bias. At the heart of this article lies the assumption that rationality must not be confused with a deliberate or logical and thus analytic approach. In this regard, Simon’s view on rationality remains valid: a decision-making approach is ecological rational to the degree it fits to the structure of the given problem to achieve a desired goal. Irrationality, in contrast, means poor fit (Simon 1993). In this sense, following an analytical approach when confronted with maximum equivocality is greatly suspected of being irrational. Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. References Aczel, Balazs, Bence Lukacs, Judit Komlos, and Michael R.F. Aitken. 2011. Unconscious intuition or conscious analysis? Critical questions for the deliberation-without-attention paradigm. Judgment and Decision Making 6 (4): 351–358. Akinci, Cinla, and Eugene Sadler-Smith. 2012. Intuition in management research: a historical review. International Journal of Management Reviews 14 (1): 104–122. Alo ´s-Ferrer, Carlos, and Fritz Strack. 2014. From dual processes to multiple selves: implications for economic behavior. Journal of Economic Psychology 41: 1–11. Artinger, Florian, Malte Petersen, Gerd Gigerenzer, and Ju ¨rgen Weibler. 2015. Heuristics as adaptive decision strategies in management. Journal of Organizational Behavior 36 (S1): 33–52. Ashforth, Blake E., Kristie M. Rogers, Michael G. Pratt, and Camille Pradies. 2014. Ambivalence in organizations: a multilevel approach. Organization Science 25 (5): 1453–1478. Baldacchino, Leonie, Deniz Ucbasaran, Laure Cabantous, and Andy Lockett. 2015. Entrepreneurship research on intuition: a critical analysis and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews 17 (2): 212–231. Becker, Markus C., and Thorbjørn Knudsen. 2005. The role of routines in reducing pervasive uncertainty. Journal of Business Research 58 (6): 746–757. Betsch, Tilmann. 2008a. Chronic preferences for intuition and deliberation in decision making: lessons learned about intuition from an individual differences approach. In Intuition in judgement and decision making, ed. Henning Plessner, Cornelia Betsch, and Tilmann Betsch, 231–248. New York: Erlbaum. Betsch, Tilmann. 2008b. The nature of intuition and its neglect in research on judgement and decision making. In Intuition in judgement and decision making, ed. Henning Plessner, Cornelia Betsch, and Tilmann Betsch, 3–22. New York: Erlbaum. Betsch, Tilmann, and Andreas Glo ¨ckner. 2010. Intuition in judgment and decision making: extensive thinking without effort. Psychological Inquiry 21 (4): 279–294. Bloodgood, James M., and Bongsug Chae. 2010. Organizational paradoxes: dynamic shifting and integrative management. Management Decision 48 (1): 85–104. Bowers, Kenneth S., Glenn Regehr, Claude Balthazard, and Kevin Parker. 1990. Intuition in the context of discovery. Cognitive Psychology 22 (1): 72–110. Brunsson, Karin, and Nils Brunsson. 2017. Decisions: the complexities of individual and organizational decision-making. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. 308 Business Research (2019) 12:291–314 123 Burke, Lisa A., and Monica K. Miller. 1999. Taking the mystery out of intuitive decision making. Academy of Management Executive 13 (4): 91–99. Calabretta, Giulia, Gerda Gemser, and Nachoem M. Wijnberg. 2017. The interplay between intuition and rationality in strategic decision making: a paradox perspective. Organization Studies 38 (3–4): 365–401. Chase, Valerie M., Ralph Hertwig, and Gerd Gigerenzer. 1998. Visions of rationality. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2 (6): 206–214. Chater, Nick, Teppo Felin, David C. Funder, Gerd Gigerenzer, Jan J. Koenderink, Joachim I. Krueger, Denis Noble, Samuel A. Nordli, Mike Oaksford, Barry Schwartz, Keith E. Stanovich, and Peter M. Todd. 2018. Mind, rationality, and cognition: an interdisciplinary debate. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 25 (2): 793–826. Cristofaro, Matteo. 2017. Herbert Simon’s bounded rationality: its historical evolution in management and cross-fertilizing contribution. Journal of Management History 23 (2): 170–190. Crossan, Mary M., Henry W. Lane, and Roderick E. White. 1999. An organizational learning framework: from intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review 24 (3): 522–537. Daft, Richard L., and Robert H. Lengel. 1984. Information richness: a new approach to managerial behavior and organization design. In Research in organizational behavior, vol. 6, ed. Barry M. Staw and Larry L. Cummings, 191–223. Greenwich: JAI Press. Daft, Richard L., and Robert H. Lengel. 1986. Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science 32 (5): 554–571. Daft, Richard L., and Norman B. Macintosh. 1981. A tentative exploration into the amount and equivocality of information processing in organizational work units. Administrative Science Quarterly 26 (2): 207–224. Daft, Richard L., and Karl E. Weick. 1986. Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems. Academy of Management Review 9 (2): 284–295. Dane, Erik. 2011. Capturing intuitions ‘in flight’: Observations from research on attention and mindfulness. In Handbook of intuition research, ed. Marta Sinclair, 217–226. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Dane, Erik, Markus Baer, Michael G. Pratt, and Greg R. Oldham. 2011. Rational versus intuitive problem solving: how thinking ‘‘off the beaten path’’ can stimulate creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and The Arts 5 (1): 3–12. Dane, Erik, and Michael G. Pratt. 2007. Exploring intuition and its role in managerial decision making. Academy of Management Journal 32 (1): 33–54. Dane, Erik, Kevin W. Rockmann, and Michael G. Pratt. 2012. When should I trust my gut? Linking domain expertise to intuitive decision-making effectiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 119 (2): 187–194. Denes-Raj, Veronika, and Seymour Epstein. 1994. Conflict between intuitive and rational processing: when people behave against their better judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 66 (5): 819–829. Dijksterhuis, Ap. 2004. Think different: the merits of unconscious thought in preference development and decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 87 (5): 586–598. Dijksterhuis, Ap, and Loran F. Nordgren. 2006. A theory of unconscious thought. Perspectives on psychological science a journal of the Association for Psychological Science 1 (2): 95–109. Dreyfus, Hubert L. 1999. What computers still cannot do. A critique of artificial reason, 6th ed. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Eden, Colin, and Fran Ackermann. 2013. Making strategy. London: SAGE Publications. Epstein, Seymour. 1994. Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. American Psychologist 49 (8): 709–724. Epstein, Seymour. 2010. Demystifying intuition: what it is, what it does, and how it does it. Psychological Inquiry 21 (4): 295–312. Evans, J.S.B.T. 2006. The heuristic-analytic theory of reasoning: extension and evaluation. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 13 (3): 378–395. Evans, J.S.B.T. 2008. Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology 59: 255–278. Evans, J.S.B.T. 2010. Intuition and reasoning: a dual-process perspective. Psychological Inquiry 21 (4): 313–326. Evans, J.S.B.T., and K.E. Stanovich. 2013. Dual-process theories of higher cognition: advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science 8 (3): 223–241. Business Research (2019) 12:291–314 309 123 Felin, Teppo, Jan Koenderink, and Joachim I. Krueger. 2017. Rationality, perception, and the all-seeing eye. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 24 (4): 1040–1059. Fiedler, Klaus, and Momme V. Sydow. 2015. Heuristics and biases: beyond Tversky and Kahneman’s (1974) judgment under uncertainty. In Cognitive psychology: revisiting the classic studies, ed. Michael W. Eysenck and David Groome, 146–161. London: SAGE Publications. Foss, Nicolai J. 2003. Bounded rationality and tacit knowledge in the organizational capabilities approach: an assessment and a re-evaluation. Industrial and Corporate Change 12 (2): 185–201. Foss, Nicolai J., and Peter G. Klein. 2012. Organizing entrepreneurial judgment: a new approach to the firm. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Frantz, Roger. 2003. Herbert Simon: artificial intelligence as a framework for understanding intuition. Journal of Economic Psychology 24 (2): 265–277. Frisch, Deborah. 2001. Interpreting conflicts between intuition and formal models. In Conflict and tradeoffs in decision making, ed. Elke U. Weber, Jonathan Baron, and Graham Loomes, 323–343. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Galbraith, Jay R. 1973. Designing complex organizations. Reading: Addison–Wesley Publishing Company. Gigerenzer, Gerd. 2008. Gut feelings: short cuts to better decision making. London: Penguin. Gigerenzer, Gerd. 2010. Personal reflections on theory and psychology. Theory and Psychology 20 (6): 733–743. Gigerenzer, Gerd, Jean Czerlinski, and Laura Martignon. 2002. How good are fast and frugal heuristics? In Heuristics and biases: the psychology of intuitive judgment, ed. Thomas Gilovich, Dale W. Griffin, and Daniel Kahneman, 559–581. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gigerenzer, Gerd, and Wolfgang Gaissmaier. 2011. Heuristic decision making. Annual Review of Psychology 62: 451–482. Gigerenzer, Gerd, and Terry Regier. 1996. How do we tell an association from a rule? Comment on Sloman (1996). Psychological Bulletin 119 (1): 23–26. Gigerenzer, Gerd, and Reinhard Selten (eds.). 2001. Bounded rationality. The Adaptive Toolbox. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Gigerenzer, Gerd, and Peter M. Todd. 1999. Fast and frugal heuristics: the adaptive toolbox. In Simple heuristics that make us smart, ed. Gerd Gigerenzer, Peter M. Todd, and The ABC Research Group, 3–34. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gigerenzer, G., P.M. Todd, and The ABC Research Group (eds.). 1999. Simple heuristics that make us smart. New York: Oxford University Press. Glo ¨ckner, Andreas. 2008. Does intuition beat fast and frugal heuristics? A systematic empirical analysis. In Intuition in judgement and decision making, ed. Henning Plessner, Cornelia Betsch, and Tilmann Betsch, 309–325. New York: Erlbaum. Glo ¨ckner, Andreas, and Cilia Witteman. 2010. Beyond dual-process models: a categorisation of processes underlying intuitive judgement and decision making. Thinking and Reasoning 16 (1): 1–25. Gobet, Fernand, and Philippe Chassy. 2009. Expertise and intuition: a tale of three theories. Minds and Machines 19 (2): 151–180. Goldstein, Daniel G., Gerd Gigerenzer, Robin M. Hogarth, Alex Kacelnik, Yaakov Kareev, Gary Klein, Laura Martignon, John W. Payne, and Karl H. Schlag. 2001. Group report: why and when do simple heuristics work? In Bounded rationality. The adaptive toolbox, ed. Gerd Gigerenzer and Reinhard Selten, 172–190. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Gore, Julie, and Eugene Sadler-Smith. 2011. Unpacking intuition: a process and outcome framework. Review of General Psychology 15 (4): 304–316. Gorovaia, Nina, and Josef Windsperger. 2010. The use of knowledge transfer mechanisms in franchising. Knowledge and Process Management 17 (1): 12–21. Griffin, Dale W., Richard Gonzalez, Derek J. Koehler, and Thomas Gilovich. 2012. Judgmental heuristics: a historical overview. In The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning, ed. Keith J. Holyoak and Robert G. Morrison, 322–345. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Guarana, Cristiano L., and Morela Hernandez. 2014. Building sense out of situational complexity. Organizational Psychology Review 5 (1): 50–73. Guarana, Cristiano L., and Morela Hernandez. 2016. Identified ambivalence: when cognitive conflicts can help individuals overcome cognitive traps. The Journal of Applied Psychology 101 (7): 1013–1029. Haidt, Jonathan. 2001. The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review 108 (4): 814–834. 310 Business Research (2019) 12:291–314 123 Hammond, Kenneth R., Robert M. Hamm, Janet Grassia, and Tamra Pearson. 1987. Direct comparison of the efficacy of intuitive and analytical cognition in expert judgment. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 17 (5): 753–770. Harteis, Christian, and Stephen Billett. 2013. Intuitive expertise: theories and empirical evidence. Educational Research Review 9: 145–157. Healey, Mark P., Timo Vuori, and Gerard P. Hodgkinson. 2015. When teams agree while disagreeing: reflexion and reflection in shared cognition. Academy of Management Review 40 (3): 399–422. Hensman, Ann, and Eugene Sadler-Smith. 2011. Intuitive decision making in banking and finance. European Management Journal 29 (1): 51–66. Hill, Robert C., and Michael Levenhagen. 1995. Metaphors and mental models: sensemaking and sensegiving in innovative and entrepreneurial activities. Journal of Management 21 (6): 1057–1074. Hodgkinson, Gerard P., and Ian Clarke. 2007. Exploring the cognitive significance of organizational strategizing: a dual-process framework and research agenda. Human Relations 60 (1): 243–255. Hodgkinson, Gerard P., Janice Langan-Fox, and Eugene Sadler-Smith. 2008. Intuition: a fundamental bridging construct in the behavioural sciences. British Journal of Psychology 99 (1): 1–27. Hogarth, Robin M. 2010. Intuition: a challenge for psychological research on decision making. Psychological Inquiry 21 (4): 338–353. Inbar, Yoel, Jeremy Cone, and Thomas Gilovich. 2010. People’s intuitions about intuitive insight and intuitive choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 99 (2): 232–247. Jarrahi, Mohammad H. 2018. Artificial intelligence and the future of work: human-AI symbiosis in organizational decision making. Business Horizons 61 (4): 577–586. Julmi, Christian, and Ewald Scherm. 2015. The domain-specificity of creativity: insights from new phenomenology. Creativity Research Journal 27 (2): 151–159. Kahneman, Daniel. 2002. Maps of bounded rationality: a perspective of intuitive judgement and choice. In Nobel prizes 2002: nobel prizes, presentations, biographies and lectures, ed. Tore Fra ¨ngsmyr, 449–489. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International. Kahneman, Daniel. 2003. Maps of bounded rationality: psychology for behavioral economics. The American Economic Review 93 (5): 1449–1475. Kahneman, Daniel. 2011. Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kahneman, Daniel, and Shane Frederick. 2002. Representativeness revisited: attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In Heuristics and biases: the psychology of intuitive judgment, ed. Thomas Gilovich, Dale W. Griffin, and Daniel Kahneman, 49–81. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kahneman, Daniel, and Shane Frederick. 2005. A model of heuristic judgement. In The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning, ed. Keith J. Holyoak and Robert G. Morrison, 267–293. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kahneman, Daniel, and Amos Tversky. 1972. Subjective probability: a judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology 3 (3): 430–454. Kahneman, Daniel, and Amos Tversky. 1973. On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review 80 (4): 237–251. Kahneman, Daniel, and Amos Tversky. 1982. On the study of statistical intuitions. Cognition 11 (2): 123–141. Kaufman, Scott B., Colin G. Deyoung, Jeremy R. Gray, Luis Jime ´nez, Jamie Brown, and Nicholas Mackintosh. 2010. Implicit learning as an ability. Cognition 116 (3): 321–340. Kaufmann, Lutz, Gavin Meschnig, and Felix Reimann. 2014. Rational and intuitive decision-making in sourcing teams: effects on decision outcomes. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 20 (2): 104–112. Kenny, Andrew. 1971. The homunculus fallacy. In Interpretations of life and mind: essays around the problem of reduction, ed. Marjorie Grene, 65–74. London: Routledge. Kirkebøen, Geir, and Gro H.H. Nordbye. 2017. Intuitive choices lead to intensified positive emotions: an overlooked reason for ‘‘intuition bias’’? Frontiers in Psychology 8 (1942): 1–11. Klein, Gary. 1998. Sources of power: How people make decisions. Cambridge: MIT Press. Kruglanski, Arie W., and Gerd Gigerenzer. 2011. Intuitive and deliberate judgments are based on common principles. Psychological Review 118 (1): 97–109. Kuo, Wen-Jui, Tomas Sjo ¨stro ¨m, Yu-Ping Chen, Yen-Hsiang Wang, and Chen-Ying Huang. 2009. Intuition and deliberation: two systems for strategizing in the brain. Science 324 (5926): 519–522. Laughlin, Patrick R. 1980. Social combination processes of cooperative problem-solving groups on verbal intellective tasks. In Progress in social psychology, vol. 1, ed. Martin Fishbein, 127–155. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Business Research (2019) 12:291–314 311 123 Lee, Leonard, On Amir, and Dan Ariely. 2009. In search of homo economicus: cognitive noise and the role of emotion in preference consistency. Journal of Consumer Research 36 (2): 173–187. Lehner, Johannes M. 1996. Implementierung von Strategien: Konzeption unter Beru¨cksichtigung von Unsicherheit und Mehrdeutigkeit. Wiesbaden: Gabler Verlag. Lewis, Marianne W., and Wendy K. Smith. 2014. Paradox as a metatheoretical perspective: sharpening the focus and widening the scope. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 50 (2): 127–149. Leybourne, Stephen, and Eugene Sadler-Smith. 2006. The role of intuition and improvisation in project management. International Journal of Project Management 24 (6): 483–492. Lieberman, Matthew D. 2000. Intuition: a social cognitive neuroscience approach. Psychological Bulletin 126 (1): 109–137. Lieberman, Matthew D. 2007. Social cognitive neuroscience: a review of core processes. Annual Review of Psychology 58: 259–289. Lipshitz, Raanan, Gary Klein, Judith Orasanu, and Eduardo Salas. 2001. Taking stock of naturalistic decision making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 14 (5): 331–352. Lu ¨scher, Lotte S., and Marianne W. Lewis. 2008. Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal 51 (2): 221–240. Magnusson, Peter R., Johan Netz, and Erik Wa ¨stlund. 2014. Exploring holistic intuitive idea screening in the light of formal criteria. Technovation 34 (5–6): 315–326. Martin, Joanne. 1992. Cultures in organizations: Three perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press. McAffee, Andrew, and Erik Brynjolfsson. 2012. Big data: the management revolution. Harvard Business Review 90 (10): 60–68. Miller, Kent D. 2008. Simon and Polanyi on rationality and knowledge. Organization Studies 29 (7): 933–955. Montibeller, Gilberto, and Detlof von Winterfeldt. 2015. Cognitive and motivational biases in decision and risk analysis. Risk Analysis 35 (7): 1230–1251. Mousavi, Shabnam, and Gerd Gigerenzer. 2014. Risk, uncertainty, and heuristics. Journal of Business Research 67 (8): 1671–1678. Mu ¨ller, David. 2011. Antecedences and determinants of improvisation in firms. Problems and Perspectives in Management 9 (4): 117–130. Mumby, Dennis K., and Linda L. Putnam. 1992. The politics of emotion: a feminist reading of bounded rationality. Academy of Management Review 17 (3): 465–486. Myers, David G. 2010. Intuition’s powers and perils. Psychological Inquiry 21 (4): 371–377. Neill, Stern, and Gregory M. Rose. 2007. Achieving adaptive ends through equivocality: a study of organizational antecedents and consequences. Journal of Business Research 60 (4): 305–313. Newell, Allen, and Herbert A. Simon. 1972. Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Nisbett, Richard, and Lee Ross. 1980. Human inference: strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Nonaka, Ikujiro¯, and Hirotaka Takeuchi. 1995. The knowledge creating company: how Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press. Nutt, Paul C. 1976. Models for decision making in organizations and some contextual variables which stipulate optimal use. Academy of Management Review 2 (1): 84–98. Perrow, Charles. 1970. Organizational analysis: a sociological view. London: Tavistock. Phillips, Wendy J., Jennifer M. Fletcher, Anthony D.G. Marks, and Donald W. Hine. 2016. Thinking styles and decision making: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 142 (3): 260–290. Plambeck, Nils, and Klaus Weber. 2009. CEO ambivalence and responses to strategic issues. Organization Science 20 (6): 993–1010. Polanyi, Michael. 1964. Science, faith and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Pretz, Jean E. 2011. Types of intuition: inferential and holistic. In Handbook of intuition research, ed. Marta Sinclair, 17–28. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Pretz, Jean E., and Kathryn S. Totz. 2007. Measuring individual differences in affective, heuristic, and holistic intuition. Personality and Individual Differences 43 (5): 1247–1257. Prietula, Michael J., and Herbert A. Simon. 1989. The experts in your midst. Harvard Business Review 67 (1–2): 120–124. Putnam, Linda L., Gail T. Fairhurst, and Scott Banghart. 2016. Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizations: a constitutive approach. The Academy of Management Annals 10 (1): 65–171. Putnam, Linda L., and Ritch L. Sorenson. 1982. Equivocal messages in organizations. Human Communication Research 8 (2): 114–132. 312 Business Research (2019) 12:291–314 123 Reber, Arthur S. 1989. Implicit learning and tacit knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 118 (3): 219–235. Reber, Rolf, Marie-Antoinette Ruch-Monachon, and Walter J. Perrig. 2007. Decomposing intuitive components in a conceptual problem solving task. Consciousness and Cognition 16 (2): 294–309. Sjo ¨din, Ro ¨nnberg, Johan Frishammar David, and Per E. Eriksson. 2016. Managing uncertainty and equivocality in joint process development projects. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 39: 13–25. Rusou, Zohar, Dan Zakay, and Marius Usher. 2013. Pitting intuitive and analytical thinking against each other: the case of transitivity. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 20 (3): 608–614. Sadler-Smith, Eugene. 2016. ‘What happens when you intuit?’ Understanding human resource practitioners’ subjective experience of intuition through a novel linguistic method. Human Relations 69 (5): 1069–1093. Sadler-Smith, Eugene, and William H. Sparrow. 2008. Intuition in organizational decision making. In The Oxford handbook of organizational decision making, ed. Gerard P. Hodgkinson and William H. Starbuck, 305–324. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Salas, Eduardo, Michael A. Rosen, and Deborah DiazGranados. 2010. Expertise-based intuition and decision making in organizations. Journal of Management 36 (4): 941–973. Scherm, Ewald, Christian Julmi, and Florian Lindner. 2016. Intuitive versus analytische Entscheidungen—U ¨berlegungen zur situativen Stimmigkeit. In Nachhaltiges entscheiden, ed. Heinz Ahn, Marcel Clermont, and Rainer Souren, 299–318. Wiesbaden: Springer. Shapira, Zur. 2008. On the implications of behavioral decision theory for managerial decision making: contributions and challenges. In The Oxford handbook of organizational decision making, ed. Gerard P. Hodgkinson and William H. Starbuck, 287–304. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Shapiro, Stewart, and Mark T. Spence. 1997. Managerial intuition: a conceptual and operational framework. Business Horizons 40 (1): 63–68. Simon, Herbert A. 1973. The structure of ill structured problems. Artificial Intelligence 4: 181–201. Simon, Herbert A. 1978. Information-processing theory of human problem solving. In Handbook of learning and cognitive processes: V. Human information, ed. William K. Estes, 271–295. Oxford: Lawrence Erlbaum. Simon, Herbert A. 1983. Reason in human affairs. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Simon, Herbert A. 1987. Making management decisions: the role of intuition and emotion. Academy of Management Executive 1 (1): 57–64. Simon, Herbert A. 1990. Invariants of human behavior. Annual Review of Psychology 41: 1–19. Simon, Herbert A. 1993. Decision making: rational, nonrational, and irrational. Educational Administration Quarterly 29 (3): 392–411. Simon, Herbert A. 1997. Administrative behavior: a study of decision-making processes in administrative organizations, 4th ed. New York: Free Press. Simon, Herbert A., and Kevin Gilmartin. 1973. A simulation of memory for chess positions. Cognitive Psychology 5 (1): 29–46. Simon, Herbert A., and Allen Newell. 1964. Information processing in computer and man. American Scientist 52 (3): 281–300. Sinclair, Marta. 2010. Misconceptions about intuition. Psychological Inquiry 21 (4): 378–386. Sinclair, Marta, and Neal M. Ashkanasy. 2005. Intuition: myth or a decision-making tool? Management Learning 36 (3): 353–370. Sloman, Steven. 1996. The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin 119 (1): 3–22. Slovic, Paul, Baruch Fischhoff, and Sarah Lichtenstein. 1977. Behavioral decision theory. Annual Review of Psychology 28 (1): 1–39. Smith, Eliot R., and Jamie DeCoster. 2000. Dual-process models in social and cognitive psychology: conceptual integration and links to underlying memory systems. Personality and Social Psychology Review 4 (2): 108–131. Smith, Wendy K., and Marianne W. Lewis. 2011. Toward a theory of paradox: a dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review 36 (2): 381–403. Smith, Wendy K., Marianne W. Lewis, and Michael L. Tushman. 2016. ‘‘Both/and’’ Leadership: don’t worry so much about being consistent. Harvard Business Review 94 (5): 62–70. Sonenshein, Scott. 2007. The role of construction, intuition, and justification in responding to ethical issues at work: the sensemaking-intuition model. Academy of Management Review 32 (4): 1022–1040. Business Research (2019) 12:291–314 313 123 Stanovich, Keith E., and Richard F. West. 2000. Individual differences in reasoning: advancing the rationality debate. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (5): 645–665. Stanovich, Keith E., and Richard F. West. 2002. Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate. In Heuristics and biases: the psychology of intuitive judgment, ed. Thomas Gilovich, Dale W. Griffin, and Daniel Kahneman, 421–440. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sturm, Thomas. 2014. Intuition in Kahneman and Tversky’s psychology of rationality. In Rational intuition: philosophical roots, scientific investigations, ed. Lisa M. Osbeck and Barbara S. Held, 257–286. New York: Cambridge University Press. Thompson, Valerie A. 2014. What intuitions are…and are not. In The psychology of learning and motivation, vol. 60, ed. Brian H. Ross, 35–75. Amsterdam: Academic Press. Todd, Peter M., and Gerd Gigerenzer. 2007. Environments that make us smart. Current Directions in Psychological Science 16 (3): 167–171. Tushman, Michael L., and David A. Nadler. 1978. Information processing as an integrating concept in organizational design. Academy of Management Review 3 (3): 613–624. Tversky, Amos, and Daniel Kahneman. 1973. Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology 5 (2): 207–232. Tversky, Amos, and Daniel Kahneman. 1974. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185 (4157): 1124–1131. Tversky, Amos, and Daniel Kahneman. 1983. Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: the conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review 90 (4): 293–315. Tversky, Amos, and Daniel Kahneman. 1986. Rational choice and the framing of decisions. The Journal of Business 59 (4): S251–S278. Tversky, Amos, and Daniel Kahneman. 2002. Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: the conjunction fallacy in probability judgement. In Heuristics and biases: the psychology of intuitive judgment, ed. Thomas Gilovich, Dale W. Griffin, and Daniel Kahneman, 19–48. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wagemans, Johan, Jacob Feldman, Sergei Gepshtein, Ruth Kimchi, James R. Pomerantz, Peter A. van der Helm, and Cees van Leeuwen. 2012. A century of Gestalt psychology in visual perception: II. Conceptual and theoretical foundations. Psychological Bulletin 138 (6): 1218–1252. Wang, Yi, Scott Highhouse, Christopher J. Lake, Nicole L. Petersen, and Thaddeus B. Rada. 2017. Metaanalytic investigations of the relation between intuition and analysis. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 30 (1): 15–25. Weick, Karl E. 1979. The social psychology of organizing, 2nd ed. Reading: McGraw-Hill. Wilke, Andreas, and Rui Mata. 2012. Cognitive bias. In Encyclopedia of human behavior, 2nd ed, ed. Vilayanur S. Ramachandran, 531–535. London: Elsevier. Winkler, Jens, Christian P.J.-W. Kuklinski, and Roger Moser. 2015. Decision making in emerging markets: the Delphi approach’s contribution to coping with uncertainty and equivocality. Journal of Business Research 68 (5): 1118–1126. Wood, Robert E. 1986. Task complexity: definition of the construct. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 37 (1): 60–82. Woolhouse, Leanne S., and Rowan Bayne. 2000. Personality and the use of intuition: individual differences in strategy and performance on an implicit learning task. European Journal of Personality 14 (2): 157–169. Zack, Michael H. 2007. The role of decision support systems in an indeterminate world. Decision Support Systems 43 (4): 1664–1674. Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. 314 Business Research (2019) 12:291–314 123