IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/hig/fsight/v12y2018i2p78-90.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Psychological Aspects of Corporate Foresight

Author

Listed:
  • Timofei Nestik

    (Institute of Psychology, Russian Academy of Sciences (Russian Federation))

Abstract

The article considers the psychological mechanisms of collective foresight activities. Corporate foresight is considered a collective relection, an open strategic dialogue about group objectives and joint actions that helps group members construct a collective image of the future and adapt to future challenges. The results of expert panel revealed several organizational and psychological barriers that hinder corporate foresight effectiveness in Russia: distrust toward long-term forecasting, the avoidance of responsibility for one’s own future, a poor focus on the future, and low levels of social cooperation. Special attention is paid to overcoming the cognitive biases and socio-psychological effects during foresight sessions that hinder group reflection, including: the effects of overconfidence, the desirability effect, framing, future anxiety, neglect of the scope of risk, future stereotyping, uncertainty of outcome, availability heuristic, the generalization of fictional evidence, the visualization effect, hindsight bias, future discounting, cognitive dissonance, regression to the mean, planning fallacy, explanation effect, common knowledge and polarization effects, technophile’s bias, and self-fulfilling prophecies. Directions of future psychological research in the field of foresight studies are proposed.

Suggested Citation

  • Timofei Nestik, 2018. "The Psychological Aspects of Corporate Foresight," Foresight and STI Governance (Foresight-Russia till No. 3/2015), National Research University Higher School of Economics, vol. 12(2), pages 78-90.
  • Handle: RePEc:hig:fsight:v:12:y:2018:i:2:p:78-90
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://foresight-journal.hse.ru/data/2018/07/03/1153164977/6-Nestik-78-90.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Buehler, Roger & Griffin, Dale, 2003. "Planning, personality, and prediction: The role of future focus in optimistic time predictions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 92(1-2), pages 80-90.
    2. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    3. Sandro Mendonca & Miguel Pina e Cunha & Jari Kaivo-oja & Frank Ruff, 2003. "Wild cards, weak signals and organizational improvisation," Nova SBE Working Paper Series wp432, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Nova School of Business and Economics.
    4. Buehler, Roger & Messervey, Deanna & Griffin, Dale, 2005. "Collaborative planning and prediction: Does group discussion affect optimistic biases in time estimation?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 97(1), pages 47-63, May.
    5. Claudio Gomez Portaleoni & Svetla Marinova & Rehan ul-Haq & Marin Marinov, 2013. "Corporate Foresight and Strategic Decisions," Palgrave Macmillan Books, Palgrave Macmillan, number 978-1-137-32697-3, October.
    6. Gino, Francesca & Sharek, Zachariah & Moore, Don A., 2011. "Keeping the illusion of control under control: Ceilings, floors, and imperfect calibration," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 114(2), pages 104-114, March.
    7. Kelly, Janice R. & Barsade, Sigal G., 2001. "Mood and Emotions in Small Groups and Work Teams," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 86(1), pages 99-130, September.
    8. Agné Paliokaité, 2010. "Networking as a Route for Corporate Foresight in SMEs," IET Working Papers Series 10/2010, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, IET/CICS.NOVA-Interdisciplinary Centre on Social Sciences, Faculty of Science and Technology.
    9. Berns, Gregory S. & Loewenstein, George & Laibson, David I., 2007. "Intertemporal Choice - Toward an Integrative Framework," Scholarly Articles 4554332, Harvard University Department of Economics.
    10. Konstantin Vishnevskiy & Dirk Meissner & Olga Egorova, 2015. "Foresight for SMEs: How to Overcome the Limitations in Small Firms?," HSE Working papers WP BRP 45/STI/2015, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    11. Leder, Johannes & Häusser, Jan Alexander & Mojzisch, Andreas, 2015. "Exploring the underpinnings of impaired strategic decision-making under stress," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 133-140.
    12. Sucheta Nadkarni & V. K. Narayanan, 2007. "Strategic schemas, strategic flexibility, and firm performance: the moderating role of industry clockspeed," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(3), pages 243-270, March.
    13. Gerard P. Hodgkinson & Nicola J. Bown & A. John Maule & Keith W. Glaister & Alan D. Pearman, 1999. "Breaking the frame: an analysis of strategic cognition and decision making under uncertainty," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(10), pages 977-985, October.
    14. Alexander Sokolov, 2007. "Foresight: A Look Into the Future," Foresight and STI Governance (Foresight-Russia till No. 3/2015), National Research University Higher School of Economics, vol. 1(1), pages 8-15.
    15. Dirk Meissner & Leonid Gokhberg & Alexander Sokolov (ed.), 2013. "Science, Technology and Innovation Policy for the Future," Springer Books, Springer, edition 127, number 978-3-642-31827-6, December.
    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. Elna Schirrmeister & Anne‐Louise Göhring & Philine Warnke, 2020. "Psychological biases and heuristics in the context of foresight and scenario processes," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(2), June.
    2. John J. Oliver, 2023. "Scenario planning: Reflecting on cases of actionable knowledge," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(3-4), September.

    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. Samuel Adomako & Kwabena Frimpong & Joseph Amankwah-Amoah & Francis Donbesuur & Robert A. Opoku, 2021. "Strategic Decision Speed and International Performance: The Roles of Competitive Intensity, Resource Flexibility, and Structural Organicity," Management International Review, Springer, vol. 61(1), pages 27-55, March.
    2. Petr Houdek, 2008. "Time Preferences in the Perspective of Cognitive Neurosciences [Časové preference z pohledu kognitivní neurovědy]," E-LOGOS, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2008(1), pages 1-9.
    3. Ralf Elbert & Lowis Seikowsky, 2017. "The influences of behavioral biases, barriers and facilitators on the willingness of forwarders’ decision makers to modal shift from unimodal road freight transport to intermodal road–rail freight tra," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 87(8), pages 1083-1123, November.
    4. Sebastian Junge & Johannes Luger & Jan Mammen, 2023. "The Role of Organizational Structure in Senior Managers' Selective Information Processing," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(5), pages 1178-1204, July.
    5. Jordi Grau-Moya & Pedro A Ortega & Daniel A Braun, 2016. "Decision-Making under Ambiguity Is Modulated by Visual Framing, but Not by Motor vs. Non-Motor Context. Experiments and an Information-Theoretic Ambiguity Model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-21, April.
    6. Daniella Laureiro‐Martínez & Stefano Brusoni, 2018. "Cognitive flexibility and adaptive decision‐making: Evidence from a laboratory study of expert decision makers," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(4), pages 1031-1058, April.
    7. Stephen Fox, 2016. "Dismantling The Box — Applying Principles For Reducing Preconceptions During Ideation," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(06), pages 1-27, August.
    8. Andreas Hönl & Philip Meissner & Torsten Wulf, 2020. "Betting the farm and playing it safe? Hyper-core self-evaluation in decisions when managers are winning and losing," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 13(3), pages 1293-1316, November.
    9. Buehler, Roger & Peetz, Johanna & Griffin, Dale, 2010. "Finishing on time: When do predictions influence completion times?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 111(1), pages 23-32, January.
    10. Han Bleichrodt & Jose Luis Pinto & Peter P. Wakker, 2001. "Making Descriptive Use of Prospect Theory to Improve the Prescriptive Use of Expected Utility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(11), pages 1498-1514, November.
    11. Oliver Linton & Esfandiar Maasoumi & Yoon-Jae Wang, 2002. "Consistent testing for stochastic dominance: a subsampling approach," CeMMAP working papers 03/02, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    12. van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. & Botzen, W.J.W., 2015. "Monetary valuation of the social cost of CO2 emissions: A critical survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 33-46.
    13. Heiko Karle & Georg Kirchsteiger & Martin Peitz, 2015. "Loss Aversion and Consumption Choice: Theory and Experimental Evidence," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 7(2), pages 101-120, May.
    14. Shoji, Isao & Kanehiro, Sumei, 2016. "Disposition effect as a behavioral trading activity elicited by investors' different risk preferences," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 104-112.
    15. Muhammad Kashif & Thomas Leirvik, 2022. "The MAX Effect in an Oil Exporting Country: The Case of Norway," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-16, March.
    16. Jonathan Meng & Feng Fu, 2020. "Understanding Gambling Behavior and Risk Attitudes Using Cryptocurrency-based Casino Blockchain Data," Papers 2008.05653, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2020.
    17. Daniel Fonseca Costa & Francisval Carvalho & Bruno César Moreira & José Willer Prado, 2017. "Bibliometric analysis on the association between behavioral finance and decision making with cognitive biases such as overconfidence, anchoring effect and confirmation bias," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1775-1799, June.
    18. Robert Gazzale & Julian Jamison & Alexander Karlan & Dean Karlan, 2013. "Ambiguous Solicitation: Ambiguous Prescription," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 51(1), pages 1002-1011, January.
    19. Boone, Jan & Sadrieh, Abdolkarim & van Ours, Jan C., 2009. "Experiments on unemployment benefit sanctions and job search behavior," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(8), pages 937-951, November.
    20. Castro, Luciano de & Galvao, Antonio F. & Kim, Jeong Yeol & Montes-Rojas, Gabriel & Olmo, Jose, 2022. "Experiments on portfolio selection: A comparison between quantile preferences and expected utility decision models," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 97(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    corporate foresight; collective image of the future; social forecasting; time perspective; leadership vision; group identity; group reflexivity; cognitive biases; social psychology of foresight;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O21 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Development Planning and Policy - - - Planning Models; Planning Policy
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • C53 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric Modeling - - - Forecasting and Prediction Models; Simulation Methods

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:hig:fsight:v:12:y:2018:i:2:p:78-90. 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: Nataliya Gavrilicheva or Mikhail Salazkin (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/hsecoru.html .

    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.