Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Intuition's value for organizational innovative...

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Intuition's value for organizational innovativeness and why managers still refrain from using it

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published
Close
<mark>Journal publication date</mark>13/05/2014
<mark>Journal</mark>Management Decision
Issue number3
Volume52
Number of pages14
Pages (from-to)526-539
Publication StatusPublished
<mark>Original language</mark>English

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to expand the knowledge about the value of intuition for organizational innovativeness and organizational factors inhibiting intuitive decision making. Design/methodology/approach - The study develops and tests a theoretical model that relates intuitive and deliberate decision-making styles to organizational innovativeness, and the application of either decision-making style to organizational size and decision maker's power position in an organization. Based on a survey conducted in 2011, data from 281 organizations was analyzed applying linear regression analysis. Findings - Intuitive and deliberate processing both relate positively to organizational innovativeness. Organizational size relates negatively to the application of an intuitive decision-making style, while power position relates positively to the application of an intuitive decision-making style. Research limitations/implications - The findings suggest that intuitive decision making is valuable for organizational innovativeness. Still, its application is suppressed if decision makers are in lower power positions or part of larger organizations. Originality/value - High demands on managers' and entrepreneurs' information processing capabilities require them to apply their full range of cognitive capabilities (i.e. deliberative and intuitive processing). Intuitive decision making, however, still seems to be confined to those who have least reason to fear critique from others. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved). (journal abstract)