Evidence-Based Organizational Learning

Andrew D. Banasiewicz, Ph.D.

Director of Data Science & Analytics
Merrimack College
315 Turnpike Street
North Andover, MA 01845, USA

1
 Evidence-Based Organizational Learning
Abstract
The growing importance of data-driven decision-making to organizational competitiveness poses a
number of vexing organizational learning related questions. In order for organizations to develop
methodologically-sound and informationally-complete organizational learning capabilities that go beyond
mere accumulation, storage and cataloging of data and other informational assets, more explicit
information amalgamation and synthesis focused frameworks are needed. The Empirical & Experiential
Evidence (3E) framework outlined here is built around the idea that since the primary utility of
organizational knowledge is to support organizational decision-making, topically-related data and
information can be considered decision-guiding evidence. The framework’s evidence synthesis logic
parallels the general 6-step process of identifying, assessing, aggregating, weighing, agglomerating and
incorporating distinct but related information, but that process is nested within a 3-tier evidence
classificatory schema which categorizes all available decision inputs into two broad meta-categories, four
more narrowly scoped categories, and twelve even more operationally meaningful sub-categories. The 3E
framework also puts forth specific evidentiary insight extraction methodologies that reflect the
informational uniqueness of the two meta-categories and four categories.
Keywords
organizational learning; management decision-making; empirical and experiential knowledge; knowledge
creation; knowledge integration; learning frameworks; bias reduction; fact-based decision-making

2
 Organizational Decision-Making
One of the core characteristics shared by business and other organizations is the need for ongoing
decision-making (Casey, 2005; Fiol and Lyles, 1985; Wang and Ellinger, 2011). Broadly defined as
commitment to a course of action intended to serve a particular end goal (Dodgson, 1993; Easterby-
Smith, Snell, and Gherardi, 1998), organizational choices can be seen as products of boundedly rational
processes, so characterized because of being commonly constrained by limited/incomplete information,
cognitive mental limitations and biases, and time limitations (Antonocopoulou and Chiva, 2007; Bell,
2016; Gnyawali and Stewart, 2003: Kahneman, 2011; Ortenblad, 2002; Rasmussen and Nielsen, 2011;
Simon, 1991). After decades of cognitive and behavioral research, the mental heuristics and proximal
mechanisms that produce judgments and choices are still poorly understood (Hoffmann, Gaissmaier and
von Helversen, 2017; Seta et al., 2015)), which in a way is not surprising given the paradoxical
complexity of human cognition – how does one make sense of one’s sense-making? Adding to the
complexity of deciphering the mechanics of sense-making is an obvious observation that many, perhaps
even most decisions are shaped not only by cognitive, but also by psychological and emotional (Lucas
and Kline, 2008; Schein, 1993; Wastell, 1999; Yanow, 2000), and even biological (Salvador and Sadri,
2018) characteristics. As famously noted by Rene Descartes1, conscious choice-making can be considered
the ultimate manifestation of one existence, thus it can also be considered the ultimate manifestation of
one’s individuality (Ferrin, 2017).

When decisions are made within an organizational setting, additional, group level factors also need to be
considered. Those include decision influences that can be characterized as enduring, best exemplified by
organizational culture (Yates and de Oliveira, 2016; Briley et al., 2014; Markus and Kitayama, 1991) and
structure (Schreyogg and Sydow, 2010; Hinings et al. 1996; Gurpinar, 2016), as well as those that are
more situational in nature, as exemplified by decision type (De Smet, Lackey and Weiss, 2017; Puschke,
2009) and group dynamics (George and Dane, 2016; Edmondson, 2002; Lucas and Kline, 2008; Schein,
1993). Together with decision-makers’ cognitive, psychological and emotional traits, group-level
characteristics shape attitudinal and behavioral determinants of collective organizational functioning
(Levy, 2017; Sessa and London, 2007), which in turn frames the context of organizational choice-making
processes (Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005; Kogut and Zander, 1996). Hence making sense of organizational
sense-making calls for an explicit differentiation between single- and multi-actor choice-making
considerations, especially the interplay between personal and interpersonal factors that shape
organizational decision outcomes (Coleman, 1990; Gioia, 1998; Ouchi, 1979).

Moreover, considering that decision scenarios ultimately call for either a simple, typically binary (i.e., yes
vs. no), or a more complex choices (Banasiewicz, 2019 forthcoming; Kocabiyikoglu and Hekimoglu,
2018; Nutt, 1984), understanding of that aspect of decision complexity is also essential to unmasking the
mechanics of organizational decision-making. That is because from the standpoint of rational choice
making, binary outcome decisions can be seen as being shaped, primarily, by the preponderance of ‘for’
vs. ‘against’ evidence, while open-ended decisions entail far more nuanced sets of considerations
(Ranyard et al., 1997; Singer and Engel, 2008; Piccirillo and Noro, 2008; Said, 2006). Hence the latter
scenario calls for more decision-guiding evidence, and more involved evidence evaluation, which in turn
highlights the importance of effective information processing mechanisms (Banasiewicz, 2019,
forthcoming). That is not to say that organizational decision-making should be reduced to a set of
computational algorithms, but the process could clearly benefit from more explicit decision-aiding
framework given the typically large volumes and rich varieties of available and decision-pertinent
information, coupled with potentially biasing influence of group level factors such as culture (Briley et
al., 2014; Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005; Schein, 1993) or motivation (Kahneman, 2011; Sessa and
London, 2008), and cross-individual cognitive variability (Nakauchi, 2017; Caputo, 2016; Hilbert, 2012;

1
Cogito, ergo sum (Latin for ‘I think, therefore I am’).

3
Sessa, 2008). In a sense, the value of an explicit organizational decisioning support framework becomes
most apparent when considering the potentially skewing influence of implicit social cognition (Uhlmann
et al., 2008; Akgun et al., 2003; Gnyawali and Stewart, 2003; Schneider, 1991). Broadly defined as
mental processes that occur outside of conscious awareness or control in relation to socio-psychological
phenomena (Smeding et al., 2016; Karpinski and Steinman, 2006), those instinct-like sense-making
mechanisms that bridge the gap between group and individual level attributes are believed to be
responsible for many of an individual decision-maker’s attitude-based responses, including the use of
stereotypes (Delavande and Zafar, 2015; Gardiner et al., 2013). Within the confines of organizational
decision-making, implicit social cognition can bring about noticeably different interpretation of the same
sets of facts, some of which can be in the form of informative insights, and some can be a manifestation
of perception-warping bias (Gawronski and Bodenhausen, 2005).

Decision-Making and Group Dynamics

Conventional wisdom suggests that groups make better decisions than individuals, because of greater
capacity to accumulate and deal with more information, encourage divergent and innovative thinking,
point out group members’ errors, and reduce the impact of cognitive bias (Nakauchi, 2017; Caputo, 2016;
Hilbert, 2012; Kahneman, 2011; Sessa, 2008; Drach-Zahavy and Somech, 2001). However, research in
areas of social cognition and social psychology paints a somewhat different picture, one which suggests
that cognitive, social and situational influences determine the quality of decision-making, and that groups
do not always outperform individuals (Abatecola et al., 2018; Cristofaro, 2017; Mazutis and Eckardt,
2017; Bhatt, 2000). While interactions taking place within groups indeed increase decision confidence,
that does not necessarily translate into higher decision quality because of two main reasons: First of those
is the phenomenon often referred to as ‘groupthink’, a dysfunctional pattern of thought and interaction
during group decision-making characterized by closed-mindedness, uniformity expectations, and group
bias (Russell et al., 2015; Benabou, 2013; Schafer and Crichlow, 1996). The second is biased information
search, characterized by strong preference for information that supports the group’s view (Kopsacheilis,
2018; Rozas, 2012; Fischer et al., 2011; Schultz-Hardt et al. 2000). Thus thinking of organizations as
communities specializing in knowledge creation and transfer, it is essential to recognize that while groups
have the potential to enhance the capacity, objectivity and creativity of organizational thinking, the
realization of that promise is contingent on containing cognitive diversity-suppressing aspects of group
dynamics (Atewologun, 2016; Lucas and Kline, 2008; Shiller, 2005; Driver, 2003).

An aspect of cognitive diversity that is of particular importance is critical thinking, a summary construct
capturing an individual’s ability to evaluate and analyse an issue of interest in a rigorous manner (Sessa
and London, 2008; Natale and Ricci, 2006). More specifically, a critical thinker examines the underlying
assumptions, is able to discern hidden values, has the capacity (in the sense of cognitive abilities and
reasoning/analytic tools) to evaluate evidence, and assess the efficacy of conclusions. While framed using
common attributes, critical thinking is inescapably individual because it calls upon both explicit and tacit
knowledge to produce a unique perspective, ultimately giving rise to cognitive diversity at a group level.
In that sense, individual-level critical thinking is a core determinant of the efficacy of group-level
decision-making – the rather commonly encountered phenomena of groupthink and biased information
search suppress the degree of cognitive diversity of a group by stemming the individual group members’
critical thinking.

A yet another important, organizational decision-making related aspect of group dynamics is group
conflict (Katz et al., 2016; Stanley, 1981). As suggested by social exchange theory, which views the
stability of group interactions through a theoretical lens of negotiated exchange between parties,
individual group members are ultimately driven by the desire to maximize their benefits, thus conflict
tends to arise when group dynamics take on more competitive than collaborative character (Li-Fen, 2008;
Gould-Williams, 2005). Keeping in mind that the realization of group decision-making potential requires

4
full contributory participation on the part of individual group members, within-group competition reduces
the willingness of individuals to contribute their best to the group effort.

An important aspect of competition vs. cooperation themed group dynamic is the extent of information
sharing (Kembro and Selviaridis, 2015; Van Swol, 2007; Christensen, 1996). Research focused on group
decision-making related information pooling points toward a consistent tendency to pool and repeat more
of shared than unshared information, a phenomenon now known as information-sampling bias (Hunton,
2001). Considering that in-group competition activates individuals’ fears of being exploited (while also
heightening the desire to exploit others) and makes individuals more focused on standing out in
comparison of competencies with others, group information processing is also characterized by the
tendency to evaluate one’s own information more favourably than information of others’, a tendency
known as ownership bias (Arai et al., 2016; Van Swol, 2007), and the inclination to evaluate more
positively any information that is consistent with one’s initial preferences, a psychological phenomenon
known as preference effect (Faulmuller et al., 2010; Mojzisch and Schulz-Hardt, 2010). Moreover, as
posited by the Motivated Information Processing in Groups model, information processing in groups is
driven by two orthogonal motivational factors of epistemic and social motivations (Super et al., 2016;
Nijstad and De Dreu, 2012; Bechtoldt et al., 2010). Individual-framed epistemic motivation captures
individuals’ willingness to expend effort to achieve thorough and accurate understanding of the problem
at hand, while group-described social motivations capture individuals’ preferences for sharing in outcome
distributions.

Organizational Learning
Although as evidenced by Argyris and Schon’s 1978 book, Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action
Perspective, and even earlier studies (e.g., Arrow, 1962; Cangelosi and Dill, 1965; Cyert and March,
1963; Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967), learning has been recognized as a distinct organizational competency
for nearly half a century, it was not until the 1990 that the topics of organizational learning and learning
organizations spurred wider interest among researchers (Rebelo and Gomes, 2008; Bapuji and Crossan,
2004; Dodgson, 1993), resulting in rich and varied research streams (e.g., Cohen and Sproull, 1996;
Denton, 1998; Marquardt, 1996; Popper and Lipshitz, 1998). The 1990 Senge’s book, The Fifth
Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, did much to popularize the notion of the
learning organization, compelling managers to expressly pursue the acquisition of unique organizational
know-how as a distinct source of competitive advantage, so much so that it eventually gave rise to
concerns that organizational learning was just another passing fad (Robelo and Gomes, 2008). And while
approaching organizational learning as a yet another buzzwords and acronyms filled universal quick fix,
one-size-fits-all, templated solution to organizational problems indeed warrants skepticism, it is
nonetheless inconceivable that an organization could succeed in today’s knowledge economy without
developing robust, systemic learning mechanisms.

The notion of learning is typically associated with the acquisition of knowledge by individuals – what
then is organizational learning? Formally defined as the process of acquiring, creating, integrating and
distributing of information (Wang and Ellinger, 2011; Dixon, 1992; Huber, 1991), organizational learning
can ultimately be seen as a process of preserving certain behaviors, norms and values, shaped by
organization-specific structural and cultural forces (Belle, 2016; Yates and de Oliveira, 2016; Rasmussen
and Nielsen, 2011; Bhatt, 2000), and encompassing the two independent dimensions of behavior, or the
act of doing (Templeton et al., 2009; Hult and Nichols, 1996), and cognition, or the process of knowing
(Chiva and Alegre, 2005; Akgun et al., 2003). The former commonly takes the form of what is known as
lower level learning, which is the process of forming rudimentary behavior-outcome associations, while
the latter usually takes the form of higher level learning, which is the process of discerning overall rules
and norms; both are shaped by external factors such as culture, strategy, structure, and the environment

5
(Yates and de Oliveira, 2016; Wang and Ellinger, 2011; Rasmussen and Nielsen, 2011; Rebelo and
Gomes, 2008; Sessa and London, 2008).

The term ‘learning organization’ captures actual or aspirational capability to adapt to opportunities and
threats by means of identifying and assimilating appropriate knowledge and implementing necessary
changes (Gronhaug and Stone, 2012; Rebelo and Gomes, 2008; Yeo, 2005), though it is sometimes seen
as yet another quick fix managerial remedy popularized by consultants dispensing sage advice and
surefire solutions promising to deliver a lot and fast (Buckley et al., 2015; Rebelo and Gomes, 2008).
Still, learning is endemic to organizational functioning, and thus developing sounder underlying of the
underlying mechanics of organizational learning is important. Taking a step toward unmasking outcome-
oriented aspects of organizational learning, a number of learning type schemas have been proposed, as
exemplified by Gnyawali and Stewart’s (2003) reinventive, formative, adjustive and operative learning,
or Sessa, London, Pingor, Gullu and Patel’s adaptive, generative and transformative learning (Sessa et al.,
2011). However, comparatively little research effort has been directed toward developing deeper
understanding of the input-oriented aspects of organizational learning, thus it is the goal of the ensuing
analysis to contribute to that dimension.

Evidence Focused Organizational Learning

At the first glance the notion of ‘knowledge’ is deceptively simple, but the veneer of clarity quickly
disappears upon closer examination of the concept’s multidimensional epistemological foundation
(Blumberg, 2009). Originally framed by Plato, some 2,500 years ago, as ‘justified true belief’ (Dutant,
2015; Banasiewicz, 2013), this broad conception of knowledge is still widely used today. It suggests that
a person knows something if and only if that something is true, and the person is completely justified in
believing that, which in turn requires that belief to not be predicated upon any false causes. Stated
differently, ‘knowledge’ as a property or a state is inseparable from the process of ‘knowing’. It thus
follows that when that abstract notion of knowledge is considered in the context of ‘what’ or the state, and
‘how’ or the process, the result is the first step toward a more operationally meaningful categorization of
knowledge, as exemplified by deductive and inductive (Cellucci, 2015; Evans, 2002), tacit and explicit
(Addis, 2016; Huang et al., 2014; Hau et al., 2013) or declarative and procedural (Herz and Schultz, 1999;
Willingham et al., 1989) types of knowledge; further topical contextualization will result in progressively
more specific and operationally meaningful domains of knowledge.

The recently proposed Empirical & Experiential Evidence (3E) framework (Banasiewicz, 2019
forthcoming) promotes that goal by outlining the means of amalgamating and synthesizing source- and
type-dissimilar information into a singularly conclusive, decision-guiding evidence. In a manner
conceptually similar to other evidence-based practice conceptualizations (e.g., Barends et al., 2014;
Rousseau and Barends, 2011), the 3E framework is built around a general progression of systematically
identifying, assessing, aggregating, weighting, agglomerating and incorporating decision-related
information. However, unlike those conceptualizations, which are built around essentially a single source
of information, typically in the form of scientific/academic research, the Empirical & Experiential
Evidence framework takes a considerably more expansive view of informational inputs. In fact, the
framework’s operationalization, discussion of which falls outside the scope of this paper, favors
exploration and synthesis of organizational data, which due to its broad scope (transactional and
operational details, consumer characteristics and activities, etc.), recency and granularity are now widely
considered to contain the greatest potential informational value to organizational choice-making (Cordon
e al., 2016; Manyika et al., 2011). At the same time, however, the 3E framework looks beyond the ‘it is
all about data’ mindset (Kambhampaty, 2018; Smith, 2018) because data tend to be incomplete and noisy
(Tang and Ishwaran, 2017), and data analytic methods can only yield probabilistic insights (Skilling,
1998). But when organizational data-derived insights are thoughtfully combined with other sources of
information, the result is a material improvement in the validity and reliability of organizational

6
knowledge. Doing so, however, requires the earlier mentioned identify-assess-aggregate-weigh-
agglomerate-incorporate process to account for within-source and cross-source aspects of information
pooling, as depicted in Figure 1.

Figure 1
The Evidence Progression

The within-source vs. cross-source distinction is intended to highlight the two phased essence of the 3E
framework, which draws attention to, first, judicious discovery and pulling together of all similar, or type-
specific data, and, second, thoughtful syndication of distinct types of informational inputs. One of the
obvious obstacles to doing so is informational over-abundance. From diverse and voluminous torrents of
operational and related data, to research outlets numbering in thousands, to the diversity and subjectivity
of expert options and industry benchmarks, the variety and the volume of potentially decision-pertinent
information are overwhelming. Making meaningful use of what is ‘out there’ is contingent on developing
a broad classificatory schema to organize the myriad of informational inputs into mutually exclusive and,
as much as possible, collectively exhaustive categories.

Knowledge as Evidence
A starting point in developing a categorization schema that is both generalizable as well as sufficiently
detailed when applied to individual organizations is to frame the informational context in terms of
decision-aiding evidence. Defined as facts or other organized information presented to support or justify
beliefs or inferences (Kvernbekk, 2011; Luther and Sartawi, 2011; Simmons, 2003; Herbert et al., 2001;
Melnick et al., 1997), it is widely used widely in modern science to lend substantiation to theoretical
postulates (Bui-Klimke and Wu, 2014; Chiesa, 2010; Gott and Duggan, 2003; Goodman and Royall,
1988), in medical diagnosis and treatment (Osara et al., 2015; Hansen and Kappel, 2010; Candelise, 2007;
Simon, 2006), in the practice of law to help settle disputes (Federal Judicial Center, 2011) and to pursue
social justice agenda (Hulle et al., 2018; Russell, 2016), and more recently, in organizational management
(Yoon at al., 2017; Hasson et al., 2016; Wang and Ohsawa, 2013; Luther, 2011; Snowden and Boone,
2007). Since ‘facts and other organized information’ constitute a very broad, open-ended pool of possible
indications, available and pertinent evidence may encompass a mixed bag of signs, some supporting and
others refuting a particular belief or proposition. Consequently, the totality of evidence is usually
considered from the perspective of the degree to which the majority of indications support or not a
particular argument. Within the confines of scientific and diagnostic settings evidence is commonly
framed using the notion of weight of evidence (Weed, 2005), while within the legal setting the evidentiary
plurality is captured in the notion of preponderance of evidence (Stempel, 2000).

Implied in the conception of evidence outlined here is the notion’s external-to-self aspect – in order to
offer defensible corroboration of one’s internally held beliefs or conclusions, facts or information used to
substantiate those beliefs ought to be derived from sources that are external to the belief system.
Presenting one belief as a “proof” of another belief is intellectually speaking tautological, and practically
speaking unconvincing. This is not a novel idea: scientific theories are validated using independent
observations, medical diagnosis rely on tests, and legal disputes are resolved by independent facts. In a
more general sense, objective, empirical evidence is more credible and more persuasive than perception-
colored and possibly atypical subjective beliefs (Boldt et al., 2017; Spence et al., 2016; Yeung and
Summerfield, 2014).

7
What about professional expertise? Experience has long been recognized as an important contributor to
professional, and thus organizational learning (Lindeman, 1926; Dewey, 1938); moreover, being derived
from direct observation of or participation in specific events or activities (Clemes et al., 2011; Gammie,
and Joyce, 2009) clearly suggests a distinct external-to-self element. However, being inescapably
individual-specific, professional expertise is markedly different from empirical evidence. While data or
research derived evidence tends to be more persuasive in a group setting, experience can play a
disproportionately influential role in shaping beliefs of individuals (Lahlou et al., 2015; Engellandt and
Riphahn, 2011; Koizumi, 2016). A professional’s experience tends to weigh heavily on his or her
judgement precisely because it is personal, in the sense that any resultant beliefs feel intuitively correct,
especially when accompanies by high levels of belief confidence (Hodgkinson, 2009; Sjoberg, 1982). In
fact, experience rooted beliefs can overshadow more objective evidence, primarily because experiential
knowledge is closely linked to one’s self-esteem (Curtis and Lee, 2013; Armstrong et al., 2012; Bruine de
Bruin, 2007; Kolb, 1984). It thus follows that strong preference for self-referential knowledge can
adversely impact organizational group dynamics (Gilovich et al., 2002; Heider, 1958), potentially
weakening organizational learning. Such dangers notwithstanding, when carefully harnessed, experience-
based knowledge can positively contribute to the totality of organizational knowledge base (Hahn, 2014;
Lehmann and Heagy, 2008).

The preceding discussion suggests that decision-guiding evidence can be grouped into two broad meta-
categories of empirical and experiential evidence. The former encompasses external-to-self knowledge,
gathered by means of recording of events and states, while the latter embodies cumulative, experience-
based learnings of individuals. Empirical evidence can be further subdivided into operational data, which
encompasses details of electronic transaction processing, communication exchanges and characteristics of
entities, states or events, and theoretical research, which encompass observation or experimentation
based scientific inquiries. Experiential evidence can also be subdivided into two distinct components of
expert judgment, which are opinions and forecasts of highly qualified and practiced individuals, and
norms and standards, which encompasses recognized best practices and industry benchmarks. Offering a
still greater degree of operational clarity, each of the four broad evidence categories – operational data,
theoretical research, expert judgment, and norms & standards – can be further subdivided into more
informationally homogenous sub-categories, as summarized in Figure 2.

Figure 2
General Evidence Typology

8
Within the empirical meta-category, the operational data category is comprised of three distinct sub-
categories of transactional details, communications, and descriptive attributes, which are all still
relatively broad types of data that are either directly or indirectly captured by business organizations.
Overall, the defining characteristic of operational data as a source of organizational decision-making
inputs is that it encompasses a typically enormous varieties and volumes of raw data, which require a
combination of vision, data analytical skill and organizational commitment before it can offer decision-
guiding value.

The second of the two categories nested within the empirical meta-category, theoretical research,
contributes very different types of informational inputs – in contrast to ‘raw materials’ supplied by
operational data sources, theoretical research offers ‘ready-to-use’ insights. It is important to note that
while the domain of theoretical research is very broad, only those efforts that make use of explicit
hypotheses tests or other confirmatory or exploratory analyses of observational or experimental data are
considered here, because those types of studies demonstrate the requisite external-to-self validation..

Turning to the experiential meta-category, the norms & standards category encompasses several distinct,
but similarly-minded subsets, most notably industry benchmarks, which typically take the form of
numeric yardsticks capturing activity or outcome specific peer averages, organizational norms, which are
internal (to the organization) expected activity or outcome specific levels, and best practices, which
usually describe tried and tested processes and means of accomplishing specific goals. Jointly, those
sources of decision inputs can be considered a product of organization- or group-level practical
experience, or insights that represent highly aggregate generalizations.

The second of the two experiential categories, expert judgment, captures the accumulated tacit knowledge
of properly credentialed and practiced individuals. It can manifest itself as application-specific knowledge
in the form of select tasks, as exemplified by one’s knowledge and experience in a specific domain of
practice, such as risk modelling, knowledge of general processes, as illustrated by familiarity with the
process of commercial insurance procurement, and future projections, best exemplified by demonstrated
expertise in forecasting outcomes of interest, such as frequency and severity of windstorms. In contrast to
‘group think’ derived norms and standards, expert judgment is individual and thus those individual-level
inputs can very, quite considerably at times, across experts.

Assessment of Evidence

While conceptual frameworks offer essential abstract guidance, it is the supporting operationalizations
that ultimately determine the degree to which new behavioural guidelines are implemented (Petter et al.,
2012; Schmitt, 1994). Consequently, the general evidence typology shown in Figure 2 calls for an explicit
delineation of the analytic manner by which the ‘raw materials’ that constitute the input into each sub-
category will be transformed into decision-guiding insights. For example, the ‘transactional details’ sub-
category of evidence will typically encompass diverse, and quite possibly voluminous pools of data which
will require considerable analytical processing to yield meaningful insights, hence it is necessary to
delineate at least the general insight extraction approaches. Figure 3 shows a high-level summary of the
most appropriate insight extraction approaches.

9
 Figure 3
General Evidence Typology with the Supporting Operationalization

As graphically depicted above, each of the four categories of evidence calls for a methodologically
distinct insight extraction approach, with cross-sub-category variability necessitating the utilization of
multiple analytic techniques. While in-depth discussion of each of the proposed insight extraction
methods falls outside of the scope of this paper, some of the input category-specific operationalizations
(e.g., hypothesis tests or systematic reviews) are well established and described in scientific literature,
while others (e.g., exploration or quantitative norms) represents specific applications of established,
though more general analytic methodologies (for more details, see Banasiewicz, 2019, forthcoming).
It should also be noted that the 3E framework is not expressly individual or group focused in its
orientation, primarily because there is no clear line of demarcation between individual and organizational
learning (O’Connor et al., 2007; Argyris, 1999). In any formal organizational or informal group setting
some learning will be shared across members as explicit knowledge, and some will be intimately
personal, ultimately producing individual level tacit knowledge (Addis, 2016; Collins, 2010; Anand et al.,
2010). The overall organizational learning, however, is influenced by a combination of group,
interpersonal, and contextual factors (Belle, 2016; Yates and de Oliveira, 2016; Rasmussen and Nielsen,
2011). From the perspective of organizational choice-making, the key factors that shape, or at least
influence learning include group-based culture and structure (Wang and Ellinger, 2011; Lucas and Kline,
2008; Rebelo and Gomes, 2008), and individually-varied cognition, behaviors and emotions (Chiva and
Alegre, 2005; Akgun et al., 2003; Vince, 2002; Bhatt, 2000). Also important in understanding, and
possibly structuring organizational learning are situationally determined expected learning outcomes
(Salvador and Sadri, 2018; Belle, 2016), which can be more meaningfully examined from the perspective
of adaptive, generative, and transformative learning. All considered, the Empirical & Experiential
Evidence framework is focused on the scope and the mechanics of ‘what’ types of informational inputs
should be considered when pooling decision-guiding evidence, and ‘how’ those distinct and diverse
informational inputs should be amalgamated and synthesized to give rise to singularly conclusive
decision-guiding insights; the ensuing discussion of structural determinants, interpersonal differences, and
learning outcomes contextualizes the ‘what’ and ‘how’ mechanics of the 3E framework.

10
The Impact of Structural Factors
The elusive, intangible nature of organizational culture is conducive to overlooking that important aspect
of an organizational fabric (Yates and de Oliveira, 2016; Kondra and Hurst, 2008). It is usually not so
with organizational structure, which, as a system of roles and responsibilities is one of the most visible,
and even one of the most defining organizational features (Hinnings et al., 1996). And so while
organizational culture embodies a fundamental ‘feel’ of an organization, organizational structure
embodies the more tangibly ascertainable intentions, aspirations and purposes, which are particularly well
demonstrated by flatarchies and holacracies, the newly emergent, norm breaking organizational structures
(Gurpinar, 2016; Schreyogg and Sydow, 2010). In that sense, organizational structure can be as much as
an instrument for efficient operation as a manifestation or even legitimation of organizational power
holders’ values and beliefs.

Organizational culture and structure are mutually interdependent, and both rely on the reflexivity and
dynamics of organizational members to develop the necessary organizational functions, and ultimately to
achieve the stated organizational objectives (Lucas and Kline, 2008; Hinnings et al., 1996). Broadly held
beliefs, often summarized under the umbrella of institutional theory (Furubotn and Richter, 2005;
Langlois and Robertson, 2002), suggest that organizations have to adapt to societal and sectoral values
that spell out appropriate organizational forms, but the aforementioned flatarchies and holacracies cast
doubt on the validity of those beliefs. The evidence emerging out of modern organizational landscape
instead suggests that values of organizational power holder, particular the founders, have deterministic
impact on defining organizational structures and systems – in fact, rather than having to adapt to
prevailing societal and sectoral values, strong organizational power holders can effectively contribute to
amending those values.

Culture and structure are also closely related to organizational learning (Lucas and Kline, 2008; Gnyawali
and Stewart, 2003). While (mostly academic) research suggests that organizational learning shapes
organizational structure, a view supported to a rather frequent organizational restructurings, a more
pragmatic perspective suggests that organizations typically have to choose a particular system of roles and
responsibilities at the very onset of their existence, before any appreciable amount of organizational
learning is incurred. It thus seems reasonable to see organizational culture and structure both as
determinants as well as outcomes of organizational learning, which has important implications for the 3E
framework.

As graphically illustrated in Figure 1, the general process of systematic identification, assessment, and
synthesis of multi-sourced, decision-related information is at the core of the 3E framework. When that
process is considered from the perspective of organizational structure, centralized organizations, which
are those in which all key decisions are made at the top level, produce materially different learning
outcomes than de-centralized organizations, which distribute at least some of the decision-making power
throughout their hierarchies (Martínez-León, and Martínez-García, 2011; Huang et al. 2011; Sorenson,
2003). By virtue of concentrating decision-making powers in the hands of relatively few individuals
(typically the top executives), centralized organizational structure reduces the aggregate amount of
experiential evidentiary knowledge produced throughout the organization. De-centralized organizations,
on the other, operating on the basis of delegation of decision-making authority tend to generate
comparatively greater, and likely also informationally richer, aggregate volumes of experiential learning.

When the general process of systematic identification, assessment, and synthesis of multi-sourced,
decision-related information is considered from the perspective of organizational culture, it is clear that
the empirical dimension of decision-guiding evidence generation is most directly affected (Martínez-
León, and Martínez-García, 2011). By monopolizing the core elements of organizational decision-
making, centralized organizations effectively discourage the pursuit deeper exploration of the available

11
data and applicable academic research. Recalling the three distinct dimensions of organizational learning
discussed earlier – adaptive, generative, and transformative – centrally controlled organizations implicitly
encourage adaptive learning, which encompasses reactive changes primarily brought about by internal
pressures, while at the same time implicitly discouraging generative (acquisition of new skills and
knowledge) and transformative (strategic shifts in skills and knowledge) learning. In a more general
sense, the non-participatory, often rigid decision-making structure of centralized organizations tends to
reduce broader organizational learning to mechanistic responses to environmental demands, while at the
same time suppressing higher-order, critical thinking and social cognition rooted learning. Conversely,
non-centralized organizations tend to run the risk of insufficiently inducing lower-level, i.e., adaptive,
learning, while at the same time implicitly promoting, even nurturing as in the case of flatarchies or
holacracies, more organic and systemic higher-order learning.

Lastly, recalling that learning takes the two somewhat distinct forms of ‘doing’ or behaviors (Templeton
et al., 2009; Hult and Nichols, 1996), and ‘thinking’ or cognition (Chiva and Alegre, 2005; Akgun et al.,
2003), observational evidence suggests that under most circumstances organizational structure is likely to
impact the behavioral aspect of organizational learning, while culture is likely to affect the cognitive
aspect of learning. Reasons for that are as follows: In the context of organizational learning, behaviors
and cognitions are interrelated to the degree to which at least some of the aggregate organizational
learning can be seen as an outcome of de facto experimentation. Reasonable choices, supported by a
combination of reasonable assumptions and sound empirical knowledge take the form of organizational
actions, the vast majority of which are ultimately speculative, given the presence of numerous
environmental uncertainties. In that sense, individual organizational decisions can be – in fact, should be
– evaluated as applied experiments, outcomes of which should be assessed against pre-determined
evaluative benchmarks. In that context, learning is a function of ‘thinking’ surrounding the logic of
organizational actions, and ‘doing’, which takes the form of executing of individual ideas. Given all that,
one of the inescapable characteristics of centrally controlled organizations is that by concentrating choice-
making powers in the hands of few, such organizations offer limited behavioral learning opportunities to
many. And by extension, those organizations also offer limited incentives to engage broad employee base
in more systemic social cognition efforts, as centralized organizational structures are most commonly
associated with non-participative, predominantly mechanistic and often inflexible cultures, which
ultimately provide limited incentives to engage in broad base, systemic cognitive learning.

Individual-Level Differences
A person learning from another person can be conceptualized as a process incorporating social interaction
and dyadic trust as critical antecedents of effective knowledge transfer (Akgun et al., 2003; Mason and
Lefrere, 2003; Vince, 2002; Fiol and Lyles, 1985). This realization is particularly important to
deciphering the mechanisms that facilitate organizational dissemination of experiential knowledge, which
is one of the two meta-categories of the 3E framework. Stepping a bit deeper into abstract considerations,
group learning situations characterized by high trust and emotionally positive context tend to produce
better organizational experiential learning outcomes, as the initially individual cognitions (‘I think
that…’) are slowly transformed into shared cognitions (‘We think that…’) which ultimately give rise to
shared institutionalized reality (‘It is true that…’) (Ashforth et al., 2011). When that happens, the
experiential knowledge of organizational thought and practice leaders can be disseminated throughout the
organization, effectively enhancing the aggregate knowledge base. Thus the realization of decision-
making efficacy gains made possible by more thorough and systematic identification, assessment,
agglomeration and assimilation of available and applicable experiential evidence hinges on creating of
socially and emotionally conducive learning environments. In addition, as posited by social identity
theory, closeness of organizational identification of individual member with the organization also has
strong impact on learning outcomes. If being a part of the organization contributes to building a positive

12
self-esteem, i.e., is a source of positive social identity, readiness and willingness to learn will be greater
(Wang and Ellinger, 2011; Rebelo and Gomes, 2008; Vince, 2002).

Although empirical evidence, which is the second of the two meta-categories that define the evidentiary
scope of the 3F framework, is arguably considerably less ‘personal’, the means and the manner in which
that knowledge is produced and disseminated are also directly influenced by the cognitive, behavioral and
emotive aspects of group dynamics (Nakauchi et al., 2017; Rasmussen and Nielsen, 2011; Sessa and
London, 2008; Gnyawali and Stewart, 2003). While cognitive diversity is generally beneficial to
organizations, it can also pose challenges. Cognitive bias is ubiquitous and takes on numerous forms
(Antonocopoulou and Chiva, 2007; Bell, 2016; Gnyawali and Stewart, 2003: Kahneman, 2011) – it thus
follows that greater organizational cognitive diversity will also manifest itself in a wider range of
cognitive bias manifestations. Greater cognitive diversity also tends to produce pluralistic data analytical
and scientific research findings evaluation perspectives. For instance, probability estimation, which is one
of the core elements of statistical inference, can be approached from Bayesian or frequentist perspectives,
likely resulting in divergent outcomes (Zhang et al., 2017; Berger, 2010).

And there is more. While evidence gathering related group interactions may increase the confidence of
the ultimate conclusion, socio-psychological research suggests that does not necessarily translate into
greater decision efficacy, because of two commonly observed phenomena. The first is popularly labelled
as groupthink, and it is characterized by pressure toward group uniformity stemming from overestimation
of the value of the group and the corresponding scorn of the individual (Russell et al., 2015; Benabou,
2013; Schafer and Crichlow, 1996). The second of the two phenomena, biased information search, can be
seen as a consequence of groupthink as it manifests itself as favouring information that supports the
group’s view (Kopsacheilis, 2018; Rozas, 2012; Fischer et al., 2011; Schultz-Hardt et al. 2000). In a more
general sense, when confronted with diverse and divergent data analytical or research evidence, the desire
for uniformity may impede critical thinking, or more specifically, may bias the examination of
assumptions and hidden values associated with differently sets of outcomes and findings, ultimately
leading to distorted evaluations and conclusions.

13
 References

Abatecola, G., Caputo, A. & Cristofaro, M. (2018). Reviewing cognitive distortions in

managerial decision making: Toward an integrative co-evolutionary framework. Journal of
Management Development, 37(5), 409-424.

Addis, M. (2016). Tacit and explicit knowledge in construction management. Construction Management
and Economics, 34(7-8), 439-445.

Akgun, A.E., Lynn, G.S & Byrne, J.C. (2003). Organizational learning: A socio-cognitive framework.
Human Relations, 56(7), 839-868.

Anand, G., Ward, P., & Tatikonda, M. (2010). Role of explicit and tacit knowledge in six sigma projects:
An empirical examination of differential project success. Journal of Operations Management, 28(4), 303-
303.

Antonocopoulou, E. & Chiva, R. (2007). The social complexity of organizational learning: The
dynamics of learning and organizing. Management Learning, 38(3), 277-295.

Arai, A., Fan, Z., Dunstan, M. & Shibasaki, R. (2016). Comparative perspective of human behavior
patterns to uncover ownership bias among mobile phone users. International Journal of Geo-Information,
5(6), 1-12.

Argyris, C. (1999). On Organizational Learning, 2nd ed., Malden, MA: Blackwell Business.

Argyris, C. & Schon, D.A. (1978). Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective, Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.

Armstrong, S. J., Cools, E., & Sadler-Smith, E. (2012). Role of cognitive styles in business and
management: Reviewing 40 years of research. International Journal of Management Review, 4(1), 238–
262.

Arrow, K. (1962). The economic implications of learning by doing. Review of Economic Studies, 29(3),
155-173.

Ashforth, B.E., Rogers, K.M. & Corley, K.G. (2011). Identity in organizations: Exploring cross-level
dynamics. Organization Science, 22(5), 1144-1156.

Atewologun, D., Sealy, R. & Vinnicombe, S. (2016). Revealing intersectional dynamics in

organizations: Introducing ‘intersectional identity work’. Gender, Work and Organization, 23(3), 223-
248.

Banasiewicz, A.D. (2019 forthcoming). Evidence-Based Decision-Making; How to Leverage Available

Data & Avoid Cognitive Biases, New York, NY: Routledge.

Banasiewicz, A.D. (2013). Marketing Database Analytics: Transforming Data for Competitive
Advantage, New York, NY: Routledge.

Bapuji, H. & Crossan, M. (2004). From questions to answers: Reviewing organizational learning
research. Management Learning, 35(4), 397-417.

14
Barends, E., Rousseau, D.M. & Briner, R.B. (2014). Evidence-Based Management: The Basic Principles,
Amsterdam, Netherlands: CEBMa.

Bassi, B.S. (1998). Administrative decision making: A contextual analysis. Management Decision, 36(4),
232-240.

Bechtoldt, M.N., De Dreu, C.K.W., Nijstad, B.A. & Choi, H.S. (2010). Motivated information
processing, social tuning, and group creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(4), 622-
637.

Belle, S. (2016). Organizational learning? Look again. The Learning Organization, 23(5), 332-341.

Benabou, R. (2013). Groupthink: Collective delusions in organizations and markets. The Review of
Economic Studies, 80(20), 429-462.

Berger, Z. (2010). Bayesian and frequentist models: Legitimate choices for different purposes of clinical
research. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 16(6), 1045-1047.

Bhatt, G.D. (2000). Information dynamics, learning and knowledge creation in organizations. The
Learning Organization, 7(2), 89-98.

Blumberg, P. (2009). Maximizing learning through course alignment and experience with different types
of knowledge. Innovative Higher Education, 34, 93-103.

Boldt, A., de Gardelle, V. & Yeung, N. (2017). The impact of evidence reliability on sensitivity and bias
in decision confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 43(8), 1520-1531.

Briley, D. A., Wyer, R. S., & Li, E. (2014). A dynamic view of cultural influence: A review. Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 24(4), 557–571.

Bruine de Bruin, W., Parker, A.M., & Fischhoff, B. (2007). Individual differences in adult decision-
making competence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 938–956.

Bagdasarov, Z., Peterson, D.R. & Peacock, J. (2015). Management lore continues alive and well in the
organizational sciences. Journal of Management History, 21(1), 68-97.

Bui-Klimke, T. & Wu, F. (2014). Evaluating weight of evidence in the mystery of Balkan endemic
nephropathy. Risk Analysis, 34(9), 1688-1705.

Candelise, L. (2007). Evidence-Based Neurology: Management of Neurological Disorders. Malden, MA:

Blackwell.

Cangelosi, V.E. & Dill, W.R. (1965). Organizational learning: Observations toward a theory.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 10(2), 175-203.

Caputo, A. (2016). Overcoming judgmental biases in negotiations: A scenario-based survey analysis on

third party direct intervention. Journal of Business Research, 69(10), 4304-4312.

Casey, A. (2005). Enhancing individual and organizational learning. Management Learning, 36(2), 131-
147.

15
Cellucci, C. (2015). Rethinking knowledge. Metaphilosophy, 46(2), 213-234.

Chiesa, M. (2010). Institutional impact of scientific research. British Journal of Psychotherapy, 26(4),
458-464.

Chiva, R. & Alegre, J. (2005). Organizational learning and organizational knowledge: Towards the
integration of two approaches. Management Learning, 36(1), 49-68.

Christensen, C., Abbott, A.S. & Franz, T.M. (1996). Diagnosing groups: Charting the flow of information
in medical decision-making teams. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(2), 315-330.

Chugh, D. (2004). Societal and managerial implications of implicit social cognition: Why milliseconds
matter. Social Justice Research, 17(2), 203-222.

Clemes, M., Brush, G., & Collins, M. (2011). Analysing the professional sport experience: A hierarchical
approach. Sport Management Review, 14(4), 370-370.

Cohen, M.D. & Sproull, L.E. (1996). Organizational Learning, Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage.

Coleman, J.S. (1990). Foundations of Social Theory, Cambridge. MA: Belknap.

Collins, H. (2010), Tacit and Explicit Knowledge. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Cordon, C., Garcia-Milà, P., Vilarino, T., & Caballero, P. (2016). Strategy is Digital: How Companies
Can Use Big Data in the Value Chain. Switzerland: Springer.

Cristofaro, M. (2017). Reducing biases of decision making processes in complex organizations.

Management Research Review, 40(3), 270-291.

Curtis, G. J., & Lee, M. W. H. (2013). Connecting cognitive–experiential self-theory’s information

processing styles with organizational-influencing tactics: Rational thinkers are rational
Persuaders. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Organizational Psychology, 6(1), 1–11.

Cyert, R.M. & March, J.G. (1963). A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.

Das, R., Jain, K., & Mishra, S. (2018). Archival research: A neglected method in organization studies.
Benchmarking: An International Journal, 25(1), 138-155.

Delavande, A., & Zafar, B. (2015). Stereotypes and madrassas: Experimental evidence from Pakistan.
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 118, 247-247.

De Smet, A., Lackey, G. & Weiss, L.M. (2017). Untangling your organization’s decision making.
McKinsey Quarterly, June. Retrieved from https://www.mckinsey.com/business-
functions/organization/our-insights/untangling-your-organizations-decision-making.

Denton, J. (1998). Organizational Learning and Effectiveness. London, UK: Routledge.

Dewey, J. (1938), Experience and Education. New York, NY: Collier Books.

16
Dixon, N.M. (1992). Organizational learning: A review of literature with implications for HRD
professionals. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 3(1), 29-49.

Dodgson, M. (1993). Organizational learning: A review of some literatures. Organization

Studies, 14(3), 375-94.

Drach-Zahavy, A. & Somech, A. (2001). Understanding team innovation: The role of team
processes and structures. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 5(2), 111-123.

Driver, M. (2003). Diversity and learning in groups. The Learning Organization, 10,
149-66.

Dutant, J. (2015). The legend of the justified true belief analysis. Philosophical Perspectives, 29, 95-145.

Easterby-Smith, M., Snell, R. & Gherardi, S. (1998). Organizational learning: Diverging communities of
practice? Management Learning, 29(3), 259-72.

Edmondson, A.C. (2002). The local and variegated nature of learning in organizations: A group-level
perspective. Organization Science, 13, 128-46.

Engellandt, A. & Riphahn, R.T. (2011). Evidence on incentive effects of subjective performance
evaluations. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 64(2), 241-257.

Evans, J. B. T. (2002). Logic and human reasoning: An assessment of the deduction paradigm.
Psychological Bulletin, 128, 978–996.

Faulmüller, N., Kerschreiter, R., Mojzisch, A. & Schulz-Hardt, S. (2010). Beyond group-level
explanations for the failure of groups to solve hidden profiles: The individual preference effect revisited.
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13(5), 653-671.

Federal Judicial Center (2011). Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, 3rd ed., Washington, DC:
National Academies Press.

Ferrin, A. (2017). Good moral judgement and decision-making without deliberation. Southern Journal of
Philosophy, 55(1), 68-95.

Fiol, C.M. & Lyles, M.A. (1985). Organizational learning. The Academy of Management Review, 10(4),
803-813.

Fischer, P., Lea, S., Kastenmuller, A., Greitemeyer, T., Fischer, J. & Frey, D. (2011). The process of
selective exposure: Why confirmatory information search weakens over time. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 114(1), 37-48.

Friebel, G. & Raith, M. (2010). Resource allocation and organizational form. American Economic
Journal: Microeconomics, 2, 1-33.

Furubotn, E., & Richter, R. (2005). Institutions and Economic Theory: The Contribution of the New
Institutional Economics, 2nd ed., Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

17
Gammie, E., & Joyce, Y. (2009). Competence-based approaches to the assessment of professional
accountancy training work experience requirements: The ICAS experience. Accounting Education,
18(4/5), 443-443.

Gardiner, S., Grace, D., & King, C. (2013). Challenging the use of generational segmentation through
understanding self-identity. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 31(6), 639-653.

Gawronski, B. & Bodenhausen, G.V. (2005). Attitudes and social cognition – accessibility effects on
implicit social cognition: The role of knowledge activation and retrieval experiences. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 89(5), 672-689.

Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., & Kahneman, D. (2002). Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive
Judgment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Gioia, D. A. (1998). From individual to organizational identity. In D. A. Whetten, P. C. Godfrey, eds.

Identity in Organizations: Building Theory through Conversations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 17–31.

Gnyawali, D.R. & Stewart, A.C. (2003). A contingency perspective on organizational learning:
Integrating environmental context, organizational learning process, and types of learning. Management
Learning, 34(1), 63-89.

Goodman, S.N. & Royall, R. (1988). Evidence and scientific research. American Journal of Public
Health, 78(12), 1568-1574.

Gould-Williams, J. & Davies, F. (2005). Using social exchange theory to predict the effects of HRM
practice on employee outcomes. Public Management Review, 7(1), 1-24.

Gott, R., & Duggan, S. (2003). Understanding and Using Scientific Evidence: How to Critically Evaluate
Data. London, UK: Sage.

Gurpinar, E. (2016). Organizational forms in the knowledge economy: A comparative institutional

analysis. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 26(1), 501-518.

Gronhaug, K. & Stone, R. (2012). The learning organization: An historical perspective, the learning
process, and its influence on competitiveness. The Learning Organization, 22(3), 261-275.

Hahn, C. (2014). Linking academic knowledge and professional experience in using statistics: A design
experiment for business school students. Educational Studies in Mathematics: An International Journal,
86(2), 239-251.

Hansen, K. & Kappel, K. (2010). The proper role of evidence in complementary/alternative medicine. The
Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 35(1), 7-18.

Hau, Y., Kim, B., Lee, H., & Kim, Y. (2013). The effects of individual motivations and social capital on
employees' tacit and explicit knowledge sharing intentions. International Journal of Information
Management, 33(2), 356-356.

Hasson, H., Blomberg, S., Dunér, A., & Sarvimäki, A. (2016). Significance of scientific evidence in
organizing care processes. Journal of Health Organization and Management, 30(4), 597-612.

Heider, F. (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York, NY: Wiley.

18
Herbert, R., C. Sherrington, C. Maher & A. Moseley (2001). Evidence-based practice — Imperfect but
necessary. Physiotherapy Theory and Practice, 17(3), 201–211.

Hey, T., Tansley, S. & Tolle, K. (2009). The Fourth Paradigm: Data-Intensive Scientific Discovery.
Redmond, WA: Microsoft Research.

Hilbert, M. (2012). Toward a synthesis of cognitive biases: How noisy information processing can bias
human decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 138(2), 211-237.

Hinnings, C.R., Thibault, L., Slack, T. & Kikulis, L.M. (1996). Values and organizational structure.
Human Relations, 49(7), 885-916.

Hodgkinson, G. P., Sadler-Smith, E., Sinclair, M., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2009). More than meets the eye?
Intuition and analysis revisited. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 342–346.

Hoffmann, J.A, Gaissmaier, W. & von Helversen, B. (2017). Justifying the judgment process affects
neither judgment accuracy, not strategy use. Judgment and Decision Making, 12(6), 627-641.

Hofstede, G. & Hofstede, G.J. (2005). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. New York,
NY: McGraw-Hill.

Huang, X., Hsieh, J., & He, W. (2014). Expertise dissimilarity and creativity: The contingent roles of tacit
and explicit knowledge sharing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(5), 816-830.

Huang, X., Rode, J., & Schroeder, R. (2011). Organizational structure and continuous improvement and
learning: Moderating effects of cultural endorsement of participative leadership. Journal of International
Business Studies, 42(9), 1103-1120.

Huber, G.P. (1991), “Organizational Learning: The Contributing Process and the Literatures”,
Organization Science, vol. 2(1), 88-115.

Herz, P., & Schultz, J. (1999). The role of procedural and declarative knowledge in performing
accounting tasks. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 11, 1-26.

Hulle, S., Liebig, S. & Meike, J.M. (2018). Measuring attitudes toward distributive justice: The basic
social justice orientations scale. Social Indicators Research, 136(2), 663-692.

Hult, G.T.M & Nichols, E.L. (1996). The organizational buyer behavior learning organization. Industrial
Marketing Management, 25(3), 197-207.

Hunton, J.E. (2001). Mitigating the common information sampling bias inherent in small-group
discussion. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 13, 171-194.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Kambhampaty, S. (2018). It’s all about data. Forbes Technology Council, July 23,
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2018/07/23/its-all-about-data/#6b8aa99d6855, accessed
10/11/2018.
Karpinski, A. & Steinman, R.B. (2006). The single category implicit association test as a aeasure of
implicit social cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(1), 16-31.

19
Katz, N.H., Sosa, K.J. & Harriott, S.A. (2016). Overt and covert group dynamics: An innovative approach
for conflict resolution preparation. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 33(3), 313-348.

Kembro, J. & Selviaridis, K. (2015). Exploring information sharing in the extended supply chain: An
interdependence perspective. Supply Chain Management, 20(4), 455-470.

Kocabiyikoglu, A. & Hekimoglu, M.H. (2018). The impact of decision types on revenue management
decisions: An experimental study. Decision Sciences, 49(2), 225-249.

Kogut, B. & Zander, U. (1996). What firms do? Coordination, identity, and learning. Organization
Science, 7(5), 502-518.

Koizumi, A., Mobbs, D. & Lau, H. (2016). Is fear perception special? Evidence at the level of decision-
making and subjective confidence. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 11(11), 1772-1782.

Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Kondra, A.Z. & Hurst, D.C. (2008). Institutional processes of organizational culture. Culture and
Organization, 15(1), 39-58.

Kopsacheilis, O. (2018). The role of information search and its influence on risk preferences. Theory and
Decision: An International Journal for Multidisciplinary Advances in Decision Sciences, 84(3), 311-339.

Kvernbekk, T. (2011). The concept of evidence in evidence-based practice. Educational Theory, 61(5),
515-532.

Lahlou, S., Le Bellu, S. & Boesen-Mariani, S. (2015). Subjective evidence based ethnography: Method
and applications. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 49(2), 216-238.

Langlois, R., & Robertson, P. (2002). Firms, Markets, and Economic Change: A Dynamic Theory of
Business Institutions. London, UK: Routledge.

Lawrence, P. & Lorsch, J. (1967). Organization and Environment. Homewood, IL: Irwin.

Lehmann, C., & Heagy, C. (2008). Effects of professional experience and group interaction on
information requested in analyzing IT cases. Journal of Education for Business, 83(6), 347-354.

Levy, D. (2017). Group Dynamics for Teams, 5th ed., Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Li-Fen, L. (2008). Knowledge-sharing in R&D departments: A social power and social theory
perspective. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(10), 1881-1895.

Lindeman, E. C. (1926 orig., reprinted in 1961). The Meaning of Adult Education. Norman, OK:
University of Oklahoma.

Lucas, C. & Kline, T. (2008). Understanding the influence of organizational culture and group
dynamics on organizational change and learning. The Learning Organization, 15(3), 277-287.

Luther, R. & Sartawi, I.I. (2011). Managerial practices of quality costing: An evidence-based framework.
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 28(7), 758-772.

20
Manyika, J., Chui, M., Brown, B., Bughin, J., Dobbs, R., Roxburgh, C. & Byers, A.H. (2011). Big Data:
The Next Frontier for Innovation, Competition, and Productivity. McKinsey Global Institute. Retrieved
from https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/digital-mckinsey/our-insights/big-data-the-next-
frontier-for-innovation.

Markus, H.R. & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and
motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253.

Marquardt, M. (1996). Building the Learning Organization. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Martínez-León, I. & Martínez-García, J. (2011). The influence of organizational structure on

organizational learning. International Journal of Manpower, 32(5-6), 537-566.

Mason, J. & Lefrere, P. (2003). Trust, collaboration, e-learning and organisational transformation.
International Journal of Training and Development, 7(4), 259-270.

Mazutis, D. & Eckardt, A. (2017). Sleepwalking into catastrophe: Cognitive biases and corporate
climate change inertia. California Management Review, 59(3), 74-108.

Melnick, R.L., Kohn, M.C., & Huff, J. (1997). Weight of evidence versus weight of speculation to
evaluate the alpha2u-globulin hypothesis. Environmental Health Perspectives, 105(9), 904–906.

Metzinger, T. (2000). Neural Correlates of Consciousness: Empirical and Conceptual Questions.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Misener, K.E. & Misener, L. (2017). Grey is the new black: Advancing understanding of new
organizational forms and blurring sector boundaries in sport management. Journal of Sport Management,
31, 125-132.

Mojzisch, A. & Schulz-Hardt, S. (2010). Knowing others' preferences degrades the quality of group
decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(5), 794.

Motoyama, Y., & Mayer, H. (2017). Revisiting the roles of the university in regional economic
development: A triangulation of data. Growth and Change, 48(4), 787-804.

Nakauchi, M., Washburn, M. & Klein, K. (2017). Differences between inter- and intra-group dynamics in
knowledge transfer processes. Management Decision, 55(4), 766-782.

Natale, S. & Ricci, F. (2006). Critical thinking in organizations. Team Performance Management,
12(7/8), 272-277.

Nijstad, B.A. & De Dreu, C.K.W. (2012). Motivated information processing in organizational teams:
Progress, puzzles, and prospects. Research in Organizational Behavior, 32, 87-111.

Nutt, P.C. (1984). Types of organizational decision processes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(3),
414-450.

O’Connor, B.N., Bronner, M. & Delaney, C. (2007). Learning at Work: How to Support Individual and
Organizational Learning. Amherst, MA: HRD Press.

21
Ouchi, W.G. (1979). A conceptual framework for the design of organizational control mechanisms.
Management Science, 25(9), 833-848.

Osara, Y., Coakley, K., Aisthorpe, A., Stembridge, A., Quirk, M., Splett, P.L., Rohr, F. & Singh, R.H.
(2015). The role of evidence analysts in creating nutrition management guidelines for inherited metabolic
disorders. Journal of Evaluation of Clinical Practice, 21(6), 1235-1243.

Oskamp, S. & Schultz, P.W. (2005). Attitudes and Opinions. 3rd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Psychology Press.

Petter, S., Rai, A., & Straub, D. (2012). The critical importance of construct measurement specification: A
response to Aguirre-Urreta and Marakas. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 147-147.

Piccirillo, E. & Noro, M.G. (2008). Guidebook for Supporting Decision Making under Uncertainties:
Today’s Managers, Tomorrow’s Business. Hackensack, NJ: World Scientific.

Popper, M. & Lipshitz, R. (1998). Organizational learning mechanisms: A structural and cultural
approach to organizational learning. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 31(2), 181-196.

Uhlmann, E.L., Pizarro, D.A & Bloom, P. (2008). Varieties of social cognition. Journal of the Theory of
Social Behaviour, 38(3), 293-322.

Rasmussen, P. & Nielsen, P. (2011). Knowledge management in the firm: Concepts and issues.
International Journal of Manpower, 32(5/6), 479-493.

Ranyard, R., Crozier, W.R & Svenson, O. (1997). Decision Making: Cognitive Models and Explanations.
London, UK: Routledge.

Rebelo, T.M. & Gomes, A.D. (2008). Organizational learning and the learning organization: Reviewing
evolution for prospecting the future. The Learning Organization, 15(4), 294-308.

Rousseau, D.M. & Barends, E.G.R. (2011). Becoming an evidence-based HR practitioner. Human
Resource Management Journal, 21, 221-235.

Rozas, J. (2012). Biased information and effort. Economic Inquiry, 50(2), 484-501.

Russell, J., Hawthorne, J. & Buchak, L. (2015). Groupthink. Philosophical Studies, 172(5), 1287-1309.

Russell, S.T. (2016). Social justice, research, and adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence,
26(1), 4-15.

Said, E. (2006). Strategic decision-making: Process perspectives. International Journal of Management

Reviews, 8(1), 1-20.

Salvador, R. & Sadri, G. (2018). The biology of decision-making. Industrial Management, Jan/Feb, 12-
17.

Schafer, M. & Crichlow, S. (1996). Antecedents of groupthink: A quantitative study. The Journal of
Conflict Resolution, 40(3), 415-435.

Schein, E.H. (1993). On dialogue, culture, and organizational learning. Organizational

Dynamics, 22, 40-51.

22
Schmitt, N. (1994). Method bias: The importance of theory and measurement. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 15(5), 393-393.

Schneider, D.J. (1991). Social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 42(1), 527-561.

Schreyogg, G. & Sydow, J. (2010). Organizing for fluidity? Dilemmas of new organizational forms.
Organization Science, 21(6), 1251-1262.

Schultz-Hardt, S. Frey, D., Luthgens, C. & Moscovici, S. (2000). Biased information search in group
decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4), 655-669.

Seta, C.E., Seta, J.J., Petroscelli, J.V., & McCormick, M. (2015). Even better than the real thing:
Alternative outcome bias affects decision judgment and decision regret. Thinking & Reasoning, 21(4),
446-472.

Sessa, V.I & London, M. (2008). Interventions to stimulate group learning in organizations. Journal of
Management Development, 27(6), 554-573.

Sessa, V.I., London, M., Pingor, C., Gullu, B. Patel, J. (2011). Adaptive, generative, and transformative
leaning in project teams. Team Performance Management, 17(3/4), 146-167.

Shiller, R.J. (2005). Irrational Exuberance. 2nd ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Simon, H.A. (1991). Bounded rationality and organizational learning. Organization Science, 2,
125–134.

Simon, S. (2006). Statistical Evidence in Medical Trials: What Do the Data Really Tell Us?, Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.

Simmons, H. (2003). Evidence-based practice: Panacea or over promise. Research Papers in Education,
18(4), 303-311.

Singer, W. & Engel, C. (2008). Better Than Conscious? Decision Making, the Human Mind, and
Implications for Institutions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Skilling, J. (1998). Probabilistic data analysis: An introductory guide. Journal of Microscopy, 190(1-2),
28-36.

Smeding, A., Quinton, J.C., Lauer, K., Barca, L. & Pezzulo, G. (2016). Tracking and simulating
dynamics of implicit stereotypes: A situated social cognition perspective. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 111(6), 817-834.

Smith, S. (2018). It’s all about data: How magazine media wins the digital advertising challenge. Folio.
Retrieved from https://www.foliomag.com/its-all-about-data-digital-advertising/.

Snowden, D.J. & Boone, M.E. (2007). A leader’s framework for decision making. Harvard Business
Review, 85(11), 68-76.

Sorenson, O. (2003). Interdependence and adaptability: Organizational learning and the long-term effect
of integration. Management Science, 49(4), 446-463.

23
Spence, M.L., Dux, P.E. & Arnold, D.H. (2016). Computations underlying confidence in visual
perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 42, 671-682.

Super, J.F., Li, P., Ishqaidef, G. & Guthrie, J.P. (2016). Group rewards, group composition and
information sharing: A motivated information processing perspective. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 134, 31-44.

Stanley, J.D. (1981). Dissent in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 6(1), 13-19.

Stempel, J. (2000). Preponderance of the evidence standard--rather than clear and convincing evidence
standard--governs issue of bad faith under state statute designed to encourage insurers to act. Journal of
Risk and Insurance, 67(1), 145-145.

Tang, F., & Ishwaran, H. (2017). Random forest missing data algorithms. Statistical Analysis and Data
Mining: The ASA Data Science Journal, 10(6), 363-377.

Templeton, G.F., Schmidt, M.B. & Taylor, G.S. (2009). Managing the diffusion of organizational
learning behavior. Information System Frontiers, 11(2), 189-200.

Van Swol, L. (2007). Perceived importance of information: The effects of mentioning information, shared
information bias, ownership bias, reiteration, and confirmation bias. Group Processes and Intergroup
Relations, 10(2), 239-256.

Vince, R. (2002). The impact of emotion on organizational learning. Human Resource Development
International, 5(1), 73-85.

Wang, H. & Ohsawa, Y. (2013) Idea discovery: A scenario-based systematic approach for decision
making in market innovation. Expert Systems with Applications, 40(2), 429-438.

Wang, Y.L. & Ellinger, A.D. (2011). Organizational learning: Perception of external environment and
innovation performance. International Journal of Manpower, 32(5/6), 512-536.

Wastell, D.G. (1999). Learning dysfunctions in information systems development: Overcoming

the social defences with transitional objects. MIS Quarterly, 23, 581-600.

Weed, D.L. (2005). Weight of evidence: A review of concept and methods. Risk Analysis, 25(6), 1545-
1557.

Willingham, D., Nissen, M. & Bullemer, P. (1989). On the development of procedural knowledge.
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 15(6), 1047-1060.

Zhang, T., Lipkovich, I., & Marchenko, O. (2017). Bridging data across studies using frequentist and
Bayesian estimation. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, 27(3), 426-441.

Yanow, D. (2000). Seeing organizational learning: A “cultural” view. Organization, 7, 247-68.

Yates, J.F. & de Oliveira, S. (2016). Culture and decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 136, 106-118.

24
Yeung, N. & Summerfield, C. (2014). Shared mechanisms for confidence judgements and error detection
in human decision making. In S.M. Fleming and C.D. Frith, eds. The Cognitive Neuroscience of
Metacognition. Berlin, Germany: Springer.

Yeo, R.K. (2005). Revisiting the roots of learning organization: A synthesis of the learning organization
literature. The Learning Organization: An International Journal, 12(4), 368-382.

Yoon, S., Vo, K. & Venkatraman, V. (2017). Variability in decision strategies across description-based
and experience-based decision making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 30(4), 951-963.

25