Proposing a Model for Collective Stupidity

8/12/2019 Proposing a Model for Collective Stupidity

1/13

American Journal of Scientific Research

ISSN 2301-2005 Issue 92 September, 2013, pp.125-137

http://www.americanjournalofscientificresearch.com

Proposing a Model for Collective Stupidity: Identification and

Assessment of the Effective Factors (Aviation Service Company)

Mahsa Doaee

M.A in Executive Management, Department of Management

Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran

E-mail: [email protected]

Tel: +98-9123321379

Alireza ShirvaniAssistant Professor, Department of Management

Faculty of Administrative Sciences and Research Branch

Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran

E-mail: [email protected]: +98-9131155726

Ali SafariAssistant Professor, Department of Management

Faculty of Administrative Sciences and Economics

University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran

E-mail: [email protected]

Tel: +98-9133216331

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this study is to identify and assess the factors which

decrease organizational intelligence leading the staff towards collective stupidity.Methodology -The research method is descriptive-correlative. The inspected

statistical society consists of high ranking staff of an Aviation Service Company. A

researcher customized questionnaire with (0.97) reliability is used in order to collect therelated data. Hypotheses of this research are tested through Measurement Model.

Findings After analyzing the seven hypothetical components, two of them are

omitted. There is a significant correlation between the five effective factors regardingcollective stupidity.

Practical implications This article argues that, in today's competitive

environment, organizations need to identify the factors which convert an intelligentorganization into one with collective stupidity.

Originality The proposed model is the first in its kind with seven multi-indexed

factors.

Keywords: Collective stupidity, Organizational Stupidity, Organizational intelligence,

Strategic stupidity, Cultural stupidity


2/13

Proposing a Model for Collective Stupidity: Identification and Assessment of the

Effective Factors (Aviation Service Company) 126

IntroductionAccording to Karl Albrecht the intelligent people, when assembled into in an organization, would tendtowards collective stupidity(Albrecht, 2003).The collective stupidity is not a necessary and inevitable

part of an organization, while optional to the extent that intelligent people allow it to happen.

Identification of causes leading to collective stupidity and applying solutions to promote theorganizational intelligence is one of the biggest challenges facing the management. As it is permissible

to define the multi-functional aspect of intelligence for employees and directors (Morgan, 2006), the

collective stupidity is also definable. For this purpose, here, seven multi-indexed factors are introducedas the tools and means in collective stupidity assessment. The main objective of this study is to identify

the factors which convert an intelligent organization into one with collective stupidity, in this case a

domestic Aviation service company. In this article, the related literature is reviewed and a conceptualframework is designed based on the assumptions which are tested through statistical approaches.

Literature ReviewOrganizational intelligence consists of the abilities applied in allowing the organization to continue its

dynamism. Here, the abilities are rapid action and reaction, quick compliance with the changes,flexibility in function, sensitivity, and being predictable, open-mindedness, multidimensional in

thinking and conduct, and innovation(Ercetin et al., 2007).

The development of organizational intelligence is more complex than the individual or

collective one(Popescu, 2012).Organizational intelligence is a feature of an organization which creates knowledge and applies it in

its environment or marketplace strategies. It is similar to I.Q, but at an organizational framework level.

Functional stupidity is organizationally-supported by lack of reflexivity, substantive reasoning,and justification. It entails a refusal to use intellectual resources outside a narrow and safe terrain. It

can provide a sense of certainty that allows organizations to function smoothly. This can save the

organization and its members from the frictions provoked by doubt and reflection. Functional stupiditycontributes to maintaining and strengthening organizational order. It can also motivate people, help

them to cultivate their careers, and subordinate them to socially acceptable forms of management and

leadership. Such positive outcomes can further reinforce functional stupidity. However, functional

stupidity can also have negative consequences such as trapping individuals and organizations intoproblematic patterns of thinking, which engender the conditions for individual and organizational

dissonance. These negative outcomes may prompt individual and collective reflexivity in a way that

can undermine functional stupidity. (Alvesson & Spicer, 2012)In this respect it is quite different from individual intelligence. It is possible that human are

very intelligent and capable of performing great and important tasks, while it is their collective brain

power that causes great works to be performed(Yolles, 2005).Karl Albrecht is one of the pioneers in designating the organizational intelligence. He uses

organizational intelligence against the term organizational stupidity and considers utilizing

organizational intelligence as the only solution against organizational stupidity.In an organization every intelligent person wants to promote her/his position and reach to

managerial level; hence, they often behave individually and refuse to construct a concept for promoting

the organization. Every intelligent employee is like a data bank in the organization with no interaction

with others. Regarding organizational intelligence, the common ways of thinking and preventingorganizational intelligence formation and growth is titled collective stupidity. (Albrecht, 2003)

Although Albrecht emphasis on a systematic, uninterrupted and endless attack on factors

causing collective stupidity, Alvesson and Spicer (2012) believe that some of these elements arenecessary for the organization. He refers to collective stupidity as functional stupidity by accrediting

some advantages to it. He is of the opinion that the functional stupidity implies a sense of security

among the staff regarding the status quo; while, helps and strengthens the organization by provoking


3/13

127 Mahsa Doaee, Alireza Shirvani and Ali Safari

the occupational motivation. Functional stupidity is the outcome of a management stupidity which

suppresses innovation and restricts interaction. In fact the elements of power and policy prevent the

internal or external knowledge-capitalization which leads to functional stupidity in an organization.Functional stupidity cannot be uprooted; therefore, Alvesson and Spicer recommend that the

management consider it as a source that should be developed, kept and engineered for the benefit of the

organization. In most cases some functional stupidity is a necessity for organization. But the

management should not allow its overgrowth and should be aware of its negative effects: hopelessness

and failure. In this case, in order to control this phenomenon the management should employ the ideaof individual critical thinking as a strategic procedure in the organization (Alvesson and Spicer, 2012).

Smart persons usually show weak performance in conversing with other people regarding theirknowledge; therefore, they may commit a specific mistake only once, but since they do not

communicate with other people, this mistake can be repeated many times without contributing to

organizational learning (Veryard, 2000); consequently lack of organizational learning leads tocollective stupidity.

The important point here is the correlation between organizational intelligence and collective

stupidity. Any factor that increases the organizational intelligence, reduces collective stupidity(Kerfoot,2003). An intelligent organization makes faster and better decisions, hence promotes its competitive

position and wins (Liautaud & Hammond, 2002). Consequently, a stupid organization hardly matches

itself with the environment, thereby, loses its chances of success one after the other. It can be said thatidentifying the factors which lead to collective stupidity and endanger organization performance, is themental challenge facing the managers who think of organizational development and improved

sustainable performance.

In this study the 7-multi-indexed factors are proposed as the hypotheses, establishing the basesfor modeling collective stupidity. (Figure1).

Figure 1: Conceptual model


4/13



The hypotheses are drawn and discussed as follows based on the findings obtained from a

domestic Aviation Service Company.

Hypothesis 1: The Effect of Strategic Inertia on Collective Stupidity

Strategic inertia is defined as tendency to follow the status quo and the resistance to strategic renewal

outside the frame of strategy(Huff, 1997). According to (Hodgkinson and Wright, 2002) inertia is the

habitual reliance on a (previously successful) organizational recipe or success formula.

The first and foremost factor influencing inertia is the firms age. The original authors assertthat inertia will grow over time(Schwenk and Tang, 1989); therefore, with an increase in firm age, the

inertia is assumed to be greater. The strategic choices may be explained by the firms capabilities,

developed through experience and the inertia associated with its size(Dass, 2000). Based on thecorrelation between firm age and size, the latter is frequently attributed to inertia.

As the size of an organization grows selection of executive managers from internal staff

become easy. The organization has the alternative to choose executive managers among its internalforces. This leads to a resistance from inside against selection of managers from outside the

organization(Ashraf Ahmadian, 2011).

Strategic inertia is also affected by the characteristics of the management team, the leadership

style, the dynamics of the management, the degree of consensus within the boards, stable andcontinuous membership and communality in beliefs.

Changes in management position can be considered as an effective means for conformity with

changes in the environment. Based on the findings, the managers chosen from outside the organizationwould reduce the inertia; they come with new style of management, experience, interest and

knowledge. These distinctions could be an affective factor in breaking down the strategic inertia.Higher educational level of the replaced managers would reduce the strategic inertia. In fact, higher

education on one hand helps to better identify the environment and predict the possible changes moreaccurately and on the other hand, the more relevant education is with marketing and business, the

better recognition of the markets, customers, competitors, suppliers and other effective forces. The

younger the managers are the more efficient their approaches in problem solving. High experience byitself does not contribute to breaking down the strategic inertia; this factor is more effective when

accompanied with risk taking, knowledge and identification of the environment. These features may

include age, field of education, managerial background, insight and interests (Ashraf Ahmadian, 2011).The indexes applied in this hypothesis consist of: Characteristics of the management team,

Leadership style, Firm size, Firm age, Current strategy (Ashraf ahmadian, 2011).

Hypothesis 2: The Effect of Organizational Culture on Collective Stupidity

Organizational culture is a pattern of shared basic assumptions that the group learns as it solves its

problems of external adaptation and internal integration which has worked well enough to beconsidered valid and to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel those

problems(Sehien, 2004).There are differences between the collective and individual intelligence; while,it is possible to argue that there is some correspondence between them. Any kind of intelligence relatedto any individual factor is a function of individual psyche, whereas collective intelligence is a function

of collective psyche. Collective intelligence is limited to, equipped with or changed through conceptual

structures (Yolles, 2005).Organizational culture is a common perception held by the organization members; a system of

shared meaning with seven characteristics that when combined with one another constitute the

philosophy of conception in any organization. It is assumed that an organization with low culturalconcept automatically end up in collective stupidity.

The indexes applied in this hypothesis consist of: Innovation, risk taking, Attention to detail,

Outcome orientation, People orientation, Team orientation, Aggressiveness, Stability (Robbins, 2002).


5/13


Hypothesis 3: The Effect of Knowledge Management on Collective Stupidity

Knowledge management is a set of relatively new organizational activities that are aimed at improving

knowledge, knowledge-related practices, organizational behaviors, decisions and organizational

performance(King, 2009).In a research (Albrecht, 2003) has presented a model for these two factors regarding the

correlation between organizational intelligence and knowledge management. By combining the

collective intelligent and knowledge management discussed by Albrecht; the managers, smart leaders,and executive managers are able to utilize the individuals mind power in order to achieve theirmissions. This is the result of a combination between organizational intelligence and knowledge

management.

Knowledge management establishes a new working environment where knowledge and experiencecan easily be shared. It also pushes information and knowledge to flow towards the assigned people in real

time, so that they can operate on more effective and efficient basis (Sternberg 1991).

The organizations in the past were viewed as a collection of tasks, products, employees andrevenue generating centers. Today they are seen as intelligent systems designed to manage knowledge.

Scholars have shown that organizations engaged in learning processes by using tacit forms of intuitive

knowledge, hard data stored in computer networks and information gained from the environment,which are applied in sensible decisions making. Because this complex process involves grate numberof people interacting with diverse information systems, the organizational intelligent is more than the

total intelligence of members of the organization(Halal, 2006).

Intelligence of any organization is embedded in its analyzed data. Whenever the managementof the organizations data management is not at par, the organizational intelligence is lowered and the

organization leads to collective stupidity.

The indexes applied in this hypothesis consist of:knowledge acquisition, creation, refinement,storage, transfer, sharing, and utilization (King, 2009).

Hypothesis 4: The Effect of Organizational Morale on Collective Stupidity

Morale is one of the abstractions in any organization. Good morale indicates good structure and

management in an organization; therefore, it is a criterion to measure the progress made. Morale refersto senses such as trust, reliance, sympathy, and friendship among the staff; hence, employees will have

good sense towards one another while filling well in their performance.The impacts of distrust in an organizationlower employee morale and commitment, lower

productivity and higher employee turnovertend to exert pressure on organizations (Hitch, 2012). One

of the factors for organizational health is the morale. By having open relationship and interaction withemployees, managers can promote the sense in employees through moral trust that they are important

members for the organization. The evidence for this claim is that managers give the essential

information to the employees; thereby, employees feel they have identity in their organization and as a

result their motivation increases as they work in such an organization. The conducted studies indicatethis kind of motivation improves organizational health and promotes positive working behavior within

the staff(Oyserman, 2007). Social identity sets boundaries for collective intelligence and collectiveaction; consequently, it paves the way for social learning, which leads to cultural differentiation((Mason, 2012).

The contemporary managers must be good speakers in order to build trust among their

employees which would later result in confidence in the company (Spaho, 2011). Jack Welsh (2003),the successful managing director of General Electric (GE), believes that continuous pursuance of tasks

is to send distinct and meaningful messages to all relevant people on an extensive bases. Proper

conveyance of right messages would materialize the enquiries.Organizations involving collective stupidity have some problem in their organizing manner. In

fact since there is no mutual understanding between employers and employees in the workplace, the

employees misbehave. Each increase or decrease in collective intelligence causes some changes in


6/13



organizational identity. Low morale reduces organizational intelligence and the organization is lead to

collective stupidity.

Hypothesis 5: The Effect of Entrepreneurship on Collective Stupidity

In his study, (Brown, 2001), refers to Stevenson(1983) who holds that entrepreneurial management,

defined as a set of opportunity-based management practices, could help firms remain vital andcontribute to firm and societal value creation. According to Schumpeter an entrepreneur is an agent ofchange endowed with the source of his unique creative desires. He/she introduces a new good or a new

method of production, opens a new market or discovers a new source of supply.

According to(Martin and Osberg, 2007), The entrepreneur is interested to this suboptimalequilibrium, where he seeks to find opportunities to provide a new solution, product, service, or

process for optimization. The reason that the entrepreneur sees him/herself as an opportunity seeking

person is in creating something new, while others see his efforts as intolerable. This desire and theenthusiasm stems from the unique set of personal characteristics he or she refers to the situation at

hand i.e. inspiration, creativity, direct action, courage, and fortitude. These characteristics are

fundamental to the process of innovation.

In order to carry out an entrepreneurial enterprise successfully, the leader needs the cooperationof other people. The drawback with this attempt is that most of the people are typically conservative

and do not want to take the risk of doing anything new. The disposition of the mass of people is static

and hedonistic, while new enterprises mean new risks that may cost one his/her existence. The way outof this dilemma for the entrepreneur, according to Schumpeter, is to buy the labor power of other

people and order them to do what is new(Swedberg, 2007). More than ever this concept is being

applied worldwide due to extreme compatibility among organizations.The indexes applied in this hypothesis consist of: Risk taking (Brockhaus, 1976), Management

support (Stubner, Wulf, & Hungenberg, 2007), Applying technology techniques (Bailetti, 2012),

Structuring methods, Quick support from new ideas (Sebora & Theerapatvong, 2010), Optimal and

renewed allocation of resources (Schumpeter, 1949).

Hypothesis 6: The Effect of Organizational Learning on Collective Stupidity

Argyris, (1978) has defined the organizational learning as the detection and correction of error; Fiol and

Lyles (1985) has define learning as the process of improving actions through better knowledge and

understanding and Dodgson (1993)describes Organizational Learning as The way firms build, supplement,and organize knowledge and routines around their activities within their cultures, and adopt and develop

organizational efficiency by improving the use of the broad skills of their workforces.

Organizational learning is the key to changes in management and organizational survival (leuci, 2012).A learning organization is one that its functions are improved by awareness and better

perception.The "future has no shelf life" (Bennis, 2001), and living in a learning society is a matter of

survival that has led the organizations emerging as networks that place great emphasis on learning

how to learn or creating the learning organization(Duckett, 2002).Learning leads to development of new insight on the subject. This often happens when we

detect and correct our errors(Argyris, 1978).

Collective learning occurs at multiple hierarchical levels: the individual, group, organizationaland societal. With the increasing level of complexity, the challenge of learning (institutionalizing the

learning) becomes more difficult which requires more conscious and concerted efforts (Dettmer, 2005).

The weakness in learning in an organization reduces the organizational intelligence and theorganization ends up in collective stupidity. The indexes applied in this hypothesis consist of:

Systems thinking, Personal mastery, Mental models, Building shared vision, Team learning

(Senge, 1997) and tendency to change.


7/13


Hypothesis 7: The Effect of Motivation on Collective Stupidity

Luthans (1998) asserts that motivation is the process that arouses, energizes, directs, and sustains

behavior and performance, that is, it is the process of stimulating people to action if achieving a desired

outcome is the objective. One way of stimulating people is to employ effective motivation, whichmakes workers more satisfied with and committed to their jobs. Money is not the only motivator. There

are other incentives which can serve as motivators(Ayeni and Popoola, 2007). Other studies indicate

that the employees' personalities are much better predictors in collective activities engagement thantheir salaries. The most compelling study conducted in this area is a great meta-analytic review of25,000 participants, where personality determined 40% of the variability in ratings of job satisfaction.

The more emotionally stable, extraverted, agreeable or conscientious people are, the more they tend to

like their jobs irrespective of their salaries. The employees personality is not the most importantdeterminant of their engagement levels in an organization. In fact, the biggest determinant in an

organizational disengagement is the incompetency in leadership. Thus, a managers personality would

have a significant impact on whether the employees are joyfully engaged at work, or not(Chamorro-Premuzic, 2013). Worker motivation is a complex process and crosses many disciplinary boundaries,

including economics, psychology, sociology, organizational development and human resource

management(Devadass, 2011). Weakness in motivation reduces the organizational intelligence. Theindexes applied in this hypothesis consist of: trust (Hitch, 2012), Freedom at work, encouraging theemployee, Clear goals and Values, Organizational justice, Organizational justice (Devadass, 2011)

MethodologyThe research method here is descriptive-correlative conducted in 2012. For data gathering a researcher-customized questionnaire is used as the tool. This questionnaire contains 53 items based on five-point

Likert scale. The obtained reliability coefficient is 0.97. By using Cronbach's alpha method in this

study, the validity of the tool is approved by faculty members and experts.

The focus of the case study is on a high-tech company in aviation service. The statisticalpopulation of this research contains managers and skilled staff in technical-engineering department

totaling 200 individuals. They have studied in various engineering majors such as: Electrical andelectronics, mechanical, mechatronics, robotics and aerospace engineering. In this article, a sevenmulti-indexed factors model is proposed and tested by Amose18 for collective stupidity. This proposed

model includes seven factors: Strategic inertia, Organizational culture, Organizational learning,

Knowledge management, Entrepreneurship, Motivation and Organizational Morale.

ResultThe measurement model is calculated through Amos18, where two hypotheses of this conceptual

model (motivation and entrepreneurship) were not confirmed. They are omitted due to increment of

error in the final measurement model and lack of connection with collective stupidity; the impact of

these two has no statistical significance.

Table 1: General indexes of fit measurement models

RMSEA CFI RMR GFI P CMIN/DF CMIN0.10 0.86 0.10 0.84 0.000 2.73 415.12

Considering table 1 and 2 it is concluded that fitness of model is appropriate and the collective

stupidity is effected by the: strategic inertia, 0.96; organizational culture, 1.00; knowledge

management, 0.85; organizational morale, 0.89 and organizational learning 1.00. General indexes of fit

measurement models (Confirmatory factor analysis) are presented in table3.


8/13


9/13


Figure 3:Final measurement Model

Strategic

Inertia

Innovation, risk taking, Attention to detail,

Outcome orientation, People orientation, Team

orientation, Aggressiveness, Stability.

Characteristics of the management team,

Leadership style, Firm size, Firm age,

Current strategy

data classification, data updating, culture of

knowledge sharing, transparency, effective

utilization of knowledge, knowledge creation

interest and optimism, belief, commitment,

pursuing the tasks, feeling honor, identity

Mental models, Personal mastery, Building

shared vision, Team learning, Systems thinking,

tendency to change , ability to problem solving.

Organizational

culture

Knowledgemanagement

Organizational

Morale

Organizational

Learning

Collective

Stupidity

After inspecting and confirming the measurement models of this study, in order to test the

hypotheses meaningfulness, the critical value C.R and P are used (Table 3).

Table 3: Test results

Result P C.RRegression

Coefficient

hypothesisNumberOf

hypothesisConfirmed 0.002 3.157 0.96 collective stupidity strategic inertia 1

Confirmed *** 3.201 1.00 collective stupidity organizational culture 2

Confirmed *** 4.302 0.85 collective stupidity Knowledge management 3

Confirmed *** 8.809 0.89 collective stupidity Morale 4

Confirmed *** 8.090 1.00 collective stupidity Organizational learning 5


10/13



Discussions & Applicable RecommendationsBased on the First Hypothesis, Strategic Inertia with Regression Coefficient of 0.96 and

Confidence Interval of 0.95 has an Effect on Collective Stupidity

Since management and its features are the most important factors in emerging strategic inertia,selecting new managers from outside the organization, or at least hiring the expertise of external

consultants can rigorously prevent the emerging strategic inertia; thus, the collective stupidity. To

avoid such a phenomenon younger managers with higher educational levels, are recommended.Moreover, the previous successful strategies are not considered as suitable remedies for the future,

prediction of future changes through rational strategies should be adopted.

Based on the Second Hypothesis, Organizational Culture with Regression Coefficient of %100

and Confidence Interval of 0.95 has an Effect on Collective Stupidity

In order to improve the organizational culture, this proposal suggests that the organization should haveappropriate supporting strategy for innovative activities. When all people think alike, nobody thinks as

well as they should. Unlike the general belief, successful teams are not produced due to lack of

conflict. One of the most reliable signs of the group that is continuously learning is the disagreementsin the opinions. In order to reach an intelligent organization, the conception of accepting criticism

should be propagated in the organization, and management should not avoid discord, but solve it in a

proper manner.

Based on the Third Hypothesis, Knowledge Management with Regression Coefficient of 0.85 and

Confidence Interval of 0.95 has an Effect on Collective Stupidity

In order to improve knowledge management, the knowledge and the experience exchange among the

employees must be promoted, so that the staff gives their experience willingly and honestly to one

another. In an intelligent organization everyone becomes a part of the network by exchanging

information, and nobody claim possession of the information. A successful organization provides alibrary of its key knowledge assets, preferably in the form of self-teaching guides, in order to be

applicable for training the new staff. The organization with high-tech and innovative knowledge shouldbe up dated on a constant basis, and apply SWOT matrix in order to recognize the lack of their

organizational knowledge.

Based on the Fourth Hypothesis, Organizational Morale with a Regression Coefficient of 0.89


Identifying the strengths of people and encouraging interest in them giving reward is of essence, so thatthey feel like heroes and behave accordingly.

Managers should provide an environment for the employees, so that respect each other andbehave humbly. A manager should try to reward good function of his or her employees on a fair basisand adopt various motivation plans. Leaders should encourage forgiveness. However, when managers

forgive their colleagues and staff, they get relieved from their anger that binds them to the subjects in a

negative manner. Managers need to keep inmind that all people make mistakes, and that mistakesalone do not necessarily make them evil. It is recommended that the leaders should forgive all

mistakes, but if leaders forgive no mistakes then employees will cease taking risks and they would not

give their real opinions, that eventually would stop the managers from making decisions. Managers

should be leaders not ones who govern by evoking fear among the staff. Trust is the cornerstone ofleadership. Without trust,extended and received, the leaders, teams, and ultimately organizations will

fail. The only way known to trust someone is to oneself. Morality of work and moral principles must


11/13


be amplified in the organization. If this is actualized, discrimination, dissatisfaction and injustice would

decrease; while increasing the organizational moral and commitment in the staff. In addition it would

promote self-esteem, organizational growth and progress in the society.

Based on the Sixth Hypothesis, Organizational Learning with a Regression Coefficient of %100


For the purpose of promotion, ask the staff to construct their mental models, without imposing anyquality in this pattern. Then by the means of discussion and negotiation make this mental models

combine. Managers should propagate systematic and critical thinking in their organizations, if theywant to have a learning organization and encourage the staff to think contemporarily. Leaders should

ask their staff to draw a vivid image of the advantages of change, in order to motivate them towards

organizational change. Lack of recognition of this vision causes the staff to oppose the decisionsalready made for the welfare of the organization. To attract satisfaction of these staff, these decisions

are ignored and put aside which otherwise could lead the organization towards gradual collective

stupidity.The solution is obvious: make a concerted effort to seek out new information, and then try to fit

it into our world view, adjusting the world view as required to logically accommodate the new

information. If done properly, the effective orientation reduces the mismatch between perception andreality, pointing leaders towards revising the policies and procedures to make them more effective inthe real, competitive world.

ConclusionThe main purpose of this study is to identify and assess the factors which decrease organizational

intelligence and lead the elite organizations to collective stupidity. The analysis of the calculationomitted two factors. The analyses of the remaining five factors indicate that the subject organization

has low perception on the environment, and the strategic and cultural stupidity which eventually leads

to collective stupidity. Organizational learning is weak and its reaction against the external changes is

inadequate. This organization has low morale and cannot analyze its knowledge and data well. One ofthe procedures in prevention of collective stupidity is for the management to be aware of any of the

effective factors on the issue.

Suggestions for Future Work

1. Further research should be conducted to investigate the effect of other factors on collectivestupidity, like shared leadership, personality dysfunctions, and organizational policy

2. Studying the correlation between collective stupidity and the organizational structure

Bibliography[1] Dass, P. (2000). Relationship of Firm Size, Initial Diversification, and Internationalization withStrategic Change.Journal of Business Research, 135146.

[2] King, W. R. (2009). Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning. Pittsburgh.[3] Albrecht, K. (2003). The Power of Minds at Work:Organizational Intelligence in Action.

AMACOM/American Management Association.

[4] Alvesson, M., & Spicer, A. (2012). A Stupidity-Based Theory of Organizationsjoms. Journal ofManagement Studies, 1194-1220.

[5] Argyris, C. (1978). Argyris, C. and Schn, D.Organizational Learning: A Theory of ActionPerspective.


12/13



[6] Ashraf ahmadian, A. (2011). Strategic Inertia, the Challenge before Strategic Planning:Evidence from Iran.Euro Journals Publishing, Inc.

[7] Ayeni, & Popoola. (2007). Work Motivation, Job Satisfaction,and Organisational Commitmentof Library Personnel in Academic and Research Libraries in Oyo State,Nigeria.Department of

Library and Information Studies.

[8] Brown, T. (2001). An operationalization of Stevensons conceptualization of entrepreneurshipas opportunity-based firm behavior. Strategic Management Journal, 953-968.

[9] Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2013, April 10). Does Money Really Affect Motivation? A Review ofthe Research.

[10] Dettmer, W. H. (2005). The Learning Organization:Adapt or Die.[11] Devadass, R. (2011). Employees Motivation in Organizations: An integrative literature review.

International Conference on Sociality and Economics Development.Singapore.[12] Dodgson, M. (1993). Organizational learning:A review of some literatures. Organization

studies, 375-394.

[13] Duckett, L. (2002). Learning organisations, investors in people and new labour's learningsociety. Further and Higher Education, 61-74.

[14] Ercetin, S. S., Cetin, B., & Potas, N. (2007). Multi-Dimensional organizational intelligencescale(Muldimorins). World Applied Sciences Jornaal, 151-157.

[15] Fiol, C. M., C. M., & Lyles, M. A. (1985). Organizational learning. Academy of ManagementReview, 803-831.

[16] Halal, W. (2006). E Organizational Intelligence: What is it ? and How can manager Use it?Retrieved from www.strategy-bussiness.com.

[17] Hitch, C. (2012). How to build trust in an organization ? The power of exprience-UNCExecutive Development 2012.

[18] Hodgkinson, G., & Wright, G. (2002). Confronting Strategic Inertia in a Top ManagementTeam: Learning from Failure. Organization Studies, 949-977.

[19] Huff, A. (1997). A current and future agenda for cognitive research in organizations. Journal ofManagement Studies, 947-952.

[20] Kerfoot, k. (2003). Organizational intelligence/Organizational stupidity:the leaders challenge.[21] Leuci, M. S. (2012). The Nature of Organizational Learning in a State Extension Organization.

The journal of extention, 50(3), Article number3FEA1.

[22] Liautaud, B., & Hammond, M. (2002). E-business intelligence. Turning information intoknowledge into. NewYork: McGraw Hill.

[23] Martin, R. L., & Osberg, S. (2007). Social Entrepreneurship: The Case for Definition.STANFORD SOCIAL INNOVATION REVIEW, 27-39.

[24] Mason, W. (2012). Group Identity, Culture, and collective intelligence. Howe School ofTechnology Management.Stevens Institute of Technology.Castle Point on the Hudson-

Hoboken, NJ 07030.[25] Morgan, G. (1997). Images of organization (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1997: Sege

publication Ltd.[26] Oyserman, D., Daphna, S., Fryberg, A., & Yoder, N. (2007). Identity-based motivation and

health.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(6), 1011-1027.[27] Popescu, M. (2012). IMPORTANCE OF COMMUNICATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL

INTELLIGENCE DEVELOPMENT IN THE CONTEXT OF GLOBAL CRISIS. Retrieved from

cks.univnt.ro/uploads/cks_2012_articles.[28] Robbins, S. P. (2002).Essential of Organizational Behavior.Upper Saddle River, N.J: Prentice

Hall.

[29] Schwenk, C., & Tang, M. (1989). Economic and psychological explanations for strategicpersistence. Omega, 17, 559-570.


13/13


[30] Sehien, E. H. (2004). culture: The Missing concept in organization studies. jornal of cornelluniversity, 229-240.

[31] Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of The Learning Organization. NewYork: Doubleday.

[32] Spaho, K. (2011). ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION AS AN IMPORTANTFACTOR OF COMPANY SUCCESS: CASE STUDY OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA.

Business Intelligence Journal, 390-393.

[33] Sternberg, R., & Lubart, T. I. (1991). An vestment of creativity and its development. HumanDevelopment, 34(1), 1-31.

[34] Swedberg, R. (2007). Rebuilding Schumpeters Theory of Entrepreneurship. ConferenceonMarshall, Schumpeter and Social Science.Hitotsubashi University.

[35] Veryard, R. (2000). Component-Based Business Background Material-Business Patterns. InCBDi Forum Journal, 6.

[36] Yolles, M. (2005). Organizational intelligence.journal of workplace learning, 17(1), 99-114.

Proposing a Model for Collective Stupidity

Documents

Transcript of Proposing a Model for Collective Stupidity