Enhancing the Computational Collective Intelligence within Communities of Practice Using Trust and Reputation Models

Maries, Iulia; Scarlat, Emil

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-19968-4_4

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Members' unawareness in the organization (Hardy et al, 2010), lack of organizational knowledge sharing (Demitras and Sarjoko, 2018), poor performance in sharing knowledge (Maries and Scarlat, 2011), failure to share knowledge (Demitras and Sarjoko, 2018), secrecy (Huang et al, 2018), organizational silence, avoidance of disclosing organizational knowledge and failure to use collective wisdom (Ashforth and Fried, 1988) are the consequences of collective stupidity, which also justify the results of our study.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

“…Psychological bias also misleads a significant portion of experts' thinking (Schuler, 2008). Lack of reflectivity (Lagstedt and Dahlberg, 2018), unilateralism or not having bifocality (Paulsen, 2017), apathy to the culture of communication (Hardy et al, 2010), tendency to work independently and escaping from teamwork (Huang et al, 2018), imprudent behaviors of experts, obsession with and focus on a specific aspect of the project (Fong and Yuen, 2014), weakness in effective communication (Maries and Scarlat, 2011) and experts' low tolerance threshold (Olszewski-Kubilius, 2018) are other characteristics affecting collective stupidity among the experts. Therefore, according to the results of the quantitative phase, the individual antecedents identified in this study with a path coefficient of 0.228, while confirming the H1 of the research, are effective on collective stupidity.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to Dale Carnegie (1937), more than 85% (four-fifth) of a person’s success depends on how they communicate with others. However, Maries and Scarlat (2011) argue that intelligent people often perform poorly in talking to others or sharing knowledge. Also, low tolerance threshold and the illusion of having control of everything (Olszewski-Kubilius, 2018), comprehensive focus on only one part of the subject and neglecting other aspects (Adderholdt and Goldberg, 1999), substantive features of experts, focus on stabilized states instead of changing awareness, shyness (barrier to progress), prejudice (barrier to innovation), arrogance (barrier to learning), being meticulous (barrier to being broad-minded), habituation (barrier to change), self-aggrandizement (barrier to self-monitoring), complaining (barrier to trying) and selfishness (barrier to effective communication) are other characteristics of experts and specialists (Scullion and Collings, 2006).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Collective stupidity: influences on decision-making in knowledge-based companies

Ahmadzadeh

Safari

Teimouri

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeEven the smartest organizations believe that “good enough is never good enough.” Highly intelligent people may be able to do important things individually; still, it is their accumulated brainpower that allows them to do great things. Collective intelligence means when a group of people do things that seem intelligent. On the other hand, when intelligent people are gathered or hired in an organization, they tend toward collective stupidity and slow-wittedness. Therefore, the purpose of the present study is to develop a model of the factors affecting and affected by collective stupidity.Design/methodology/approachThis study was conducted using a mixed-method approach and in two phases: qualitative and quantitative. First, in the qualitative phase and in order to achieve new findings, semi-structured interviews with experts from 12 knowledge-based companies were used to design a conceptual model and formulate the hypotheses. At the end of the qualitative phase, the conceptual model and relationships between variables were drawn. Then, in the quantitative phase, by running structural equation modeling, the antecedents and consequences of collective stupidity derived from the qualitative phase findings were analyzed and the research hypotheses were tested in 110 industrial knowledge-based companies.FindingsThe results of the qualitative phase revealed that individual, group and organizational factors were the antecedents of collective stupidity, with individual factors having three dimensions, collective ones including two dimensions and organizational ones focusing on the characteristics of managers/companies. It was also found that collective stupidity had individual consequences in three dimensions and organizational consequences in five dimensions; and one-sidedness, non-strategic thinking, organizational injustice and weakness in the management of key personnel were extracted as mediators. The results of the quantitative phase confirmed the research model and showed that individual factors and organizational consequences had the lowest (0.037) and highest (1.084) effect sizes on collective stupidity, respectively.Research limitations/implicationsThe study of the phenomenon in a particular context and the difficulty of generalizing the findings to other situations, the small size of the study population due to the disproportionate number of experts to the total staff in the qualitative phase, and the limited participation of experts due to the negative nature of the issue in the quantitative phase. Taking advantage of the diversity of experts' mental abilities through equipping the organization with tools for recognizing collective stupidity, improving collective decision-making, enhancing the efficiency of think tanks and organizational prosperity in the age of knowledge economy, preventing damage to the body of knowledge of the company and reducing social loafing can be the main operational implications of this study.Originality/valueUsing a mixed-method approach for analyzing the antecedents and consequences of collective stupidity in this study and examining such a phenomenon in a knowledge-based organizational context and its implementation in a developing country can be among the innovations of the present research. By following a few studies conducted in this field in addition to the organizational pathology of the phenomenon using a fundamental method, this study obtained deep results on how to make the maximum use of experts’ capacities. This was to the extent that in all of the three sections, i.e. the antecedents and consequences of collective stupidity, a new factor emerged.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Collective stupidity: influences on decision-making in knowledge-based companies

Ahmadzadeh

Safari

Teimouri

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The importance of organizational intelligence is due to the fact that individual intelligence alone cannot be used to overcome issues ahead; therefore, to overcome the problems, there is a need to develop collective intelligence within an organization as a necessity [8]. The most significant factors playing key roles in human development and progress in all areas are innovation and creativity.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Examining the Relationship of Organizational Intelligence with Innovation Management and Career Advancement in an Organization

Kahkha¹,

Pourghaz²,

Marziyeh³

2015

JBBS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study aimed to examine the relationship of organizational intelligence with innovation management and career advancement in an organization. Considering its objective, this was a descriptive-correlational study. The statistical population included all high school managers in Zahedan at the year 2015. The sample contained 52 male managers and 51 female managers whom were selected through applying stratified random sampling method. To collect data, Organizational Intelligence Questionnaire, Innovation Management Inventory and Questionnaire of Career Advancement were used, the validity of which was assessed through applying the standpoint of a number of university professors and their reliability was obtained 0.74, 0.76, 0.84, respectively, using Cronbach's alpha coefficient. Results indicated that considering managers' perspectives, the status of organizational intelligence and career advancement were desirable; however, the status of innovation management was moderate. Moreover, organizational intelligence and its components were significantly and positively correlated with innovation management (r = 0.512, P < 0.01), and there was a significant and positive relationship between organizational intelligence and career advancement (r = 0.334, P < 0.01). Findings demonstrated that components of desire to change, spirit, unity and agreement, application of knowledge, performance pressure were significantly correlated to career advancement. However, components of strategic perspective and common fate were not significantly correlated with career advancement. Additionally, among the components of organizational intelligence, in the first step, application of knowledge and in the second step, desire to change were the best predicators of innovation management (which together could predict 28%). Application of knowledge was the only variable which entered the predictive model and predicted 16% of career advancement. Results of independent * Corresponding author. A. O. Kahkha et al. 396t-test indicated that no significant difference was found between male and female managers, considering their organizational intelligence, innovation management and career advancement.

show abstract

“…Wisdom is a concept closely related to the paradigm of collective intelligence (CI) (Agarwal et al, 2010;Dalal, 2008). Generally, some approaches that have considered CI, argue that the users do not need a high level of expertise in service cre-ation platform for composing mashups, if they have an adequate assistance, advice, or help by another users, who have previously solved the same (or similar) problem (Szuba et al, 2011;Maries and Scarlat, 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

WISHFUL AND WISDOM AWARE COMPOSING - A Full User-centric Approach to Create NGM

Meza

Potosí

Corrales

et al. 2012

Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nowadays, it's possible to find huge amounts of steadily increasing web resources. Service composition languages and tools are widely used for creating compositions of multiple services in order to meet the user's requirements in the cases when a single Web service does not perform a required task. However, despite the relative intuitiveness of currently the available tools, they still require a careful manual assembly of a composition flow by the end-user, thus requiring some technical knowledge on the functioning of each individual component. We provide a full user-centric approach to create NGMs (Next Generation Mashups) interactively through W2AC (Wishful and Wisdom-Aware Composing): First, end-user wishes are considered, then a composition knowledge is extracted from existing reputable mashups created by skilled users. Thus, end-users are able to easily generate their own NGM in a fully customized fashion.

show abstract

Enhancing the Computational Collective Intelligence within Communities of Practice Using Trust and Reputation Models

Cited by 8 publications

References 21 publications

Collective stupidity: influences on decision-making in knowledge-based companies

Collective stupidity: influences on decision-making in knowledge-based companies

Examining the Relationship of Organizational Intelligence with Innovation Management and Career Advancement in an Organization

WISHFUL AND WISDOM AWARE COMPOSING - A Full User-centric Approach to Create NGM

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About