Linking Task Conditions to Physiology and Judgment Errors in RM Systems

Abstract

In models of optimal decision making, assumptions about managerial behavior are often made with the hope that the prescriptions offered by these models will be effective in practice, even if actual behavior occasionally strays from these assumptions. However, recent revenue management (RM) research has demonstrated what appear to be systematic deviations from normative models of decision making. These deviations can even be observed in relatively simple RM contexts. We suggest that technical errors in capacity allocation decisions are linked to issues such as arousal and stress associated with state conditions of RM tasks. Our study goes beyond existing findings by considering behavioral phenomena in concurrent task settings, where the decision maker is faced with managing decisions for more than one product or service. Physiological measures of eye dilation and blink rate are used as markers of arousal and stress in subjects engaged in RM tasks. Our analysis shows that physiological responses are indeed associated with both the state conditions of RM tasks and the number of capacity blocks managed concurrently by an individual. Deviations from modeled decision making appear to be significantly dependent upon these physiological responses. We conclude with a discussion of implications for further research and practice.

Product Recall Decisions in Medical Device Supply Chains: A Big Data Analytic Approach to Evaluating Judgment Bias

“…We find that high noise‐to‐signal ratio is associated with under‐reaction as high noise‐to‐signal ratio tends to cloud managerial judgment. This result supports hypothesis 1 (H1) and is consistent with Bendoly's () finding that psychological reaction of managers depend on the state condition of adverse event signals.…”

Employee motivation in product-service system providers

“…Many studies utilise experimental set-ups which allowed to control environmental settings and thus to focus on motivation as a key variable in work performance (Gwinner et al 2005, Bendoly 2011). Other studies that are set in a practical context typically focus on traditional manufacturing companies (e.g.…”

The relationship between team autonomy and new product development performance under different levels of technological turbulence⋆

“…Together, the challenge and stress related effects contribute to an ∩‐shaped relationship between team autonomy and motivation (Bendoly and Hur, 2007). A similar non‐monotonic behavioral effect between workload and revenue management has been recently empirically tested (Bendoly, 2011; Bendoly and Prietula, 2008).…”

“…The ∩‐shaped behavioral effect of autonomy results from the combined effects of challenge and stress that result from increased autonomy. This argument has a long history in psychology, such as the ∩‐shaped relationship between arousal and performance (Yerkes and Dodson, 1908), and has been recently empirically tested on workload and revenue management (Bendoly, 2011; Bendoly and Prietula, 2008).…”

“…Recent discussions suggest that a higher degree of autonomy can have two effects on motivation: “challenge‐driven adjustment to motivation” and “stress‐driven adjustment to motivation” (Bendoly and Hur, 2007: 25; Locke and Latham, 1990), depending on the individual capabilities of team members and the perceived work environment. Recent empirical studies consistently report that the relative weights of these two behavioral effects lead to three distinct behavioral states of individual workers (Bendoly, 2011; Bendoly and Prietula, 2008): ‘indifference’, in which a low state of motivation results from a lack of sufficient challenge; ‘arousal’, in which a high state of motivation results from being ‘sufficiently, but not excessively’ challenged (Locke and Latham, 1990); and ‘depression’, in which distraction, stress and a reduction in motivation result from the excessive challenges. These findings together imply an inverted‐U relationship between challenges and both motivation and performance outcomes (Bendoly, 2011; Bendoly and Prietula, 2008).…”