Compensating for perceptual filters in weak signal assessments

Abstract

The effect of ambiguous and non-salient information on the managerial interpretive process is rarely investigated, although this information is considered to be the basis for strategic decision-making and requires a different process due to its ill-defined nature. This paper explores the process that outperforming managers used to detect and interpret weak signals. Interviews with 13 top-managers were analyzed using a grounded theory approach to allow the process to emerge. The findings confirmed earlier conclusions on perceptual filters that reduce the number and type of signals assessed. Contrary to earlier findings, the process was significantly altered to compensate for this loss in two ways. First, managers deliberately postponed their assessment of a weak signal by discussing it with people with distinct and second, some managers deliberately searched for signals that were unfamiliar and not fitting their mental model. The sample consisted of outperforming top managers, which raised questions about the generalizability of the findings in specific directions: are the alterations in the weak signal process exemplary for outperformers only, and how does its success compare to formal foresight methods. Finally, the findings have managerial relevance since they indicate how to detect and bring weak signals into the company before impact.

An investigation of key precursors of megaproject crises

“…When regulatory mechanisms are ineffective in exposing project misbehavior, asymmetric power relationships in paternalistic leadership will lead to greater information opaqueness and opportunistic decision making. Early signals that are unintentionally distorted by top managers or deliberately distorted for their self-interest may be disregarded or ignored in further actions (van Veen et al, 2019). Strategic contingency planning to be prepared for potential crises and decision-making in response to early warnings usually come from top management, and thus senior executives' perception of crisis precursors may ultimately affect the effectiveness of crisis management.…”

“…Introducing the key crisis precursors in the early front-end stage helps promote the accountability of project participants and their commitments to mitigate potential crises. Effective flow of information is critical to ensuring timely and appropriate responses to detected precursors (Haji-Kazemi et al, 2015;van Veen et al, 2019). Various techniques and tools have been developed to gather information and monitor project progress.…”

“…However, overly top-down and centralized management inhibits stakeholder participation, which may result in a bureaucratic system with less flexibility and autonomy (Kerzner, 2017;Volden and Andersen, 2018;Wan et al, 2020). Barriers to further actions in response to crisis precursors are not only related to signal detection but also to the perception and diffusion of warning signs within an organization (van Veen et al, 2019). Hence, management of emergent problems in megaprojects should be implemented in both top-down and bottom-up manners (Ansoff, 1975;Lenfle and Loch, 2010).…”

“…, 2020). Barriers to further actions in response to crisis precursors are not only related to signal detection but also to the perception and diffusion of warning signs within an organization (van Veen et al. , 2019).…”

Detecting Weak Signals of the Future: A System Implementation Based on Text Mining and Natural Language Processing

“…Some studies use the opinion of experts and stakeholders as an input for the detection of weak signals. Among those inputs are the feelings of known critics or the behavior of customers [30].…”