Luck in Action – Creating Luck Momentum in an Entrepreneurial Context

Stenholm, Pekka; Jiang, Yi

doi:10.5465/ambpp.2019.17353abstract

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In brief, meaningful coincidences per se cannot affect reality, but it happens through the emerged affective states and activated cognitive interpretations that consequently influence management decisions. This is almost in line with some management and organization studies on luck, such as the retrospective investigation of Stenholm and Jiang (2019) who found that luck, for the successful 22 service and/or product entrepreneurs they interviewed, does not make anything happen, but is regarded as linked with their actions.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

“…Humans have incompleteness of information, difficulty in anticipating the consequences of future actions and scarce knowledge of all possible behaviors, and these do not let individuals maximize their own expected utility when making decisions. Within the past 70 years, however, several scientific discoveries on human behaviorsuch as the influence on cognition of emotions (Lazarus, 2006;Lerner and Keltner, 2000;Lerner et al, 2013) and luck (Liu and De Rond, 2016;Denrell et al, 2019;Stenholm and Jiang, 2019), considered as irrational variables (Sripada and Stich, 2004), have emanated. One recent research has stated: "future research on human rationality in management should instead investigate the impact of irrational forces" (Cristofaro, 2017a, p. 182).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Unfolding irrationality: how do meaningful coincidences influence management decisions?

Cristofaro¹

2020

IJOA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This study aims to answer the following research question: “How do meaningful coincidences influence management decisions?” This question has gained relevance mainly because of the increasing attention of scholars in explaining the irrational pressures that shape management decisions, which should be inevitably taken into account to discover the causative factors of firms’ performances. Design/methodology/approach A multiparadigm approach to theory building has been adopted, known as “metatriangulation.” This study consisted of exploring the interplay between the synchronicity concept of Jung and cognitive studies. As a result, this work proposes a conceptual framework that refers to both sensemaking and cognitive decision-making literature. Findings The framework proposes that the perceived certainty (or not) about the potential outcome for the well-being, coming from the occurrence of meaningful coincidences, elicits a set of positive (or negative) affective states. These states activate a series of cognitive errors that drive the assignment of a symbolic content to the coincidences, bringing different risk-oriented management decisions. Research limitations/implications The provided model is purely conceptual and based on the current pool of knowledge available. As much as empirical evidence will be produced, this model may need revision. This framework proposes the interpretation of meaningful coincidences not only as the output of a number of information processing biases, but also as inputs, through the elicited affect heuristic, for the occurrence of other cognitive errors that drive management decisions. Practical implications The explained influence of irrational forces on management decisions, also considering luck and chance, can be fruitful to avoid these behaviors or to intentionally adopt them in selected cases, e.g. when looking for attractive unexploited opportunities within markets. Originality/value To the best of the author’s knowledge, this is the first work that attempts to unveil the impact of meaningful coincidences and, more in general, of irrational forces on management decisions. Moreover, the provided framework explains how superstitious events are sometimes looked for to guide decision-making.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%