Managerial cognition and action in complex problem solving

Abstract

The ability to solve problems effectively is an important characteristic that distinguishes a competent manager from the others. Many managerial problems are routine in nature with ready-made or programmed solutions available in organizations. Managers however, increasingly face situations or problems that are non-routine, poorly structured, and prone to change even as a consequence of one’s own actions and/or omissions in the course of solving the problem. Such problems are characterized by the presence of many dimensions (or variables) and linkages between them all of which may not be explicitly evident to the manager. Even the definition of ‘what the problem is’ can differ between managers, as different managers make sense of different aspects of the problem as being relevant, as well as give different meanings to the same aspect. They may also be not clear as to what they are aiming to achieve by solving the problem. Further, in an organizational setting, there can be many stakeholders having interest in the process and/or outcomes of solving (or not solving) the problem, and they may bring in different and even conflicting goals to be achieved. Such situations are variously termed as messy, wicked unstructured, non-programmed ill-structured or complex problems. Researchers studying complex problem solving behavior using computer simulations found that some of their subjects were more successful as compared to the others, leading them to ask: "What makes some individuals good problem solvers’ and others ‘bad problem solvers’ in unstructured situations, or complex tasks?" Investigating the action process of individua.ls while solving complex problems showed that good problem solvers made less errors, had developed their goals well, planned their action effectively, monitored and reflected on their actions, and performed better as measured by the various parameters of the simulated task. On the other hand, the less successful subjects or bad problem solvers failed on many of these counts. This raised the question of, "What makes some individuals follow processes of action that enable them to solve complex problems effectively or successfully?” ' Need for cognition and cognitive complexity were identified as two of the variables contributing to the effectiveness of solving complex problems. Need for cognition (NC) refers to the need to structure relevant situations in meaningful and integrated ways, which if not done, can lead to ‘feelings of tension and deprivation’ for the individual. Cognitive complexity (CC) refers to the ability of an individual to identify the different dimensions of a situation in an integrated or related manner, so that (s)he can gain a detailed understanding of the problem. It enables her/him to take suitable decisions, and adopt necessary actions to solve the problem successfully. A sample of 45 managers belonging to different functions and hierarchy levels in a large "83-'1'?-'<1li0n participated in this study. Data were collected in 3 parts: (1) Each manager pursued the solution of a computer simulated complex problem for 2 and l/2 hours. (2) Need for cognition of managers was measured with the l8 item Need for Cognition Scale. (3) Cognitive Complexity was measured from the manager’s cognitive map of the problem that was simulated. Data for mapping was collected through a loosely structured interview about the problem. An alternative measure of cognitive complexity was obtained from the manager’s solution of the simulated complex problem.

Both need for cognition and cognitive complexity of managers were found to be significantly related to their effectiveness of solving complex problems. The effectiveness of problem solving increased with increase in need for cognition. Specifically, with increase in need for cognition, managers were more successful in the problem as measured by its various outcomes. They displayed increasing consistency while solving the problem (i.e., the fluctuations in problem outcomes during the process of solving decreased with increase in need for cognition). Managers also faced fewer crises as a result of their own actions and/or omissions in the process of problem solving. However, at higher values of need for cognition, the crises faced by them began to increase. With increasing need for cognition, managers’ breadth of coverage in the problem expanded -- they collected information and decided upon more aspects of the problem. Effectiveness of complex problem solving increased with cognitive complexity of managers up to a certain point, beyond which it declined. Specifically, success in problem solving increased with cognitive complexity and then decreased. Problem solving became increasingly smooth or crises free up to a certain point of complexity, after which managers began to face more crises. Mixed results were obtained with respect to consistency in problem solving in relation to cognitive complexity. With increasing cognitive complexity, managers gathered information and decided upon more aspects of the problem up to a certain point, beyond which their span of attention in the problem declined. When the alternative measure of complexity obtained from simulation data was used, the effectiveness of managers in solving the complex problem was found to increase with increase in their cognitive complexity. The effectiveness of solving complex problems at high levels of cognitive complexity requires further study. These findings add to, and strengthen the understanding of the role which need for cognition and cognitive complexity have in enabling individuals negotiate unstructured situations effectively. The short form, 18 items, Need for Cognition Scale was perhaps used for the first time in India in this study and has been found to be reliable. The findings contribute to link the effectiveness of action process in complex problem solving to two cognitive variables of problem solvers. The finding that need for cognition and cognitive complexity are significantly contributing to the effectiveness of managers in dealing with unstructured situations has relevance for selection, training and development of managers; and design of organizational jobs and job contexts.