Drie deskundigen, onder andere HG lector Frank Willems, bespreken het boek: Organisatieontwikkeling met Theory U van Esther de Haan en Eva Beerends.
DOCUMENT
In the first part of this article we intend to indicate a traditional theory about the testability of economic theories. This theory is based on a rationality postulate: rationality is presupposed. The second part will deal with a second theory on economic theory formation, in which rationality occurs as a result.
DOCUMENT
The role and ethics of professionals in business and economics have been questioned, especially after the financial crisis of 2008. Some suggest a reorientation using concepts such as craftsmanship. In this article, I will explore professional practices within the context of behavioural theory and business ethics. I suggest that scholars of behavioural theory need a strategy to deal with normative questions to meet their ambition of practical relevance. Evidence-based management (EBMgt), a recent behavioural approach, may assist business ethics scholars in understanding how professionals infer ‘evidence’ to make decisions. For a professional, ethical issues are an integral part of decision-making at critical moments. As reflective practitioners, they develop insights related to ethical concerns when collecting and assessing evidence within decision-making processes.
DOCUMENT
There are three volumes in this body of work. In volume one, we lay the foundation for a general theory of organizing. We propose that organizing is a continuous process of ongoing mutual or reciprocal influence between objects (e.g., human actors) in a field, whereby a field is infinite and connects all the objects in it much like electromagnetic fields influence atomic and molecular charged objects or gravity fields influence inanimate objects with mass such as planets and stars. We use field theory to build what we now call the Network Field Model. In this model, human actors are modeled as pointlike objects in the field. Influence between and investments in these point-like human objects are explained as energy exchanges (potential and kinetic) which can be described in terms of three different types of capital: financial (assets), human capital (the individual) and social (two or more humans in a network). This model is predicated on a field theoretical understanding about the world we live in. We use historical and contemporaneous examples of human activity and describe them in terms of the model. In volume two, we demonstrate how to apply the model. In volume 3, we use experimental data to prove the reliability of the model. These three volumes will persistently challenge the reader’s understanding of time, position and what it means to be part of an infinite field. http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99709
DOCUMENT
To improve people’s lives, human-computer interaction researchers are increasingly designing technological solutions based on behavior change theory, such as social comparison theory (SCT). However, how researchers operationalize such a theory as a design remains largely unclear. One way to clarify this methodological step is to clearly state which functional elements of a design are aimed at operationalizing a specific behavior change theory construct to evaluate if such aims were successful. In this article, we investigate how the operationalization of functional elements of theories and designs can be more easily conveyed. First, we present a scoping review of the literature to determine the state of operationalizations of SCT as behavior change designs. Second, we introduce a new tool to facilitate the operationalization process. We term the tool blueprints. A blueprint explicates essential functional elements of a behavior change theory by describing it in relation to necessary and sufficient building blocks incorporated in a design. We describe the process of developing a blueprint for SCT. Last, we illustrate how the blueprint can be used during the design refinement and reflection process.
DOCUMENT
When engaging in social interaction, people rely on their ability to reason about unobservable mental content of others, which includes goals, intentions, and beliefs. This so-called theory of mind ability allows them to more easily understand, predict, and influence the behavior of others. People even use their theory of mind to reason about the theory of mind of others, which allows them to understand sentences like Alice believes that Bob does not know about the surprise party'. But while the use of higher orders of theory of mind is apparent in many social interactions, empirical evidence so far suggests that people do not use this ability spontaneously when playing strategic games, even when doing so would be highly beneficial. In this paper, we attempt to encourage participants to engage in higher-order theory of mind reasoning by letting them play a game against computational agents. Since previous research suggests that competitive games may encourage the use of theory of mind, we investigate a particular competitive game, the Mod game, which can be seen as a much larger variant of the well-known rock-paper-scissors game. By using a combination of computational agents and Bayesian model selection, we simultaneously determine to what extent people make use of higher-order theory of mind reasoning, as well as to what extent computational agents can encourage the use of higher-order theory of mind in their human opponents. Our results show that participants who play the Mod game against computational theory of mind agents adjust their level of theory of mind reasoning to that of their computer opponent. Earlier experiments with other strategic games show that participants only engage in low orders of theory of mind reasoning. Surprisingly, we find that participants who knowingly play against second- and third-order theory of mind agents apply up to fourth-order theory of mind themselves, and achieve higher scores as a result.
DOCUMENT
In social settings, people often need to reason about unobservablemental content of other people, such as their beliefs, goals, orintentions. This ability helps them to understand, to predict, and evento influence the behavior of others. People can take this ability furtherby applying it recursively. For example, they use second-order theory ofmind to reason about the way others use theory of mind, as in ‘Alicebelieves that Bob does not know about the surprise party’. However,empirical evidence so far suggests that people do not spontaneously usehigher-order theory of mind in strategic games. Previous agent-basedmodeling simulations also suggest that the ability to recursively applytheory of mind may be especially effective in competitive settings. Inthis paper, we use a combination of computational agents and Bayesianmodel selection to determine to what extent people make use of higherordertheory of mind reasoning in a particular competitive game, theMod game, which can be seen as a much larger variant of the well-knownrock-paper-scissors game.We let participants play the competitive Mod game against computationaltheory of mind agents. We find that people adapt their level oftheory of mind to that of their software opponent. Surprisingly, knowinglyplaying against second- and third-order theory of mind agents enticeshuman participants to apply up to fourth-order theory of mindthemselves, thereby improving their results in the Mod game. This phenomenoncontrasts with earlier experiments about other strategic oneshotand sequential games, in which human players only displayed lowerorders of theory of mind.
DOCUMENT
From the article: The ‘Axiomatic Design Methodology’ uses ‘Axioms’ that cannot be proven nor derived from physical phenomena. The axioms serve as guidelines for the design process of products and systems. The latest contribution was the addition of the ‘Complexity Axiom’ in 1999. However, the underlying theory of complexity did not get much traction by designers and their managers yet. It emphasises difficulties in the design, not primarily focussing on solutions. The ‘Theory of Complexity’ is converted to a ‘Theory of Maturity’ in this paper. It is supported with a graphical way to plot maturity as it develops. It visualises the results in a way that can be understood by all entities in a company, engineers, managers, and executives. Understanding the maturity of a system enables selection of the right measures to control it. Visualisation enables communication between the interacting parties. If successful development trajectories are understood, eventually from earlier experience, even better corrective actions can be applied. The method appears an affirmative way to graphically represent progression in design, thus presenting advances in a positive context. Though positively presented, it is not the case that the method hides problems; presumed and legitimate project progression can be quite different, which challenges the designer to understand the process. In this way, the method sends out a continuous warning to stay critical on design choices made.
DOCUMENT
Paper presented at the 41st World Conference of the International Council for Traditional Music ICTM, St John's, Newfoundland, Canada, 14/7/2011.
DOCUMENT
