Will M Bennis
Will M. Bennis, PhD, is a scholar at the Center for Workplace Research at the Prague University of Economics and Business and a lecturer in psychology at the University of New York in Prague. His research concerns the impact of culture and the built environment on normative judgments (judgments about what is rational, true, or morally good) and on the normativity of those judgments (the extent to which such judgments are coherent, justified, accurate, reliable, adaptive, or functional).
Phone: +420 732 501 105
Phone: +420 732 501 105
less
Related Authors
InterestsView All (27)
Uploads
Papers by Will M Bennis
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the proposed explanations using a systematic literature review.
METHODS: Google Scholar was used to find original research on the relationship between office openness and worker outcomes. 89 articles were coded for the variables and methods they used, and conclusions about the relationship between layout and outcomes were evaluated.
RESULTS:The proposed explanations were partly supported. The relationship between layout openness and worker outcomes depends on the variables considered and the methods used, and a small subset of methods was used far more often than others. That said, more research is needed to evaluate impact of open-plan offices on worker outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS:The relationship between office openness and worker outcomes varies widely depending on how it is measured. Several promising areas for future research may help clarify this relationship.
research is over-reliant on WEIRD samples is an important contribution to the field. Their stronger claim that “WEIRD subjects are particularly unusual” is less convincing, however. We argue that WEIRD people’s apparent distinct weirdness is a methodological side-effect of psychology’s over-reliance on WEIRD populations for developing its methods and theoretical constructs.
so as to maximize net benefits given stable internal preferences. But
institutional structure can play a central role in determining whether or not
an agent’s decisions promote their individual preferences. This chapter
explores four cases where the interaction between institutional structure and
non-optimizing human decision processes does a better job than optimizing
models at explaining choice. These cases suggest that institutions are often
designed to fit minds. In some cases these designs rely on existing heuristics
and their building blocks (organ donation rules, slot-machine design), while
in other cases institutions design new lexicographic heuristics to help make
decisions fast and unambiguous (driving right-of-way rules, World Cup soccer
team ranking rules).
This paper summarizes the fast-and-frugal-heuristics (FFH) approach to judgment and decision making, particularly as it applies to sports. The aim is to provide a framework through which current sports psychologists may apply this approach to better understand sports decision making.
Methods
FFH are studied using a variety of methods, including (1) computer simulations and mathematical analysis of heuristic performance as it depends on environmental structure (what we call the ecological rationality of heuristics); (2) empirical analysis of the heuristics, performance in naturally occurring environments; and (3) experimental research examining whether people actually use the identified heuristics.
Results
Simulations and analysis have shown that FFH can perform as well as complicated optimizing models while using less information and without integrating this information. Furthermore, in many cases FFH are more robust than optimizing models, outperforming these models when generalizing to new cases.
Conclusion
FFH depart from many models of human decision making in that they set a reasonable standard of rationality based on real-world constraints such as (a) limited time, information, and cognitive capacity, (b) decision tasks that may have no calculable optimal solution, and (c) the structured environments within which humans have learned and evolved. These simple heuristics are particularly appropriate in the sports domain, in which athletes often must make rapid decisions—that may ultimately make the difference between success and failure—with limited information and divided attention.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the proposed explanations using a systematic literature review.
METHODS: Google Scholar was used to find original research on the relationship between office openness and worker outcomes. 89 articles were coded for the variables and methods they used, and conclusions about the relationship between layout and outcomes were evaluated.
RESULTS:The proposed explanations were partly supported. The relationship between layout openness and worker outcomes depends on the variables considered and the methods used, and a small subset of methods was used far more often than others. That said, more research is needed to evaluate impact of open-plan offices on worker outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS:The relationship between office openness and worker outcomes varies widely depending on how it is measured. Several promising areas for future research may help clarify this relationship.
research is over-reliant on WEIRD samples is an important contribution to the field. Their stronger claim that “WEIRD subjects are particularly unusual” is less convincing, however. We argue that WEIRD people’s apparent distinct weirdness is a methodological side-effect of psychology’s over-reliance on WEIRD populations for developing its methods and theoretical constructs.
so as to maximize net benefits given stable internal preferences. But
institutional structure can play a central role in determining whether or not
an agent’s decisions promote their individual preferences. This chapter
explores four cases where the interaction between institutional structure and
non-optimizing human decision processes does a better job than optimizing
models at explaining choice. These cases suggest that institutions are often
designed to fit minds. In some cases these designs rely on existing heuristics
and their building blocks (organ donation rules, slot-machine design), while
in other cases institutions design new lexicographic heuristics to help make
decisions fast and unambiguous (driving right-of-way rules, World Cup soccer
team ranking rules).
This paper summarizes the fast-and-frugal-heuristics (FFH) approach to judgment and decision making, particularly as it applies to sports. The aim is to provide a framework through which current sports psychologists may apply this approach to better understand sports decision making.
Methods
FFH are studied using a variety of methods, including (1) computer simulations and mathematical analysis of heuristic performance as it depends on environmental structure (what we call the ecological rationality of heuristics); (2) empirical analysis of the heuristics, performance in naturally occurring environments; and (3) experimental research examining whether people actually use the identified heuristics.
Results
Simulations and analysis have shown that FFH can perform as well as complicated optimizing models while using less information and without integrating this information. Furthermore, in many cases FFH are more robust than optimizing models, outperforming these models when generalizing to new cases.
Conclusion
FFH depart from many models of human decision making in that they set a reasonable standard of rationality based on real-world constraints such as (a) limited time, information, and cognitive capacity, (b) decision tasks that may have no calculable optimal solution, and (c) the structured environments within which humans have learned and evolved. These simple heuristics are particularly appropriate in the sports domain, in which athletes often must make rapid decisions—that may ultimately make the difference between success and failure—with limited information and divided attention.