Different Types of Biasness and Their Nature in Decision Making

This essay discusses different types of biasness and their nature in perturbing the process of decision making. It describes three distinct theories that can eradicate each kind of biasness in decision making. The essay also provides two real-life examples of decision making processes in organizations.

Running Head: PART A& PART B
PART A and PART B
Name of the Student:
Name of University:
Author Note:

1PART A& PART B
Decision making is considered to be an imperative facet in order to plan a specific
program that is beneficial for the organisation. Mostly, the management and the senior authority
are responsible to take the decisions. In this regards, it can be argued that there are always risk
factors that are responsible to influence the decision making process of the company
(Blumenthal-Barby & Krieger, 2015). In this context, biasness is considered to be one of the
most important risk factors. It can be argued that biasness is classified into a number of types
such as psychological bias, behavioural bias and the cognitive bias. The psychological bias is
based on the issues that are seemed to be illogical while taken into action (Dror et al., 2015). On
the other hand, behavioural bias deals with the pattern of deviation in judgement which occurs in
a particular situation. In addition to this the cognitive bias can be influenced by anchoring, over
confidence and availability in decision making. Hence, the purpose of this essay is to distinguish
different concepts of biasness and their nature in perturbing the process of decision making.
Furthermore, the essay is carry forwarded by describing three distinct theories that can eradicate
the each kind of biasness in decision making.
In order to understand the psychological approach of biasness, it can be argued that the
concept was developed in the year 1970s (Montibeller & Winterfeldt, 2015). According to the
psychologists it can be argued that psychological bias is a tendency to make3 decision or taken
action in an illogical way. In fact, the psychological bias is identified as the just opposite of
common sense and clear measured judgement (Voon, 2015). As a result of that misleading in
decision making is a common feature. In this context, there are some common psychological
biases that are very usual in organisational decision making.
The first bias is regarded as confirmation bias. It is related to seek information that are
supported the existed beliefs of a decision maker. In this regards, it can be argued that the

2PART A& PART B
decision maker rejects the data that are not supported his concept. A study in 2003 opined that
confirmation bias affects decision making when people are more inclined towards statistics
(Shepherd, Williams& Patzelt, 2015). It is obvious that people have a trend to infer information
from statistics that are supported their preconceive ideas.
Besides this, anchoring is considered to be another type of psychological biasness in
decision making. It can be defined as an irrational judgment in the time of concluding a decision.
In this context, biasness can be identified as a final judgement on information gained early on in
the decision making process. In fact, it is influenced by the first impression of the person (Van
Knippenberg et al., 2015).
In this regards, overconfidence is considered to be another important factor in this
regards. This type of biasness can be seen in case of the person impose too much faith on
acquired knowledge and opinions (Morewedge et al., 2015). Having a relation with the
anchoring biasness it can be argued that unrealistic view on own decision making prevails a great
deal of bias in making decision.
Gambler’s fallacy is relevant in this regards. It can be argued that gambler’s fallacy can
be identified as the past events to influence the future. Therefore, in the long run the stronger the
belief can be that things will change the next time. The gambler’s fallacy can be dangerous in a
business environment because outcomes are highly uncertain. The number of successes has only
a small bearing on the future (Goodwin & Wright, 2014).
Behavioural biases are the pattern of deviation in judgement which occurs in a particular
situation especially during uncertain condition. In other words, behavioural bias is a tendency
that a human would make some systematic error in a certain circumstances based on cognitive

3PART A& PART B
factor rather than evidence (Newell & Shanks, 2014). In this context, there is a number of
behavioural biasness that can be occurred in the process of decision making. There are some
patterns of behavioural biasness in the form of heuristics, overconfidence loss aversion and
family bias.
Heuristic, also known as the rule of thumb, is the way of solving problem, learning and
discovery. This concept is practised by most of the managers in order to avoid any kind of bias
during the decision making process (Antons & Piller, 2015). However, the heuristic process is
very difficult and complex in nature. In addition to this, it can be argued that in case of using
heuristic in a wrong decision it delivers error and mistakes in decision making process.
In this context, overconfidence is also identified as a pivotal patter that can influence the
process of behavioural bias in organisational decision making. Overestimation of ability and too
much weight on the efforts always lead towards error in decision making (Antons & Piller,
2015). Furthermore, knowledge and skill are also manipulating the decision making in a great
deal of manner.
Familiarity bias is the tendency that people believe in and prefer things that they are
familiar with. In this regards, it can be asserted that most of the investors would like to invest
their money in the familiar company because they think of the companies they are not familiar
are riskier (Morewedge et al., 2015). In other words, investors like to invest something that they
know. However, the market does not reward investors with risk premium for loyalty and
familiarity.
In this context, loss aversion is associated with the concept of prospect theory. It can be
ascribed that individual has stronger desire to avoid losses than experience comparable gains.

4PART A& PART B
Loss aversion implies the way investors make their choices between two alternatives involve
risk. The empirical evidences opine that loss weighed almost about twice as heavily as gains for
the investors (Voon, 2015). In this context, it can be seen that investors could try to avoid
negative choice and the loss aversion leads them to take bias decisions.
As a matter of fact, the cognitive biasness is referred to be one of the most significant
factor that can influence the decision making process in a great deal of manner. For an instance,
in most o the disasters and tragedies, cognitive biasness is considered to be solely responsible for
this. An error in judgement is primarily responsible for tragedies and disasters (Dror eet al.,
2015). It can also implacable in the case of everyday decision making process. In addition to this,
cognitive biases in the form of projection can distort judgements. Humans are often poor judges
of current and future events. In this regards, the negligence of the denominator is an example4 of
a task for which the biasness can be occurred.
The simplification biases are motivated by comprehending g reality, reflect information
process and are related to cognitive ability and cognitive styles. For an example, 1,286n cancer
incidents out of the 10,000 indicate a higher likelihood of cancer than 24.14 incidents out of 100
(Goodwin & Wright, 2014).
Verification biases are determined by the desire to achieve consistency, self reflection
process and are related to core self evaluation. Examples are false consensus and learned
helplessness acting due to prior experiences in which actions have not helped even when actions
would help in the current situation (Morewedge et al., 2015).
As a matter of fact, the regulation biases are motivated by the desire to approach pleasure
and avoid pain, reflect decision making process and are related to a person’s approach.

5PART A& PART B
Moreover, the trait factors are also seemed to be important in this regards. In fact, there are other
state of factors that can affect decision making and susceptibility to cognitive biases. It can be
identified as physical fatigue, sleeplessness and emotional fatigue as well (Goodwin & Wright,
2014). With respect to the trait and cognitive bias factors it seems reasonable that in an
individual differences framework their relationship could be fruitfully explored with potentially
more powerful explanatory variables form an information processing perspective such as
working memory, executive attention and inhibitory control.
It is obvious and evident for decision making in an organisation to get affected by the risk
elements like bias. Managers and the senior authorities are also kept in mind of the possible
creation of bias in judgements. In this regards, they are opted for some mechanisms that can
reduce the chances of bias in decision making process. In fact, these mechanisms are also based
on experience and probability. As a result of that opting a wrong method can jeopardize the
entire process of decision making and solving. To get an idea about different kinds of decision
making it can be ascribed that the decision making process is a complex process as well as has a
number of risks while implementing it. As a matter of fact, biasness is considered to be a part of
the decision making process. Therefore, it can be concluded that there are a number of factors
that can influence the decision making and the managers or the individuals must possess the
ability to resolve it.

6PART A& PART B
Part B
The first example that can be provided based on the process of decision making in the
real life organization is based on the scenario that was created in Whole Foods. The decision
making scenario was mainly based on the decision that was to be taken by Mackey. The CEO of
the company Mackey had said in an interview that he has tried to take decisions that are based on
the ways by which the organization can be developed in the future. The CEO has further tried to
take the consensus or the confirmation of the employees based on the important decision that has
been taken by him. The disagreements of the employees are thereby expressed in the meetings
that were held based on the likes of the employees (Heyler et al., 2016). After the disagreements
of the employees are addressed the CEO is able to take better decisions that are based on the
improvement of the company in the future. The involvement of the employees in the process of
decision making has been helpful for the organization to create better place to work for the
employees. The various types of opinions that are provided by the employees thereby lead to the
process of better decision making the management of the company. The CEO had thereby been
able to find better ways by which the decisions can be taken in an effective manner. This process
further helped the CEO to create decisions that are best for the organizational operations
(Romiszowski, 2016). The CEO of the company tried to provide enough space to the employees
so that they are able to take the decisions in an effective manner. The various organizational
processes have also gone through changes under the leadership of Mackey. The issue based on
confirmation bias has been addressed in this situation with the help of the consensus that has
been obtained from the employees based on the decision that needs to be taken. The process of
decision making has further helped the CEO in reducing the time that is required for the purpose
of taking certain decisions for the company and the employees. The addressing of the bias has

7PART A& PART B
thereby been the major part of the entire organizational process of decision making. The
organization has therefore benefitted a lot from the decision making based process that has been
followed by the CEO and the members of the organization as well (Conrado et al., 2016).
The second example is based on the decision making process that has been followed by
Robert S. Kaplan who is the CEO of the Bank of Dallas. The business owners always need to
improve the process that is used by them for the decision making. This process first involves the
ways by which the managers need to take advice from the employees and further take the
decisions regarding the various organizational processes. The common problem that is faced by
the leaders in case of making the decisions is based on the ways by which they are able to
improve the imbalance between the power. The imbalance of power is mainly based on the ways
by which the employees are able to work towards their future aspirations and growth (Karimi,
Papamichail & Holland, 2015). The employees are thereby scared of providing their opinions
and feedback to the managers based on issues that have taken place in the company. The
managers thereby need to create an environment in the organization which can help the
employees to provide their opinions in a fearless manner. The major part of this process of
decision making is based on the ways by which the employees are able to provide their feedback
regarding the various organizational processes. The managers are capable of solving this issue
with the help of the sessions that are held with the employees. The sessions can help the
employees to create a bond or positive relationship with the managers(Govindan et al., 2015).
This can help the managers in enhancing the various organizational processes. The managers are
thereby able to gain the opinions of the employees in such a manner which can help them in
taking the various decisions easily. The perspectives and the opinions of the employees have

8PART A& PART B
proved to be valuable for the proper operations of the company in the environment. The opinions
that are provided by the employees are thereby able to fill in the gaps that can be present in the
decisions that have been taken by the managers (Karimi, Papamichail & Holland, 2015). The
most important part of the entire organizational process is thereby based on the creation of a
mind-set which is based on solving the problems that are faced by the company. The main part of
the process of decision making is thereby related to the ways by which the employees are able to
take part in the various processes of the organization. The bias that can occur in the decision
making process can be helpful in the ways by which the objectives of the company can be
achieved in an effective manner(Heyler et al., 2016). The bias has been seen in this situation is
the familiarity bias. The most important part of the entire process is to remove the bias that has
taken place in the decision making. The managers need to remove this bias the decision making
process and create an unbiased environment in the organization. This process will help the
managers to develop the organizational process and then take the decisions in a such a way
which can help in the improvement of the employees and their work process in the future. The
removal of bias from decision making is important for the achievement of the organizational
goals(Karimi, Papamichail & Holland, 2015). The managers can also become much more
connected with the employees after the bias has been removed from the entire organizational
processes. This will be helpful in the creation of a different position of the company in the
industry in which it operates in a successful manner (Karimi, Papamichail & Holland, 2015).
It can be argued that the real time situation has to be kept in the discussion to get a
clear picture of the scenario. Bakers delight Holdings in Australia is the company in this regards.
The company was established in the year 1980 by Roger and Lesley Gillespie at Hawthorn,
Melbourne (Bakersdelight.com.au, 2018). The company is dedicated to bake fresh and delicious

9PART A& PART B
bread and delivered to a lot of happy customers. In fact, the mission and vision of the company is
also corroborated the activities. However, recently the company is going to face issues regarding
managerial decision making. The reason behind this problem was related to the change in the
manufacturing items.
The Bakers Delight Company is going to establish their new store by introducing new
items besides making good quality breads. In this context, it is important to acknowledge that the
biggest bakery chain in Australia Bakers Delight has 587 stores in Australia only with an annual
turnover of $600 million (Bakersdelight.com.au, 2018). Based on this dynamic business
orientation, it is evident for the company to expand its business by introducing innovation into
the production. Roger Gillespie is considered to be the Executive Chairman of the company. As
a matter of fact, the Gillespie family owns 85 percent of Bakers Delight (Kohler, 2014).
The move towards expanding the business is identified as a significant decision made by
the Gillespie family. Despite of that the dearth in the managerial decision making made the
company fail to expand its market capitalisation. It can be argued that the psychological bias has
played a pivotal role in this regards. To be specific, it can be argued that the gambler’s fallacy
outplayed the efficiency of managerial decision making. It can be ascribed that in expanding its
market orientation the company did not have the financial ability and man power to make it
successful (Goodwin & Wright, 2014). Despite of knowing the facts, the Gillespie family pushed
its marketing team to make it happen. Besides this, the behavioural theory of overconfidence also
played a pivotal role in this regards. According to this theory, the managerial overconfidence
leads towards organisational indecision (Dror et al., 2015). In this context, the higher authority of
Bakers Delight, Gillespie family possessed a high ambition that required a strong marketing

10PART A& PART B
evaluation. Empowered by the overconfidence, the management did not realise the importance
and took a bad decision.
In this regards, to prevent the fatal decision making process it requires primarily the
knowledge and skill regarding the managers or the chief executives of the business organisations.
Therefore, the same strategy has to be implemented in the Bakers Delight Company as well. The
higher management of Bakers Delight must have the idea of the market scenario regarding the
location of their expanding business. It is, in fact, essential to construct a plan to identify the
customer segmentation and after that the company can introduce a new product based on the
choice of the customers.

11PART A& PART B
Reference
Antons, D., & Piller, F. T. (2015). Opening the black box of “Not Invented Here”: Attitudes,
decision biases, and behavioral consequences. The Academy of Management
Perspectives, 29(2), 193-217.
Bakersdelight.com.au. (2018). Product Menu, Ingredients, Recipes & FAQ | Bakers Delight AU.
[online] Available at: https://www.bakersdelight.com.au/products/ [Accessed 5 Jun.
2018].
Blumenthal-Barby, J. S., & Krieger, H. (2015). Cognitive biases and heuristics in medical
decision making: a critical review using a systematic search strategy. Medical Decision
Making, 35(4), 539-557.
Conrado, S. P., Neville, K., Woodworth, S., & O’Riordan, S. (2016). Managing social media
uncertainty to support the decision making process during emergencies. Journal of
Decision Systems, 25(sup1), 171-181.
Dror, I. E., Thompson, W. C., Meissner, C. A., Kornfield, I., Krane, D., Saks, M., & Risinger, M.
(2015). Letter to the editor-context management toolbox: a linear sequential unmasking
(LSU) approach for minimizing cognitive bias in forensic decision making.
Gebhart, M. B., Hines, R. S., Penman, A., & Holland, A. C. (2016). How do patient perceived
determinants influence the decision-making process to accept or decline preimplantation
genetic screening?. Fertility and sterility, 105(1), 188-193.

12PART A& PART B
Goodwin, P., & Wright, G. (2014). Decision Analysis for Management Judgment 5th ed. John
Wiley and sons.
Govindan, K., Rajendran, S., Sarkis, J., & Murugesan, P. (2015). Multi criteria decision making
approaches for green supplier evaluation and selection: a literature review. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 98, 66-83.
Heyler, S. G., Armenakis, A. A., Walker, A. G., & Collier, D. Y. (2016). A qualitative study
investigating the ethical decision making process: A proposed model. The Leadership
Quarterly, 27(5), 788-801.
Karimi, S., Papamichail, K. N., & Holland, C. P. (2015). The effect of prior knowledge and
decision-making style on the online purchase decision-making process: A typology of
consumer shopping behaviour. Decision Support Systems, 77, 137-147.
Knapp, S. J., Gottlieb, M. C., & Handelsman, M. M. (2015). Ethical dilemmas in psychotherapy:
Positive approaches to decision making. American Psychological Association.
Kohler, A. (2014). Bakers Delight turns down takeover bid. The Australian. [online] Available
at: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/business-spectator/bakers-delight-turns-
down-takeover-bid/news-story/fae31a0b9c8ae3332300ddc741f97638 [Accessed 5 Jun.
2018].
Montibeller, G. & Winterfeldt, D., (2015). Cognitive and motivational biases in decision and risk
analysis. Risk Analysis, 35(7), pp.1230-1251.

13PART A& PART B
Morewedge, C. K., Yoon, H., Scopelliti, I., Symborski, C. W., Korris, J. H., & Kassam, K. S.
(2015). Debiasing decisions: Improved decision making with a single training
intervention. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2(1), 129-140.
Newell, B. R., & Shanks, D. R. (2014). Unconscious influences on decision making: A critical
review. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 37(1), 1-19.
Pettigrew, A. M. (2014). The politics of organizational decision-making. Routledge.
Romiszowski, A. J. (2016). Designing instructional systems: Decision making in course
planning and curriculum design. Routledge.
Shepherd, D. A., Williams, T. A., & Patzelt, H. (2015). Thinking about entrepreneurial decision
making: Review and research agenda. Journal of management, 41(1), 11-46.
Van Knippenberg, D., Dahlander, L., Haas, M. R., & George, G. (2015). Information, attention,
and decision making. Academy of Management Journal, 58(3), 649-657.
Voon, V. (2015). Cognitive biases in binge eating disorder: the hijacking of decision
making. CNS spectrums, 20(6), 566-573.