Retrospective reviews of projects have been proposed as mechanisms for organizational learning, and there is the possibility that in a collective setting some of the cognitive limitations associated with individuals’ retrospections can be mitigated. In a qualitative analysis of retrospective reviews held in three design organizations, evidence emerged both of successes and failures in the extent to which reviews led to convincing explanations of events and remedies for future projects. The review processes showed that individuals could successfully correct errors in others’ beliefs and that in the organizational setting they were sensitive to hindsight bias. They also showed that simulation was an important mechanism by which remedies could be tested, and surrogate experiences added to the concrete experiences of the project under review. However, the information available to the participants often was not diagnostic, the participants’interpretation of events tended to be ahistorical, and their explanations were overly specific.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Argyris, C.
(1977, September-October). Double loop learning in organizations. Harvard Business Review, pp. 115-125.
2.
Arkes, H. R.
, Wortmann, R. L., Saville, P. D., & Harkness, A. R. (1981). Hindsight bias among physicians weighing the likelihood of diagnoses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 252-254.
3.
Bandura, A.
(1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
4.
Christensen-Szalanski, J.J.J.
, & Willham, C. F. (1991). The hindsight bias: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 48, 147-158.
5.
Daft, R. L.
, & Weick, K. E. (1984). Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems. Academy of Management Review, 9, 284-295.
6.
Fiol, C. M.
, & Lyles, M. A. (1985). Organizational learning. Academy of Management Review, 10, 803-813.
7.
Fischhoff, B.
(1975). Hindsight not equal to foresight: The effect of outcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1, 288-299.
8.
Glaser, B. G.
, & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine.
9.
Hershey, J. C.
, & Baron, J. (1992). Judgment by outcomes: When is it justified?Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 53, 89-93.
10.
Hershey, J. C.
, & Baron, J. (1995). Judgment by outcomes: When is it warranted?Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62, 127-127.
11.
Huber, G. P.
(1996). Organizational learning: A guide for executives in technology-critical organizations. International Journal of Technology Management, 11, 821-832.
12.
Johnson-Laird, P. N.
(1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference and consciousness. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
13.
Lewicki, P.
, Hill, T., & Czyzewska, M. (1992). Nonconscious acquisition of information. American Psychologist, 47, 796-801.
14.
Lichtenstein, S.
, Gregory, R., Slovic, P., & Wagenaar, W. A. (1990). When lives are in your hands: Dilemmas of the societal decision maker. In R. M. Hogarth (Ed.), Insights in decision making (pp. 91-106). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
15.
Lipshitz, R.
(1989). “Either a medal or a corporal”: The effects of success and failure on the evaluation of decision making and decision makers. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 44, 380-395.
16.
Lipshitz, R.
(1995). Judgment by outcomes: Why is it interesting? A reply to Hershey and Baron: “Judgment by outcomes: When is it justified?”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62, 123-126.
17.
Lipshitz, R.
, Popper, M., & Oz, S. (1996). Building learning organizations: The design and implementation of organizational learning mechanisms. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 32, 292-305.
18.
March, J. G.
, Sproull, L. S., & Tamuz, M. (1991). Learning from samples of one or fewer. Organization Science, 2, 1-13.
19.
Mazursky, D.
, & Ofir, C. (1990). “I could never have expected it to happen”: The reversal of the hindsight bias. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 46, 20-33.
20.
Miner, A. S.
, & Mezias, S. J. (1996). Ugly duckling no more: Pasts and futures of organizational learning research. Organization Science, 7, 88-99.
21.
Morse, J. M.
(1994). Designing funded qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 220-235). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22.
Petrie, H. G.
, & Alpert, D. (1983). What is the problem of retrenchment in higher education?Journal of Management Studies, 20, 97-119.
23.
Pohl, R. F.
, & Hell, W. (1996). No reduction in hindsight bias after complete information and repeated testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, 49-58.
24.
Rohrbaugh, J.
(1979). Improving the quality of group judgment: Social judgment analysis and the Delphi technique. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 24, 73-92.
25.
Schon, D. A.
(1983). The reflective practitioner. London: Temple Smith.
26.
Slovic, P.
, Griffen, D., & Tversky, A. (1990). Compatibility effects in judgment and choice. In R. M. Hogarth (Ed.), Insights in decision making (pp. 5-27). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
27.
Tversky, A.
, & Kahneman, D. (1982). Causal schemas in judgments under uncertainty. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 117-128). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
