2022/2023 KAN-CCMVV2428U (Psychological) Strategies for Coping With Radical Uncertainty
English Title | |
(Psychological) Strategies for Coping With Radical Uncertainty |
Course information |
|
Language | English |
Course ECTS | 7.5 ECTS |
Type | Elective |
Level | Full Degree Master |
Duration | One Quarter |
Start time of the course | Second Quarter |
Timetable | Course schedule will be posted at calendar.cbs.dk |
Max. participants | 80 |
Study board |
Study Board for MSc in Economics and Business
Administration
|
Course coordinator | |
|
|
Main academic disciplines | |
|
|
Teaching methods | |
|
|
Last updated on 11-02-2022 |
Relevant links |
Learning objectives | ||||||||||||||||||||||
After the course it is expected that students
can:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
Course prerequisites | ||||||||||||||||||||||
none | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Prerequisites for registering for the exam (activities during the teaching period) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Number of compulsory
activities which must be approved (see section 13 of the Programme
Regulations): 1
Compulsory home
assignments
The student must get approval for 1 out of 2 assignments in order to attend the ordinary exam. The compulsory assignments are: Both assignments are written in a group but is evaluated individually. The group members must prepare a statement that outlines each individual's contribution to the assignment. The assignment is evaluated internally on a pass/fail basis. The purpose of the assignments is to provide students feedback concerning their ability to use the competencies gained in the course. The student will not have extra attempts to get the required number of compulsory activities approved prior to the ordinary exam. If the student has not received approval for the required number of compulsory activities or has been ill, the student cannot participate in ordinary exam. Prior to the retake the student will be given an extra attempt..The extra attempt is a 10 page home assignment that will cover the required number of compulsory activities. If approved, the student will be able to attend retake. Please note that students must have made an effort in the allocated assignments thoughout the course. Students that do not participate in the assignments (no show/U) are not entitled to the extra assignment and will have to wait until the next ordinary exam to complete the course. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Examination | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
Course content, structure and pedagogical approach | ||||||||||||||||||||||
The popularity of books such as “The Black Swan” by Nassim Taleb or “Gut Feelings” by Gerd Gigerenzer indicates the demand for awareness of (psychological) mechanisms to cope with uncertainty and insights into how we can improve them. Radical uncertainty is different from uncertainty (and complexity in decision-making) per se, as contingencies are often unknowable and robust courses of actions (or even "antifragile" outcomes that benefit from surprises) are preferable to courses of action that appear rational today, but that may be rendered obsolete tomorrow. This is particularly relevant in 2022! After the Covid
restrictions will (hopefully) be over, radical uncertainties will
emerge from and in the post-Covid economy. It is yet unclear which
companies will survive, or die, or newly emerge and prosper; and
how the governments will write down their Covid debts (and what
this implies for financial markets and inflation).
The unique contribution of this elective is to offer rigorous
insights from cutting-edge psychological research (Gigerenzer,
Taleb, Tuckett) into successful strategies for coping with radical
uncertainty, combined with case-based learning to make the insights
vivid.
These theoretical insights are of particular relevance in entrepreneurial and firm-internal innovation settings. The above-mentioned theories offer the backbone for a study of
concrete cases (some of which will be “real-time” cases, of which
the outcome is not known at the time of the elective). Thus, the
course contains a significant experiential element where students
can learn via cases that may affect their actual decision making in
2022 and 2023. These hands-on experiences will then be reflected
through academic literature and in-class case discussion. The final
exam combines these theoretical and case elements.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
Description of the teaching methods | ||||||||||||||||||||||
The eleven lectures are to a large extent
literature-based and will also incorporate short cases to discuss
some of the challenges of decision-making under radical
uncertainty. We intend to engage in a dialogue-based teaching
approach. Thus, to gain the most benefit from class sessions
students should be prepared to take an active part in class
discussions and to prepare the readings thoroughly.
We boost the interactive components of the course by incorporating case presentations of students. Students will form groups to present cases that are assigned in the first two lectures. Each student will be responsible for one slide in a case presentation. This slide is the mandatory assignment that must be passed to get admission to the final exam. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Feedback during the teaching period | ||||||||||||||||||||||
The design of the course follows a proactive
feedback philosophy by ex-ante mirroring the exam. Students are
repeatedly exposed to learning objectives and exam sub-tasks. In
particular, students will receive detailed feedback after their
case presentation (the mandatory assignment). Moreover, we will
discuss writing samples of the students in class to give students a
clear idea on how their final exams will be graded.
In related preparation sessions, students can ask for detailed feedback on their performance. Hence, they have opportunities for feedback all along the course, and well before they enter the actual exam. Parts of the final lecture are used to recap material, provide overarching feedback, and invite detailed student questions. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Student workload | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
Expected literature | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Bettis, R. A. (2017). Organizationally intractable decision problems and the intellectual virtues of heuristics. Journal of Management, 43(8), 2620-2637.
Ehrig, T. & Schmidt, J. (2019) Making biased but better predictions: The trade-offs strategists face when they learn and use heuristics. Strategic Organization,
Ehrig, T., & Schmidt, J. (2021)Theory-based learning and experimentation: How strategists can systematically generate knowledge at the edge between the known and the unknown. Strategic Management Journal (forthcoming).
Felin, T., & Zenger, T. R. (2009). Entrepreneurs as theorists: on the origins of collective beliefs and novel strategies. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 3(2), 127-146.
Gigerenzer, G., & Brighton, H. (2009). Homo heuristicus: Why biased minds make better inferences. Topics in cognitive science, 1(1), 107-143.
Taleb, N. N. (2012). Antifragile: Things that gain from disorder (Vol. 3). Random House Incorporated. |