Suchergebnisse

The effectiveness of policymakers' decision-making in times of crisis depends largely on their ability to integrate and make sense of information. The COVID-19 crisis confronts governments with the difficult task of making decisions in the interest of public health and safety. Essentially, policymakers have to react to a threat, of which the extent is unknown, and they are making decisions under time constraints in the midst of immense uncertainty. The stakes are high, the issues involved are complex and require the careful balancing of several interests, including (mental) health, the economy, and human rights. These circumstances render policymakers' decision-making processes vulnerable to errors and biases in the processing of information, thereby increasing the chances of faulty decision-making processes with poor outcomes. Prior research has identified three main information-processing failures that can distort group decision-making processes and can lead to negative outcomes: (1) failure to search for and share information, (2) failure to elaborate on and analyze information that is not in line with earlier information and (3) failure to revise and update conclusions and policies in the light of new information. To date, it has not yet been explored how errors and biases underlying these information-processing failures impact decision-making processes in times of crisis. In this narrative review, we outline how groupthink, a narrow focus on the problem of containing the virus, and escalation of commitment may pose real risks to decision-making processes in handling the COVID-19 crisis and may result in widespread societal damages. Hence, it is vital that policymakers take steps to maximize the quality of the decision-making process and increase the chances of positive outcomes as the crisis goes forward. We propose group reflexivity—a deliberate process of discussing team goals, processes, or outcomes—as an antidote to these biases and errors in decision-making. Specifically, we recommend several ...

The effectiveness of policymakers' decision-making in times of crisis depends largely on their ability to integrate and make sense of information. The COVID-19 crisis confronts governments with the difficult task of making decisions in the interest of public health and safety. Essentially, policymakers have to react to a threat, of which the extent is unknown, and they are making decisions under time constraints in the midst of immense uncertainty. The stakes are high, the issues involved are complex and require the careful balancing of several interests, including (mental) health, the economy, and human rights. These circumstances render policymakers' decision-making processes vulnerable to errors and biases in the processing of information, thereby increasing the chances of faulty decision-making processes with poor outcomes. Prior research has identified three main information-processing failures that can distort group decision-making processes and can lead to negative outcomes: (1) failure to search for and share information, (2) failure to elaborate on and analyze information that is not in line with earlier information and (3) failure to revise and update conclusions and policies in the light of new information. To date, it has not yet been explored how errors and biases underlying these information-processing failures impact decision-making processes in times of crisis. In this narrative review, we outline how groupthink, a narrow focus on the problem of containing the virus, and escalation of commitment may pose real risks to decision-making processes in handling the COVID-19 crisis and may result in widespread societal damages. Hence, it is vital that policymakers take steps to maximize the quality of the decision-making process and increase the chances of positive outcomes as the crisis goes forward. We propose group reflexivity—a deliberate process of discussing team goals, processes, or outcomes—as an antidote to these biases and errors in decision-making. Specifically, we recommend several ...

The effectiveness of policymakers' decision-making in times of crisis depends largely on their ability to integrate and make sense of information. The COVID-19 crisis confronts governments with the difficult task of making decisions in the interest of public health and safety. Essentially, policymakers have to react to a threat, of which the extent is unknown, and they are making decisions under time constraints in the midst of immense uncertainty. The stakes are high, the issues involved are complex and require the careful balancing of several interests, including (mental) health, the economy, and human rights. These circumstances render policymakers' decision-making processes vulnerable to errors and biases in the processing of information, thereby increasing the chances of faulty decision-making processes with poor outcomes. Prior research has identified three main information-processing failures that can distort group decision-making processes and can lead to negative outcomes: (1) failure to search for and share information, (2) failure to elaborate on and analyze information that is not in line with earlier information and (3) failure to revise and update conclusions and policies in the light of new information. To date, it has not yet been explored how errors and biases underlying these information-processing failures impact decision-making processes in times of crisis. In this narrative review, we outline how groupthink, a narrow focus on the problem of containing the virus, and escalation of commitment may pose real risks to decision-making processes in handling the COVID-19 crisis and may result in widespread societal damages. Hence, it is vital that policymakers take steps to maximize the quality of the decision-making process and increase the chances of positive outcomes as the crisis goes forward. We propose group reflexivity—a deliberate process of discussing team goals, processes, or outcomes—as an antidote to these biases and errors in decision-making. Specifically, we recommend several ...

This book focuses on workplace innovation, which is a key element in ensuring that organizations and the people within them can adapt to and engage in healthy, sustainable change. It features a collection of multi-level, multi-disciplinary contributions that combine theory, research and practical perspectives. In addition, the book presents new perspectives from a number of nations on policies with novel theoretical approaches to workplace innovation, as well as international case studies on the subject. These cases highlight the role of leadership, the relation between workplace innovation and well-being, as well as the do's and don'ts of workplace innovation implementation. Whether you are an experienced workplace practitioner, manager, a policy-maker, unionist, or a student of workplace innovation, this book contains a range of tips, tools and international case studies to help the reader understand and implement workplace innovation.

Background A policy game is a structured simulated role-play dealing with highly complex decision-making in real life network settings. Its impact on health enhancing physical activity (HEPA) policy making is unexplored. We aim to explore if an internationally developed and pilot tested policy game change insight and attitude towards inter sectoral policy processes, such as the organization network, collaboration, and use of knowledge in HEPA policy making in three European countries. Methods The Netherlands (NL), Denmark (DK) and Romania (RO), partners in the REPOPA program, have carried out a policy game at local level, with 6 months intervals, including 18–19 policy makers in each game. Data was collected using a structured questionnaire one week after implementation of the games. Participants were asked if the game had changed their insight or attitude. Results: Response rate was 83%, 89% and 89% in NL, DK and RO respectively. Across countries the majority of participants, 60%, enhanced their nderstanding of the local HEPA policy process, the roles in the organization network, and how stakeholders can collaborate as result of the game. Most participants perceived change in insight of the collaboration process in NL (100%). The fraction of participants who enhanced their insight to leadership aspects of their network varied across aspects of leadership and across countries, from 14% in NL to 86% in RO. The fraction of participants being more positive towards use of knowledge varied across countries, 25% in NL to 75% in DK. Across countries the majority of participants, 67–70%, stressed' importance of collaboration' as the main learning experience. Conclusion: The policy game has potential to increase insight to HEPA policy process, including stakeholder roles, and attitude towards collaboration and use of knowledge. Differences between countries may be a result of diversity in potential for change in game participant groups and game processes. Key message: The policy game encountered changes at the domains 'organization network', 'collaboration', 'leadership' and 'use of knowledge', with differences between countries.

Background: The cooperation of actors across policy fields and the need for cross-sector cooperation as well as recommendations on how to implement cross-sector cooperation have been addressed in many national and international policies that seek to solve complex issues within societies. For such a purpose, the relevant governance structure between policy sectors is cross-sector cooperation. Therefore, cross-sector cooperation and its structures need to be better understood for improved implementation. This article reports on the governance structures and processes of cross-sector cooperation in health-enhancing physical activity (HEPA) policies in six European Union (EU) member states.Methods: Qualitative content analysis of HEPA policies and semi-structured interviews with key policymakers in six European countries.Results: Cross-sector cooperation varied between EU member states within HEPA policies. The main issues of the cross-sector policy process can be divided into stakeholder involvement, governance structures and coordination structures and processes. Stakeholder involvement included citizen hearings and gatherings of stakeholders from various non-governmental organisations and citizen groups. Governance structures with policy and political discussions included committees, working groups and consultations for HEPA policymaking. Coordination structures and processes included administrative processes with various stakeholders, such as ministerial departments, research institutes and private actors for HEPA policymaking. Successful cross-sector cooperation required joint planning and evaluation, financial frameworks, mandates based on laws or agreed methods of work, communication lines, and valued processes of cross-sector cooperation.Conclusions: Cross-sector cooperation required participation with the co-production of goals and sharing of resources between stakeholders, which could, for example, provide mechanisms for collaborative decision-making through citizen hearing. Clearly stated ...