Author
Dr. P. C. Chanyal
Assistant Professor, Department of Geography,
Kumaun University, Nainital, Uttarakhand, India
Abstract
Managerial decisions significantly influence the trajectory of corporate performance and governance. However, these decisions are not always purely rational; they are often affected by psychological tendencies known as behavioral biases. This paper examines the various types of behavioral biases such as overconfidence, anchoring, loss aversion, confirmation bias, and herd behavior that managers exhibit during decision-making. The study explores how these biases impact corporate strategies, resource allocation, risk assessment, and stakeholder engagement. Further, it outlines the implications of such biases on governance structures and long-term business outcomes. The paper concludes by suggesting strategies to mitigate the negative effects of behavioral biases, including training, diversified boards, and implementation of checks and balances.
Keywords
Behavioral Biases Managerial Decision-Making Corporate Performance Governance Overconfidence Loss Aversion Board Diversity
How to Cite This Article
APA Citation
Chanyal, P. C. (2025). Behavioral Biases in Managerial Decision-Making: Implications for Corporate Performance and Governance. International Journal of Economics and Management Intellectuals, 1(1), 1-5.
Conclusion
Behavioral biases are an inherent part of human cognition and are deeply embedded in managerial decision-making. Their influence on corporate performance and governance cannot be underestimated. As organizations face increasingly complex and uncertain environments, the cost of biased decision-making can be substantial—manifesting in poor investments, strategic inertia, ethical lapses, and financial failures.
Corporate governance systems must evolve to recognize the psychological dimensions of leadership. Through awareness, structured oversight, and inclusive decision-making processes, companies can harness the strengths of human judgment while minimizing its pitfalls.
References
[1] Bazerman, M. H., & Moore, D. A. (2012). Judgment in managerial decision making (8th ed.). Wiley.
[2] Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
[3] Thaler, R. H. (2015). Misbehaving: The making of behavioral economics. W. W. Norton & Company.
[4] Biais, B., Hilton, D., Mazurier, K., & Pouget, S. (2005). Judgmental overconfidence, self-monitoring, and trading performance in an experimental financial market. Review of Economic Studies, 72(2), 287–312.
[5] Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.
[6] Malmendier, U., & Tate, G. (2005). CEO overconfidence and corporate investment. Journal of Finance, 60(6), 2661–2700.
[7] Barberis, N., & Thaler, R. H. (2003). A survey of behavioral finance. In Handbook of the Economics of Finance.
[8] Lovallo, D., & Kahneman, D. (2003). Delusions of success: How optimism undermines executives’ decisions. Harvard Business Review, 81(7), 56–63.
[9] Finkelstein, S., Hambrick, D. C., & Cannella, A. A. (2009). Strategic leadership: Theory and research on executives, top management teams, and boards. Oxford University Press.
[10] Shefrin, H. (2007). Behavioral corporate finance: Decisions that create value. McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
[11] Forbes, D. P. (2005). Managerial determinants of decision speed in new ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 26(4), 355–366.
[12] Schwenk, C. R. (1984). Cognitive simplification processes in strategic decision-making. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 111–128.
[13] Ferris, S. P., & Yan, X. (2009). Agency costs and the value of corporate voting rights. International Review of Financial Analysis.
[14] Hayward, M. L. A., & Hambrick, D. C. (1997). Explaining the premiums paid for large acquisitions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 103–127.
[15] Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Making fast strategic decisions in high-velocity environments. Academy of Management Journal, 32(3), 543–576.