10.1177/1523422303257373
Advances in Developing Human Resources
Chermack / MENTAL MODELS IN HRD
ARTICLE
November 2003
Mental Models in Decision
Making and Implications for
Human Resource Development
Thomas J. Chermack
The problem and the solution. Humans constantly construct mental models of reality, which include their assumptions,
beliefs, experiences, and biases about the world. In fact, humans
construct mental models of reality often without an awareness
of it. In decision making, mental models include an individual’s
perception of a situation, variables in the system, alternative
solutions, decision premises, and biases. Because mental models
reflect the decision structure and are difficult to understand on
a concrete level, this article aims to illustrate the influence of
mental models on decision-making processes and, more important, how they can be made explicit and altered. In addition, this
article suggests that working with mental models can be viewed
as a developmental process and thus is within the domain of
human resource development expertise.
Keywords:
mental models; decision making; HRD
One tool for dealing with decision making under uncertain conditions has
been the construction of models, as it allows decision experimentation with
hypothetical consequences (Morecroft, 1983). Models of reality allow individuals to understand and function in various situations. de Geus (1997)
suggested that for any model to provide the capacity for reliable predictions,
it must be (a) a complete representation of reality, (b) a precise representation of reality, and (c) the individual must recognize it as a complete and precise representation of reality. None of these conditions will ever be met.
In the world of inanimate objects, the observation of reality is influenced by the position of the
observer. This makes it impossible to construct any model that represents reality well enough that
a reliable prediction can be made from it. (de Geus, 1992, p. xiv)
The position of each observer is also different, suggesting a different “reality”
for each individual. Furthermore, people are generally unwilling to accept
Advances in Developing Human Resources Vol. 5, No. 4 November 2003 408-422
DOI: 10.1177/1523422303257373
Copyright 2003 Sage Publications
Chermack / MENTAL MODELS IN HRD
someone else’s model of their own “realities” (Johnson-Laird, 1983; Morecroft,
1983).
Nevertheless, humans understand the world by constructing models of it
in their minds (Johnson-Laird, 1983). These models are simpler than the
reality they represent and are therefore incomplete (Johnson-Laird, 1983).
For example, the numbering system was useful long before all of its mathematical properties could be understood. Our lives exist in time, yet we have
no complete explanation for time. We construct mental models to convince
ourselves that we understand various phenomena and by doing so, allow
ourselves to function in situations where we lack complete comprehension.
This article explores the phenomenon of mental models and the roles
they play in the decision-making process. Furthermore, this article examines the implications of mental models for human resource development
(HRD) research, theory, and practice. The goal of this article is to clarify and
describe the context out of which the phenomenon of mental models has
grown.
Mental Models
There are two core problems to be addressed in assessing the importance
of mental models in decision making and in HRD: (a) Mental models frame
the decision situation, including the variables, alternatives, decision premises, and biases; and (b) mental models are extremely difficult to change
once believed. It is tempting to assume that a problematic mental model can
simply be changed to a more suitable and successful one; however, the fact
that decision makers repeatedly engage in patterns of faulty decision making based on fundamental assumptions suggests that this is simply not true
(Dorner, 1996).
Changing mental models requires learning (Johnson-Laird, 1983). Because
of this requirement for learning, changing mental models can be viewed as a
developmental process and therefore considered within the domain of HRD.
Changing mental models is also a difficult and ill-understood process. And
so this article advocates for the importance of understanding what mental
models are and how they create the decision structure and also provides current methods of exposing, examining, and changing them.
Philosophical Background
Mental models include the biases, beliefs, experiences, and values of
individuals (Ford & Sterman, 1998) and are constantly interacting with patterns of perception, thought, and action. Ruona and Lynham’s (in press) system of interacting components of thought and practice is useful for illustrat-
409
410
Advances in Developing Human Resources
November 2003
ing the relationships among mental models and human perceiving, thinking,
and acting (see Figure 1).
Figure 1 relates to mental models in the sense that mental models embody
how individuals see the world, how individuals know and think about the
world, and how individuals act in the world. Furthermore, as a result of
action and learning, mental models are altered, leading to a different way of
seeing the world, knowing and thinking about the world, and again, acting in
the world. Mental models are constantly being adjusted, refined, and recreated in dynamic and ever-changing environments. In short, mental models
affect experience (active) and are affected by experience (passive). Having
briefly established the active and passive roles of mental models in the construction and interpretation of reality, we can now turn to a detailed attempt
at defining them.
Defining Mental Models
Decision-making literature refers to mental models, representations, and
cognitive maps. Each of these terms warrants clarification and description.
Mental Models
Allee (1997) stated that mental models are “important cornerstones for
building knowledge and defining some of the cognitive processes that support change and learning” (p. 11). Originally introduced by Forrester
(1961), mental models are the lenses through which we see the world. Mental models incorporate our biases, values, learning, experiences, and beliefs
about how the world works. Senge (1990) defined mental models as “deeply
ingrained assumptions, generalizations, or even pictures or images that
influence how we understand the world and how we take action. Very often,
we are not consciously aware of our mental models or the effects they have
on our behavior” (p. 8).
According to Doyle and Ford (1998), mental models “are thus the stock
in trade of research and practice in system dynamics: they are the ‘product’
that modelers take from students and clients, disassemble, and reconfigure,
add to, subtract from, and return with value added” (p. 4). After providing a
comprehensive literature review of the terms from both the systems dynamics and cognitive psychological perspectives, as well as some discussion in
Systems Dynamics Review, Doyle and Ford (1999) revised their definition of
mental models of a dynamic system as “a relatively enduring and accessible,
but limited, internal conceptual representation of an external system (historical, existing, or projected) whose structure is analogous to the perceived
structure of that system” (p. 414). Furthermore, Weick (1979, 1985, 1990)
Chermack / MENTAL MODELS IN HRD
Ontology
Shapes and
Directs
How we see the
world
Reflects and
Influences
Shapes and
Directs
Epistemology
How we know/think
about the world
Reflects and
Influences
Reflects and
Influences
Axiology
How we act in the
world
FIGURE 1:
Shapes and
Directs
A System of Interacting Components of Thought and Practice
has argued consistently that mental models guide, shape, and provide the
basis on which individuals interpret and make sense of organizational life.
Representations
Cognitive psychology literature focuses on mental representations. Representations refer to the way humans build “stand-ins” for reality in their
minds. “One of the functions of representations is to stand in for things outside the system; once a system has representations, it can operate on them
and not need the world” (Bechtel, 1998, p. 297). The concept of representation can best be introduced by considering that the mind and brain are
involved in “coordinating the behavior of an organism in its environment”
(Bechtel, 1998, p. 297). To coordinate such behavior, an organism must create some working understanding of its environment, and it does so by constructing a mental representation, or model, of that environment (JohnsonLaird, 1983).
Freyd (1987) suggested that mental representations are also dynamic.
That is, “perceivers are sensitive to implicit dynamic information even when
they are not able to observe real-time changes” (Freyd, 1987, p. 427). The
significance of Freyd’s research is its suggestion that the human mind is
itself anticipatory in its perception and construction of events. The human
mind naturally anticipates possible future sequences of actions based on
immediate perceptions.
411
412
Advances in Developing Human Resources
November 2003
Cognitive Maps
Cognitive maps apply metaphor to the notion of mental models. Weick
(1990) recounted a favorite story about a Hungarian military unit on maneuvers
in the Swiss Alps.
Their young lieutenant sent a reconnaissance unit out into the icy wilderness just as it began to
snow. It snowed for two days, and the unit did not return. The lieutenant feared that he had dispatched his people to their deaths, but the third day the unit came back. Where had they been?
How had they made their way? Yes, they said, we considered ourselves lost and waited for the
end, but then one of us found a map in his pocket. That calmed us down. We pitched camp, lasted
out the snowstorm, and then with the map we found our bearings. And here we are. The lieutenant
took a good look at the map and discovered, to his astonishment, that it was a map of the Pyrenees. (Weick, 1990, p. 4)
1
Thus, the “cognitive map” refers to the way the mind creates a map or model of a
territory or situation that it uses as a reference point. Weick further explained
that any map, no matter that it might be an incorrect one, provides some reference point and increases the likelihood that an individual or group will be able to
navigate unfamiliar terrain. Stepping out of the metaphor, Weick’s point seems
to be that it is better to operate with a set of assumptions that may be incomplete
than to forego operating completely.
The Global Business Network (1999), a consulting firm with specialization
in scenario planning and strategic thinking, suggests a story of map use to illustrate its point—a point that differs a bit from that of Weick (1990).
This map (see Figure 2) was made in 1701 by a Dutch mapmaker named Herman Moll, working
in London. He based his map on the explorations of the Spanish, who came up the western side of
the Americas, and originally encountered the southern point on the map, the tip of today what we
call the Baja Peninsula. And actually the first maps were right. Everything north of that was
drawn as terra incognitas, one great landmass. But then a few years later, around 1635, the Spanish sailed to the northern points along this map and encountered what we call the Straits of Juan
de Fuca and the Puget Sound. Being good Cartesians, they connected the northern point with the
southern point and created the Island of California.
Now, this would only be an historical curiosity were it not for the problem of the missionaries, because the missionaries actually used this map. They would land near what is today
Monterey and go inland to bring the word of God to the American Indians. Now, if you’re on the
western shores and you want to go inland, what do you have to do? Well, of course, you have to
take your boats with you. So these poor missionaries disassembled their boats, packed them on
mules, hauled them across California and 12,000 feet up the Sierra Nevada, and then down the
other side—only to find a beach that went on and on, and on and on. Until, of course, they finally
recognized that they were in the middle of the deserts of Nevada, and there was no Island of California. So they wrote to the mapmakers in Spain and said, “Hey, listen, there’s no Island of California; your map is wrong!” And the mapmakers would write back and say, “No, no, no! You’re
in the wrong place; the map is right!”
Well, finally, in 1685, the Spanish changed their maps. Sixteen years later, when Moll was
challenged by the Spanish about his map, he claimed, “I have actually talked to sailors who sailed
all the way around the Island of California. It’s an island.” Finally, in 1721, he changed his maps
too.
So, what’s the point? The point is if you get your facts wrong, you get your map wrong. If you
get your map wrong, you do the wrong thing. But worst of all, once you believe a map, it is very,
very hard to change. We all have deeply ingrained maps—all of us—and particularly successful
corporate executives. Because, of course, they are successful precisely because they have had
Chermack / MENTAL MODELS IN HRD
FIGURE 2:
A Map of North America
good maps of the world as they have understood it. They would not have risen to positions of
power if they did not understand their business, the business environment, the evolution of their
industry, and also function effectively using this map. However, these executives have a problem:
The map that got them to the top is unlikely to be the map that they need for the future. And worst
of all, challenging those deeply ingrained perceptions takes an enormous amount of skill, intelligence, information, and judgment.
These two stories illustrate conflicting notions about the purposes and pitfalls of cognitive maps. We are therefore left with something of a paradox: Any
map is better than no map; however, the inadequate map can produce an undesirable result.
In summary, three preliminary conclusions can be drawn based on this
review of the background and terms related to mental models: (a) Representations, cognitive maps, and mental models all refer to the same phenomenon (the remainder of this article will use the term mental models to alleviate
confusion); (b) because mental models influence how individuals see,
think, and act in the world, they are inherently important in decision making; and (3) the paradox presented by the two stories of cognitive maps illustrates the core argument of this article with precision: Decision makers must
413
414
Advances in Developing Human Resources
November 2003
Decision Context and
Environment
Problem
(Input)
Decision-making
Process
Decision Outcome
(Output)
Feedback
FIGURE 3:
The Basic Decision-Making System
work to make their mental models explicit, and if they are found to be inadequate, they must be changed.
Mental Models in Decision Making
The significance of mental models in the decision-making process is that
they define the perception of the decision system and all of its elements
(Forrester, 1961). Mental models include individual perceptions of exogenous and endogenous variables, alternative solutions, decision premises,
and decision biases. Figure 3 illustrates the basic decision-making system.
There are many documented decision-making processes that can be inserted
into this system. For example, Bazerman (1994) suggested the following general decision-making process:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Define the problem.
Identify the criteria or objectives of the decision.
Weight or prioritize the criteria of the decision.
Generate alternative courses of action to solve the problem.
Evaluate the alternatives on each criterion or objective.
Compute the optimal decision.
This article focuses on a level of detail that does not require the explicit definition of a specific decision-making process. Suffice it to say that the mental
model of the decision maker defines the perception of the decision system and
therefore all of its elements, including the decision-making process (JohnsonLaird, 1983). Figure 4 depicts the decision-making system based on the decision
maker’s mental model.
The significance of a decision system that is based on a mental model is
that it implies that a different set of decisions would be made based on a different mental model. Referring to the paradox that any mental model is
better than no mental model but an inadequate one leads to an undesirable
result, the importance of developing or revealing the adequate model
becomes a daunting task for professionals in applied contexts.
Chermack / MENTAL MODELS IN HRD
Decision Context and
Environment
Mental Model
Problem
(Input)
Decision-making
Process
Decision Outcome
(Output)
Feedback
Decision Premises
Biases
FIGURE 4:
Variables
The Basic Decision-Making System Based on a Mental Model
Mental Models in Applied Contexts
The vast majority of research concerning mental models in applied contexts has focused on critical task environments. In such environments, error
can quickly lead to catastrophe. Although most HRD work can be considered outside the domain of critical task environments, much can be learned
from considering the research in such environments.
Rochlin (1998) examined the importance of mental models in critical roles
such as airline pilots, air traffic control operators, and nuclear power plant control teams. Each of these roles “were safety-critical, involved inherently dangerous operations, and involved serious consequences in the event of failure”
(Rochlin, 1998, p. 112). There also seemed to be a “common sense that the cognitive map that distinguishes the expert operator from the merely competent one
is not well enough understood to be ‘improved’ upon by outsiders” (Rochlin,
1998, p. 111). Although each of the particular situations studied revealed different terminology, all agreed that the terminology “having the bubble” captured
the essence of the integrative nature of their tasks.
U.S. Navy ships use the term “having the bubble” to indicate that they have been able to construct
and maintain the cognitive map that allows them to integrate such diverse inputs as combat status,
information flows from sensors and remote observation, and the real-time status and performance of the various weapons and systems into a single picture of the ship’s overall situation and
operational status. (Rochlin, 1998, p. 109)
In such contexts, the adequate mental model is a very specific one, and having an inadequate mental model can lead to catastrophe. Regardless of the con-
415
416
Advances in Developing Human Resources
November 2003
text, the message seems clear: Specific kinds of expertise require specific mental
models that are assumed to develop over time and with experience. Tuchman
(1984) provided an analysis of several instances in which decision makers recognized their inadequate mental models yet proceeded along a predetermined
decision path anyway. She labeled the results as folly. In cases of folly, decision
makers commonly proceed with a decision path known to be faulty or learn
nothing from previous experiences. In short, folly is the pursuit of decisions carrying negative consequences with full knowledge of those consequences (for
further discussion of folly, see Fischoff, 1982; Tuchman, 1984). In summary, the
importance of mental models is first in the recognition that they define the decision system and its components, and second in the recognition that changing
them is a difficult, ill-understood, and developmental process that falls within
the domain of HRD because it is based on learning.
Tools for Extracting and Altering Mental Models
HRD professionals can use specific tools to assess, extract, and alter the
mental models of individuals and groups in organizations. Such tools
include Carley and Palmquist’s (1992) method for extracting mental models, scenario planning, and Swanson’s (1994) knowledge task analysis,
among many others. These tools were selected for review among many
based on their prevalence in keyword searches for “mental models” in
multiple electronic search engines and their potential familiarity for
HRD professionals. Other tools for examining mental models include
cognitive mapping (Warren, 1995), mind mapping, relationship mapping,
dynamic system generation (Ward & Schriefer, 1998), and each has a
slightly different approach to uncovering individual and group assumptions
and biases about the world. The tools presented here are certainly no comprehensive list; rather, they represent three different approaches to exploring mental models.
Carley and Palmquist’s Method for Extracting Mental Models
Carley and Palmquist (1992) offered a computer-driven method for
extracting, representing, and analyzing mental models based on four components: (a) concepts, (b) relationships, (c) statements, and (d) maps. In this
view, mental models are networks of concepts and the relationships between
them. The method presented by Carley and Palmquist requires texts as its
primary form of data for analysis, thus interviews must be transcribed into
textual format.
Terminology. Presented here are some terms used by Carley and Palmquist
(1992) in their four-step method of mental model extraction.
Chermack / MENTAL MODELS IN HRD
1. Concepts: “Concepts are nothing more than symbols which have meanings dependent on their use, i.e., their relationship to other symbols”
(p. 607).
2. Relationships: Relationships tie two concepts together. “The relationship can have directionality, strength, sign, and meaning” (p. 607).
3. Statements: Statements simply involve two concepts and the relationship
between them. “If it rains, then the sun will not shine” is an example
offered by Carley and Palmquist (1992, p. 608).
4. Maps: Simply stated, “a map is a network formed from statements”
(p. 608).
The four-step process of mental model extraction. The four steps proposed by
Carley and Palmquist (1992) are as follows: (a) Identify the set of concepts that
will be used in coding the texts, (b) define the relationships that exist between
and among the concepts, (c) use a computer-assisted approach for coding the
texts as statements using concepts and relationships, and (d) construct the resultant map graphically and analyze it statistically. Essentially, the computer software asks the researcher to define the concepts and relationships and to form
statements. The software analyzes the texts according to the specifications set by
defining the concepts, relationships, and statements. The software then compiles a graphic interrelationship map and also has the capacity to output specific
statistics about the data.
The method of extracting mental models offered by Carley and Palmquist
(1992) is a highly quantitative approach that uses computer-driven analysis
of transcribed interviews and texts to provide a general map of the mental
models in use according to specifications set by the researcher. Although
this approach has been successful in many situations, an alternative approach
to revealing, analyzing, and reconstructing mental models is suggested
through the use of scenarios and scenario planning.
Scenario Planning
Scenario planning provides a more qualitative approach to analyzing and
changing mental models. Allee (1997) stated that
another powerful collaborative learning and knowledge-creation process is scenario building.
Scenario building can help companies rethink much more than long-term strategy. It can help a
company reframe their identity, their operating assumptions, their values, and their vision for the
future. (p. 179)
Senge (1994) identified three stages of an effective organizational learning process: (a) mapping mental models, (b) challenging mental models, and (c)
improving mental models. Scenario planning has been shown to meet all three
of these stages (Georgantzas & Acar, 1995). The planners at Royal Dutch/Shell
Oil had several insights as they pioneered the scenario-planning technique.
After becoming masters at designing technically magnificent scenarios, they
417
418
Advances in Developing Human Resources
November 2003
realized that by focusing on the scenarios themselves, they were overlooking the
core purpose of their work—to alter the mental models of the management
teams for whom they were developing plans (Senge, 1994). Thus, it can be
argued that scenario projects that fail often do so because client organizations do
not have the mental model that allows them to comprehend uncertainty or a serious threat to their organization. Therefore, a core aim of the scenario-planning
process is to alter the mental models of managers.
Louis van der Merwe (1994) of The Centre for Innovative Leadership identified the following six steps, which integrate the methods available publicly
today:
1. Identify a strategic organizational agenda, including assumptions, concerns and mental models about strategic thinking and vision.
2. Challenge existing assumptions of organizational decision makers by
questioning current mental models about the external environment.
3. Systematically examine the organization’s external environment to
improve understanding of the structure of key forces driving change.
4. Synthesize information about possible future events into three or four
alternative plots or story lines about possible futures.
5. Develop narratives to make the scenarios relevant and compelling to
decision makers.
6. Use scenarios to help decision makers “re-view” their strategic thinking.
The first two steps of the scenario-building process involve identifying and
then working to challenge the mental models of the decision makers. The primary method of engaging in challenging and altering mental models in scenario
planning is through dialogue. van der Heijden (1997) coined the term “strategic
conversation” to convey the process of learning to alter mental models during
extensive sessions of dialogue about plausible future states. It is widely
believed that mental models can be extracted, examined, and altered in a narrative format through a series of provocative questions about an organization’s
current and plausible future states, debate about the important driving forces in
the environment, and extensive dialogue about how best to cope with uncertainty (Georgantzas & Acar, 1995; Schwartz, 1991; van der Heijden, 1997).
Swanson’s Knowledge Task Analysis
Another method of extracting mental models is considered in Swanson’s
(1994) knowledge task analysis. In essence, techniques aimed at documenting
expertise must also capture the mental model required for the development of
that expertise—especially concerning knowledge work. Swanson offered
knowledge task analysis as a method of eliciting expert knowledge. Knowledge
task analysis “proceeds along two paths: (1) the collection and analysis of
behavior in the workplace and (2) the collection and analysis of literature by theorists, researchers, and other experts on the subject” (Swanson, 1994, p. 191).
Chermack / MENTAL MODELS IN HRD
By combining the results of the behavioral search and the literature search, the
analyst begins to form a synthesis model. Often, the synthesis model contains
the assumptions, beliefs, and values that determine or accommodate specific
expertise. Swanson identified the following types of synthesis models:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
reflection,
two-axis matrix,
three-axis matrix,
flowchart, and
events network.
The use of one or more of the synthesis models leads to a thorough depiction of
the knowledge work under examination. The critical aspect argued by Swanson
is the “connection of information and theory to expertise and performance” (p.
233). The synthesis model can be seen as an attempt to visually represent the
essence of the mental model required for the work under analysis.
Implications for HRD Research and Practice
Although the importance of mental models in critical environments has
been established, the influence of mental models in less critical environments has not been well-documented. The importance of mental models for
HRD professionals working in critical task environments (i.e., trainers at
nuclear power plants, aviation schools, and the like) has been established.
HRD professionals working in these environments can draw directly from
the research and theory that exists in this domain. However, a question arises
regarding task environments that appear to be less critical.
The importance of mental models in less critical environments (those
commonly known to HRD professionals) is no less important. The key to
understanding mental models in less critical environments is in the delay of
the feedback loops (Sterman, 1989). HRD professionals work in environments with feedback delays that are much longer than those in critical task
environments. To clarify, decisions made in environments common to HRD
professionals may not show results for weeks, months, or even years. Errorladen decision systems are much less obvious in these environments because
the effects do not show themselves until after a considerable time delay.
This time delay implies that HRD professionals working in noncritical
environments must develop their interventions according to much longer
time periods than their critical task environment counterparts. Micklethwait
and Woolridge (1995) provided numerous examples of management consulting work gone awry because the consultants were unaware of, or did not
pay attention to, the time delay.
An additional implication is in the realization that all individuals operate
with a specific and personal view about the world that is manifested in a
mental model. As developers of human expertise, it is imperative that HRD
419
420
Advances in Developing Human Resources
November 2003
professionals are aware that people act according to what they assume to be
true about the environment in which they are operating. This article has
reviewed a few of the tools available for documenting and altering mental
models and further advocated that HRD professionals use these tools.
Overall, mental models are ill-understood, and a rigorous research agenda
that informs professionals about the best ways to work with them does not
exist. This situation provides an opportunity for HRD professionals to contribute to the knowledge of how individual assumptions and views can best
be understood, accommodated, or altered in workplace environments.
Conclusion
Some preliminary conclusions can be drawn from concepts presented in
this article, namely, (a) that mental models are inherently important in and
influence the decision-making system, (b) that decision makers must work
to make their mental models explicit, and (c) if the mental models are inadequate for addressing the problem at hand, they must be changed. Because
changing mental models involves learning, it can be considered a developmental process that calls on the expertise of HRD professionals. Although
some tools for working with mental models have been described, this article
does not present a comprehensive list.
Moving forward, HRD professionals need to be aware of the influence of
mental models on decision making in individuals and organizations. Although
not a wholly understood phenomenon, mental models guide, and are shaped
by, human thought, experience, and action. Because learning is necessary
for changes in mental models, working with mental models can be considered within the scope of HRD professionals. This article has provided general descriptions of three different tools for examining, assessing, and altering mental models that might be familiar to HRD professionals. By no
means a definitive statement about mental models, this article has rather
presented the general role of mental models in decision making, argued that
HRD professionals must work to make their and others’ mental models
explicit, and provided three tools for analyzing and assessing them.
Note
1. This story was related by the Nobel Laureate Albert Szent-Gyorgi and was
turned into a poem by Holub in 1977.
References
Allee, V. (1997). The knowledge evolution: Expanding organizational intelligence. Newton, MA: Focal Press.
Chermack / MENTAL MODELS IN HRD
Bazerman, M. H. (1994). Judgment in managerial decision-making (3rd ed.). New York:
John Wiley.
Bechtel, W. (1998). Representations and cognitive explanations: Assessing the dynamicist’s
challenge in cognitive science. Cognitive Science, 22(3), 295-318.
Carley, K., & Palmquist, M. (1992). Extracting, representing, and analyzing mental models. Social Forces, 70(3), 601-636.
de Geus, A. P. (1992). Modelling to predict or to learn? European Journal of Operational
Research, 59, 1-5.
de Geus, A. P. (1997). The living company. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Dorner, D. (1996). The logic of failure. New York: Metropolitan Books/Henry Holt.
Doyle, J. K., & Ford, D. N. (1998). Mental models concepts for system dynamics
research. Systems Dynamics Review, 14(1), 3-29.
Doyle, J. K., & Ford, D. N. (1999). Mental models concepts revisited: Some clarifications
and a reply to Lane. Systems Dynamics Review, 15(4), 411-415.
Fischoff, B. (1982). For those condemned to study the past: Heuristics and biases in hindsight (Article 23). In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under
uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 335-351). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Ford, D. N., & Sterman, J. D. (1998). Expert knowledge elicitation to improve formal and
mental models. Systems Dynamics Review, 14(4), 309-340.
Forrester, J. W. (1961). Industrial dynamics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Freyd, J. J. (1987). Dynamic mental representations. Psychological Review, 94(4), 427438.
Georgantzas, N. C., & Acar, W. (1995). Scenario-driven planning: Learning to manage
strategic uncertainty. Westport, CT: Quorum
The Global Business Network. (1999). The map rap. Retrieved April 14, 2003 from
www.gbn.org/scenarios/maprap
Johnson-Laird, P. (1983). Mental models. Boston: Cambridge University Press.
Micklethwait, J., & Woolridge, A. (1995). The witch doctors: What the management
gurus are saying, why it matters, and how to make sense of it. New York: Times
Books.
Morecroft, J. D. W. (1983). System dynamics: Portraying bounded rationality. Omega:
The International Journal of Management Science, 11(2), 131-142.
Rochlin, G. I. (1998). Essential friction: Error-control in organizational behavior. In N.
Akerman (Ed.), The necessity of friction. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Ruona, W. E. A., & Lynham, S. A. (in press). A philosophical framework for thought and
practice in human resource development. Human Resource Development Review.
Schwartz, P. (1991). The art of the long view. New York: Doubleday.
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline. New York: Doubleday.
Senge, P. (1994). Learning to alter mental models. Executive Excellence, 11(3), 16-17.
Sterman, J. D. (1989). Misperceptions of feedback in dynamic decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43, 301-335.
Swanson, R. A. (1994). Analysis for improving performance: Tools for diagnosing and
documenting workplace expertise. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
421
422
Advances in Developing Human Resources
November 2003
Tuchman, B. W. (1984). The march of folly: From Troy to Vietnam. New York: Ballantine.
van der Heijden, K. (1997). Scenarios: The art of strategic conversation. New York: John
Wiley.
van der Merwe, L. (1994). Bringing diverse people to common purpose. In P. M. Senge,
A. Kleiner, C. Roberts, R. B. Ross, & B. J. Smith (Eds.), The fifth discipline fieldbook:
Strategies and tools for building a learning organization (pp. 193-195). New York:
Doubleday.
Ward, E., & Schriefer, A. E. (1998). Dynamic scenarios: System thinking meets scenario
planning. In L. Fahey & R. Randall (Eds.), Learning from the future: Competitive
foresight scenarios (pp. 79-94). New York: John Wiley.
Warren, K. (1995). Exploring competitive futures using cognitive mapping. Long Range
Planning, 28(5), 1-9.
Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley.
Weick, K. E. (1985). Sources of order in underorganized systems: Themes in recent organizational theory. In Y. S. Lincoln (Ed.), Organizational theory and inquiry (pp. 106136). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Weick, K. E. (1990). Introduction: Cartographic myths in organizations. In A. Sigismund
Huff (Ed.), Mapping strategic thought (pp. 1-10). New York: John Wiley.
Thomas J. Chermack received his Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota in April
2003. He is the author of several recent articles examining the theory base of scenario planning that have appeared in Human Resource Development Review, Human
Resource Development International, Advances in Developing Human Resources,
Futures, and Futures Research Quarterly. His research interests center around scenario planning, decision making, and strategic processes in HRD.
Chermack, T. J. (2003). Mental models in decision making and implications for
human resource development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 5(4),
408-422.