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, Psychology, Overconfidence, Loss Aversion, Board Diversity.

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. The integration of behavioral science into corporate strategy and governance represents a progressive step toward building resilient and high-performing organizations.

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. https://doi.org/10.1111/0034-6527.00330
5. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases.
6. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
7. Malmendier, U., & Tate, G. (2005). CEO overconfidence and corporate investment. Journal of Finance, 60(6), 2661–2700. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2005.00813.x
8. Barberis, N., & Thaler, R. H. (2003). A survey of behavioral finance. In G. M. Constantinides, M. Harris, & R. Stulz (Eds.), Handbook of the Economics of Finance (Vol. 1, pp. 1053–1128). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1574-0102(03)01027-6
9. Lovallo, D., & Kahneman, D. (2003). Delusions of success: How optimism undermines executives’ decisions. Harvard Business Review, 81(7), 56–63.
10. Finkelstein, S., Hambrick, D. C., & Cannella, A. A. (2009). Strategic leadership: Theory and research on executives, top management teams, and boards. Oxford University Press.
11. Shefrin, H. (2007). Behavioral corporate finance: Decisions that create value. McGraw- Hill/Irwin.
12. Forbes, D. P. (2005). Managerial determinants of decision speed in new ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 26(4), 355–366. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.451
13. Schwenk, C. R. (1984). Cognitive simplification processes in strategic decision-making.
14. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 111–128. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250050203
15. Ferris, S. P., & Yan, X. (2009). Agency costs and the value of corporate voting rights: International evidence. International Review of Financial Analysis, 18(2), 140–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2009.03.001
16. Hayward, M. L. A., & Hambrick, D. C. (1997). Explaining the premiums paid for large acquisitions: Evidence of CEO hubris. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 103–127. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393810
17. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Making fast strategic decisions in high-velocity environments.
18. Academy of Management Journal, 32(3), 543–576. https://doi.org/10.2307/256434
19. Mahra, Mr Anil Kumar. "Study of Investment Awareness among Working Women In Bhopal."
20. Mahra, Mr Anil Kumar. "Financial Literacy and Pattern of Savings, Investment Behavior of Women Teaching Faculties in Sagar Region. An Empirical Assessment."
21. Mahra, Mr Anil Kumar. "Astudy on Gig Economy and Redefining Employment in Bhopal District."
22. Mahra, Anil Kumar. "The Role Of Gender In Online Shopping-A."
23. Mahra, Anil Kumar. "Management Information Technology: Managing the Organisation in Digital Era." International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology 4238.29 (2005): 6.
24. Kumar, Anil, et al. "Investigating the role of social media in polio prevention in India: A Delphi-DEMATEL approach." Kybernetes 47.5 (2018): 1053-1072.