Managing Under Uncertainty : 652727


This is a group assessment – four students per group

Each group will select a ‘decision-making theme’ for the annotated bibliography.

The student group must identify a discrete area of focus within that theme. Eg Black Swan events, with a discrete area of “unknown unknowns”

Each student will research and select one quality scholarly journal article with a different perspective on the discrete topic.

The selected Journal must be from A*, A or B class journals as listed in the ABDC listing; refer . Failure to use A*, A or B class journals will incur significant grade penalties

Each student will then select a range of other academic sources that permit them to critique their journal article and their fellow group members. These do not have to be from A* and A journals and it is strongly recommended that you use text books..

Students will critically analyse their selected articles and present their findings using the supplied annotated bibliography template.

The nominated group leader is to email the three links for the journal articles, or the journal articles to the lecturer. The lecturer will be reviewing these against the ABDC listing

Each annotated bibliography should be approx. 900 to 1000 words

Submission format

The group will submit one assessment task through Turnitin

The student submission is an integrated document comprising an introduction of approx. 400 words, four annotated bibliographies of approx. 1000 words each (written in full sentences and not in bullet points) and conclusion of approx. 400 words

This assessment requires a reference list of the sources that you have in text referenced as part of your critique of the journal articles.

The annotated bibliographies must be presented in the provided table (that is, one table for each journal article)

General requirements

Each group must research widely and analyse a range of articles and then reduce the number to three

The three articles must provide a most coherent ‘fit’ with each other and must address the selected topic.

Each group shall nominate a group leader as the only member of the group to submit the assignment

Must be presented in the third person.


Write an annotated bibliography (AB) by first:


  • identifying scholarly journal articles


  • applying reading strategies


  • understanding what is an annotated bibliography & its purpose


  • practising and reading an abridged journal article


– identifying the sections & keywords to complete the AB template




Write a reflective essay by:


  • identifying narrative and reflective elements of writing


  • applying a reflective cycle to guide your writing


  • identifying key reflective language


1.    Introduction

Decisions are complex processes involving an individual being faced with the option to choose among any number of alternatives (Robbins et al, 2017).  As individuals judge the situations in which they find themselves and attempt to make effective decisions normally in a short time-frame, they tend to rely on short-cut techniques to assist them (Robbins et al, 2017). Stereotyping, one of these techniques, involves judging someone based on their own perceptions of the group in which another person belongs (Robbins et al, 2017) or attributing particular qualities to a member of a social group (Koveshnikov et al, 2016). The hallmark of stereotyping is that we come to treat the individual who is a member of a social category (such as gender, age and ethnicity) as functionally interchangeable with any other member of that category (Bodenhausen, 2015).

Even though stereotyping allows decision-makers to attempt to simplify a complex situation, relying too heavily on this technique allows biases to influence the situation (Robbins et al, 2017), introducing distortions on the bounded rationality decision-making process.

This paper focuses on stereotyping and contains a collection of annotated bibliographies that explore some of the biases introduced by stereotyping and their implications in the context of workplace decisions.

The first article, “The Glass Cliff: When and why women are selected as leaders in crisis contexts” by S. Bruckmüller and N.R. Branscombe, provides an analysis of empirical data to support the theory think management-think male and think crisis-think female showcasing gender stereotypes and specific leadership attributes that explain the glass cliff theory. The presentation of case analysis data from experiments by a student population from the University of Kansas supports the research surrounding gender based attributes in leadership and varying changes required depending on context.

The second article, “Age Stereotypes in the Workplace: Common Stereotypes, Moderators, and Future Research Directions” by R.A Posthuma and M.A. Campion provides insight on both the positive and negative influences of age stereotyping in decision-making and provides practical advice to better support managers with their decisions. It presents an in-depth review of age-related stereotypes on an aging workforce, analysing the presence of, impact from and suggestions for addressing stereotype management.

The third article, “A meta-analysis of Gender Stereotypes and Bias in Experimental Simulations of Employment Decision-Making” by A.J. Koch, S.P. D’Mello and P.R. Sackett, is a meta-analysis that draws from over one hundred previous studies and focuses on variations of gender in male dominated versus female dominated industries and workforces. The article also elaborates on how stereotypes can be used to make decisions and presents the argument that biases can have a negative impact on the effectiveness of decisions.

2.    Annotated Bibliographies



Bruckmüller, S. & Branscombe, N. R. (2010). The glass cliff: When and why women are selected as leaders in crisis contexts. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49(3), 433-451.

Article classification Research paper, academic empirical
Journal ranking A
Impact factor (2010) 2.056 (2010)
Aim/Purpose of article The aim of this article is to gain empirical evidence on gender stereotypes and attributes in leadership and company context in the prediction of glass cliff theory. An analysis of company leaderships gender history and its relationship to the prediction of glass cliffs theory emergence in times of crisis.
Research methodology employed Bruckmüller & Branscombe’s approach was to analyse individual cases of company performance in relation to leadership history and stereotypical gender attributes. Building on existing theories surrounding glass cliff and research on gender attributes in stereotyping leader’s ability. The research delved further into the reasoning behind the context of glass cliff theory and its possible explanations. The examination of mixed methods of quantitative and qualitative empirical research data was analysed. A sample population of 122 introductory psychology students from the University of Kansas was used to conduct two experiments and a pre-study.

Experiments required responses to case studies in return for course credit. The sample population was divided into two gender balanced groups for the purpose of eliminating bias. Multiple manipulation checks were used on the sample population and a mixed ANOVA was used to analyse the data of the dependent and independent variables.

Research findings The research findings showed stereotyping of gender attributes supported the hypothesis of think management-think male and think crisis-think female across both experiments and extensive research findings. In the assessment of cases of companies in a state of success or crisis, groups were presented with a male, female or gender-neutral history of leadership. The research data found that in line with the hypothesis a male leader was chosen in times of success where agentic attributes preferred and female leadership was wanted in times of crisis when interpersonal and communication skills essential. Analysis of empirical data and existing research found stereotyping of gender attributes in leadership is maintained, that think manager-think male assumptions ring true. Data exposed in times of crisis, where glass cliff theory emerges, the stereotype of male attributes is perceived as less favourable and therefore the female preference for leadership is increased, conducive to the theory think crisis-think female.
Conclusions drawn by authors Conclusions drawn by the authors based on experiments conducted and existing literature reviewed on glass cliff theory showed a relationship between context, leadership gender and company history in the selection of future leaders. Think male-think manager agentic styles are favoured in positive economic times and think female-think crisis interpersonal leadership styles are preferred in times of downturn or crisis. The conclusions drawn do not define whether the glass cliff theory is determinably sexist but rather that the gender based attributes that stereotype male leaders as different from female leaders contribute to the need for different leadership styles in varied contexts.


Bruckmüller & Branscombe’s research paper has great significance in the literature with peer review from the original authors of glass cliff theory, Ryan & Haslam. A significant finding within experiment one showed a history of female leadership within a company removed the glass cliff theory and proved both genders as equal candidates in times of crisis. Experiment two drew conclusions relevant to the hypothesis and theory of think manager-think male and think crisis-think female.

The development of glass cliff theory as noted by the authors is a new area of research having only begun deep analysis in 2005, further cases supported its research throughout the Global Financial Crisis in 2008. The surrounding literature on glass cliff theory fails to delve into the stereotypes or analyse potential explanations for the cause of glass cliff. Observations and assumptions are frequently made about leadership gender in crisis but little empirical evidence exists.



Strengths The experiments show in depth analysis of both quantitative and qualitative results on context, stereotypical gender attributes and potential explanations and reasoning for glass cliff theory. The research conducted has a multi-faceted approach eliminating bias and performing manipulation checks to advance the strength of findings. The conclusions drawn are relevant to gender stereotypes in organisational leadership and create extensive support for agentic male styles and interpersonal female styles of leadership.


The scope of the data was limited to the same pool of students at an introductory level of psychology. Expanding the population to include corporate participants or real-life case assessment may have strengthened the depth of findings. Authors conclusions drawn were based defeating the status of male leadership and undermining context for female success, showing personal bias on empirical data that shows different leadership styles and not one greater than the other.


The authors present limitations in their approach to experiments by limiting to case studies from the same sample population. Their aim to address the explanation of glass cliff theory and its occurrence was focused on gender stereotypes which concluded in opening up the possibilities for further research and more unanswered questions. Empirical data and research supported the hypothesis but came to no comprehensive definitions or developments on the existing literature.






Posthuma, R. A. & Campion, M. A. (2009). Age Stereotypes in the Workplace: Common Stereotypes, Moderators, and Future Research Directions. Journal of Management, 35(1), 158-188.
Article classification Review article
Journal ranking A*
Impact factor 7.733
Aim/Purpose of article The aim of the article is to summarise common research findings from reviewing existing articles and books related to age stereotypes, to list and describe the most prevalent age-related stereotypes, their moderators and implications, to provide suggestions on future research and to recommend best practices to support unbiased managerial decision-making.
Approach of author(s) The research methodology consisted of analysing and summarising existing peer-reviewed literature on workplace age stereotypes. The article selection process started with a search through article databases, resulting in nearly 7000 potential articles. These were narrowed based on relevance and quality indicators, reducing the number of citations to 1500. These citations were then reviewed for relevance, resulting in 117 articles for analysis and summary.
Conclusions drawn by authors The authors conclude that decisions influenced by age stereotypes can have negative impact on employees, employers, and society. They conclude that targeted research on this field by using existing literature can help researchers gain a better understanding of the causes and effects of workplace age stereotypes, of how organizations can be more effective and how employers can make better informed, unbiased decisions, giving older workers the deserved respect and dignity. The authors also conclude that a large number of research avenues exist, providing a framework for future research.



Significance The article is a good summary of existing literature on age stereotypes, with focus on older workers. It is of high significance to management science, especially as the work force in mature industrial nations (such as Australia) shifts towards older workers. In this article, the authors provide insight on the positive and negative influences of stereotyping in decision making, especially in employment-oriented decisions. They also highlight how, differently from other stereotypes such as race and sex, age-related stereotypes influence in a more subtle or unconscious level. In times where gender and race discussions are in vogue, the article brings light to stereotypes that can potentially affect the entire population, as people get old regardless of their nationality, gender, race or family background.

The article is of high significance as it illustrates the wealth of research information available in the academia, providing a list of solid, peer-reviewed references. It lists and describes the most prevalent age-related stereotypes, based on evidence from a large body of researchers. For each identified stereotype, the authors provide supporting references, enabling deeper and more focused research to be conducted. The article further elaborates on potential moderators of age-related stereotypes, also touching briefly on the relationship between age-related and other stereotypes.

The significance of this article is further confirmed as the authors attempt to address identified gaps in this research field by suggesting future research topics, creating a pathway for further discussion.

Finally, the article has practical significance as the authors provide practical advice to managers, supporting better decision making.

Strengths The article has a strong, reliable and extensive supporting reference list. The authors address multiple aspects of age-related stereotypes in details, elaborating on their impact and significance. They also provide good insight on what factors moderate (weaken/strengthen) the influence of age-related stereotypes in decision-making.


The article paves the path to future researchers by suggesting further research streams. It also has valuable practical applications, as it provides recommendations that can be readily applied by the industry.

Weaknesses The article provides very little insight on the relationship between age-related stereotypes and other stereotypes such as race, sex and nationality. Further elaboration on the co-relation of different stereotypes could have resulted in the identification of additional complexities and in additional research topics.

Deeper elaboration on the authors recommendations would have improved the article significance. Furthermore, even though references are provided to each stereotype, empirical data could have been provided to further illustrate the authors analysis.

Limitations Even though the article is of great significance and despite providing extensive information on age-related stereotypes, it is not a thorough analysis of the topic and only addresses a subset of the subject matter. The article limits itself to address only the stereotypes affecting older workers, failing to acknowledge those that apply to younger workers. Stereotypes on younger workers are highly relevant to the theme, especially when they compete with older workers for the same position and even more so when they compete for managerial positions.




Reference Koch, A.J., D’Mello, S.P., & Sackett, P.R. (2015). A Meta-Analysis of Gender Stereotypes and Bias in Experimental Simulations of Employment Decision Making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(1), 128-161.
Article classification Meta-analysis article
Journal ranking A*
Impact factor 2.616
Aim/Purpose of article The aim of this meta-analysis is to collate and examine reliable studies on the topic of gender bias using the framework of sex distribution within jobs. Further analysis is undertaken to identify several factors that lead to biases which influence decisions with the hope of future studies to examine these factors further.
Approach of author(s) Previous meta-analyses and journal articles were searched resulting in 1000+ sources, but reduced to 500 after abstract reviews. This reduced to 111 post full publication reviews. In total 18 dissertations and 93 journal articles provided 136 independent samples (due to multiple samples within studies) and provided a sample size of 22,348.
Conclusions drawn by authors In male-dominated roles, experienced professionals exhibit less bias than undergraduate or working adults. In both male and female-dominated jobs, bias is largest when the raters only have access to limited, irrelevant or ambiguous individuating information. In only male-dominated roles, bias is smaller when the decision-maker feels accountable for their decisions, when they believe their decisions have consequences on others and when they are informed about organisational equity norms.

The extent decision-makers rely on stereotyping is influenced by variables controlled by the organisation. They can motivate the decision-makers to make accurate decisions and reduce bias by providing quality individuating information.

Significance This article is of high significance to the topic of stereotypes in decision-making generally as it is a meta-analysis of a large body of experimental research studies ranging from 1977-2012, focusing on gender biases in employment decision-making. From the date of publication this study is the most comprehensive quantitative analysis of gender bias in this context as it examines more than twice the independent samples as the previously most recent meta-analysis of this topic by Davison & Burke (2000).

This study is also of high significance as it builds upon previous studies by adding the variables of ambiguity of individuating information, response scale and motivation to make careful decisions. These variables had not been examined previously and, based on the results of this meta-analysis, can have an influence on reducing gender bias in decision making in the context of the workplace.

This is of high significance compared to other articles in this topic as it is drawn from the Journal of Applied Psychology – a A* journal.

There is also a clear link from this study to the topic and other articles drawn from this topic as it outlines types of stereotypes and biases in decision-making and the consequences of allowing these to influence decisions in general and in the workplace. It also outlines how managers can reduce gender bias to encourage equity for all subcategories of employee in the workplace.

Strengths The major strength is that it is a meta-analysis of such a large body of research previously undertaken in the topic of gender bias in employment decision-making. The large sample size and reference list contribute to its strength as a significant study.

The study outlines its limitations and suggestions for future study so that the concepts can be built upon and greater knowledge in the subject area will encourage a reduction of gender bias in this context.

Weaknesses This meta-analysis does not identify possible sample errors in the original studies that may have impacted the results of this meta-analysis. The smaller proportion of original studies focusing on female-dominated jobs could have affected this meta-analysis finding.

This study does not address how and if people change their propensity for stereotyping over the years. It would be helpful to examine if a rater who relied heavily on gender bias in 1977 increased/decreased this propensity 10+ years later.

Limitations This study doesn’t address the underlining motivations behind why the raters rate genders differently.  The study makes suggestions to encourage a reduction in bias by enforcing conditions on the decision-maker, but it doesn’t explain the psychological reasoning behind this. For example, the article discusses how male-dominated roles decision-makers who feel accountable for their decisions tend to make more accurate decisions which do not rely so heavily on stereotypes, but this study does not offer a detailed explanation to why this is.

3.    Conclusion

Stereotyping is the process where a person judges another based on their own preconceived notions of the subgroup that person belongs to (Robbins et al, 2017). is a commonly used technique to assist in decision-making. The preconceived notions in stereotyping are someone’s perceptions developed through various influences, such as their background and personal experiences (Robbins et al, 2017). Stereotyping can be useful in time-poor situations where decisions need to be made rapidly, but if these are turned into biases then the decision will not be effective, as the judgements made by the decision-maker will not be accurate (Koch, 2015).

By covering a multitude of research platforms, the articles in this paper confirm that there is conclusive evidence of stereotyping’s existence and propose various recommendations for managing stereotypes and acknowledging them in decision making. The articles present a review of comprehensive literature and data on gender and age stereotypes in organisational and managerial decision-making, exploring some of the stereotyping and biases commonly present in the workplace and their consequence. The articles focus on age stereotypes, stereotypical gender attributes in leaders and gender biases that negatively impact the decision-making process and its results. Attribution theory was identified in this paper to present the issue that many factors motivate how and why people judge others differently, which has an impact on workplace decisions.



4.    References

  1. Robbins, S., Judge, T., Millett, B., & Boyle, M. (2017). Organisation Behaviour (8th) Melbourne, Australia: Pearson Australia (A division of Pearson Australia Group Pty Ltd).
  2. Koch, A.J., D’Mello, S.P., & Sackett, P.R. (2015). A Meta-Analysis of Gender Stereotypes and Bias in Experimental Simulations of Employment Decision Making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(1), 128-161.


  1. Bodenhausen, G. V. (2015). The Role of Stereotypes in Decision-Making Processes. Medical Decision Making, 25(1), 112-118.


  1. Koveshnikov A., Vaara E. & Ehrnrooth M. (2016). Stereotype-Based Managerial Identity Work in Multinational Corporations. Organization Studies, 37(9), 1353-1379.

Annotated bibliography



Bodenhausen, G. V., Macrae, C. N., & Sherman, J. W. (2016). On the dialectics of discrimination: Dual processes in social stereotyping. In S Chaiken & Y Trope (eds), Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology. Guilford, New York, pp. 271-290. 211
Article classification Review article
Journal ranking A*
Impact factor 7.89
Aim/Purpose of article This paper aims to highlight stereotyping versus individualism. The various ways of social impression and the ways an individual could be judged is shed light upon in this article. People are often judged according to their skin colour, race, cast and gender, rather that judging individuals on the basis of the qualities or characteristics that they display. The present dualities that are present in the society have been highlighted, along with proposing various models and concepts of redefining stereotyping. The factors that influence the stereotypes have been highlighted, along with highlighting the significant differences between the concepts of individualism and stereotypes.
Approach of author(s) The author highlights the different approaches of stereotype judgement. The authors have used stereotypes as Heuristics for judging an individual. Discrimination and stereotyping are two of the major social taboos, which had been prevalent in the world for a long time. Years have passed when King Martin Luther, Jr had delivered a speech, where he mentioned that he had a dream of a nation that will not judge the people by their skin colour. Rather, the king dreamt of a nation that judges the people by their character and the skills that they have. However, even after years, this dream of King Martin Luther Jr, could not be fulfilled, due to the discrimination and stereotyping in the society. The authors highlighted that heuristic strategies for decision making, problem solving as well as judgement is often used as a contrast to that of the algorithmic ones. The article, On the dialectics of discrimination: Dual processes in social stereotyping” by (Bodenhausen, Macrae & Sherman, 2016) highlights two fundamental types of judging others. This includes relying on the group based assumptions and by surveying the personal qualities of an individual. The authors have taken assistance from various books and peer-reviewed journals, in order to highlight the various alternatives of the heuristic strategies. The approaches that have been taken by the authors are mainly theoretical, rather than practical. This approach taken by the authors might result in the loss of reliability of the research, when compared to other articles, where primary research is conducted.
Conclusions drawn by authors The authors concluded that the dual-process approach of the stereotyping of the formation of impression for an individual, as well as social judgement. The authors also conclude by highlighting that stereotypes have a significant influence on the reaction and impression that we have on others. The authors proposed the dual process approach and represent a kind of social information processing. However, the authors are of the opinion that they have been successful in applying the dual-process approaches and generated rich sets of supporting evidences and predictions, regarding the determinants of stereotypes. The concepts of stereotyping is defined as the process in which one person judges another person, based on certain pre-conceived notion that a person has, within them. These people judge others in the light of the preconceived notion, thus resulting is a wrong judgement and biased decision-making. The various factors, which have a key role to play, in determining the dominance of the stereotypes has been highlighted in this article (Bodenhausen, Macrae & Sherman, 2016). The distinction between categorization and individualism has been drawn in this article. The authors have also redefined stereotyping and individualism, in the light of understanding the personal traits of an individual. While considering the individual traits, the individualism and stereotypes have a major role to play. However, the distinction between the individualism and stereotypes laid in the effect that each of these have, being dominated by categories. The authors have highlighted that multi-dimensional categories are likely to have a stronger effect, that the one-dimensional categories.



Significance This article provides a complete overview of the various paths that provides social impressions among individuals. The various conditions of the stereotype dominance include the information fit, the perceiver motivation and the perceiver attention capacity. The significance lies in the fact that these factors have been largely convergent with the dual-process models, which has been proposed by the authors in this article. A clear distinction between individualism and stereotype had been drawn by the authors, which help the readers to develop a clear idea and distinguish between these similar concepts.
Strengths The strength of this article is the wide number of books and journals that have been used, in order to support the view of the authors. The article has a strong reliability, as the referred books and journals are has a strong impact on the content of the article. This article paves the way for further research on the similar topic. The authors have used various books and peer-reviewed journals that highlight the importance of the dual-model that is used by the authors.
Weaknesses Though the article has a major significance yet, this article provides little details of the relation between the stereotypes and the impression that people have on each other. Moreover, the various types of discrimination that are faced by the people in the society have not been successfully highlighted in this article. The authors shed light on the dual process of stereotyping. However, no other type has been suggested by the authors.
Limitations The limitation of the article lies in the fact that no primary research has been conducted. No sample population has been collected, and hence the reliability of the findings might be questioned. Moreover, the authors have mainly highlighted on the factors of the determinacy of the stereotypes, along with focusing on the dual-process approach. However, no other alternatives have been suggested. Moreover, the significance of the stereotypes in judging the people has not been highlighted effectively. The social and psychological impact of stereotyping has not been effectively analysed by the authors.


Bodenhausen, G. V., Macrae, C. N., & Sherman, J. W. (2016). On the dialectics of discrimination: Dual processes in social stereotyping. In S Chaiken & Y Trope (eds), Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology. Guilford, New York, pp. 271-290. 211. Retrieved from: