The Category of Node-and-Choice Forms, with Subcategories for Choice-Sequence Forms and Choice-Set Forms

The literature specifies extensive-form games in many styles, and eventually I hope to formally translate games across those styles. Toward that end, this paper defines $\mathbf{NCF}$, the category of node-and-choice forms. The category's objects are extensive forms in essentially any style, and the category's isomorphisms are made to accord with the literature's small handful of ad hoc style equivalences. Further, this paper develops two full subcategories: $\mathbf{CsqF}$ for forms whose nodes are choice-sequences, and $\mathbf{CsetF}$ for forms whose nodes are choice-sets. I show that $\mathbf{NCF}$ is "isomorphically enclosed" in $\mathbf{CsqF}$ in the sense that each $\mathbf{NCF}$ form is isomorphic to a $\mathbf{CsqF}$ form. Similarly, I show that $\mathbf{CsqF_{\tilde a}}$ is isomorphically enclosed in $\mathbf{CsetF}$ in the sense that each $\mathbf{CsqF}$ form with no-absentmindedness is isomorphic to a $\mathbf{CsetF}$ form. The converses are found to be almost immediate, and the resulting equivalences unify and simplify two ad hoc style equivalences in Kline and Luckraz 2016 and Streufert 2019. Aside from the larger agenda, this paper already makes three practical contributions. Style equivalences are made easier to derive by [1] a natural concept of isomorphic invariance and [2] the composability of isomorphic enclosures. In addition, [3] some new consequences of equivalence are systematically deduced.Comment: 43 pages, 9 figure

What we talk about when we talk about "global mindset": managerial cognition in multinational corporations

Recent developments in the global economy and in multinational corporations have placed significant emphasis on the cognitive orientations of managers, giving rise to a number of concepts such as “global mindset” that are presumed to be associated with the effective management of multinational corporations (MNCs). This paper reviews the literature on global mindset and clarifies some of the conceptual confusion surrounding the construct. We identify common themes across writers, suggesting that the majority of studies fall into one of three research perspectives: cultural, strategic, and multidimensional. We also identify two constructs from the social sciences that underlie the perspectives found in the literature: cosmopolitanism and cognitive complexity and use these two constructs to develop an integrative theoretical framework of global mindset. We then provide a critical assessment of the field of global mindset and suggest directions for future theoretical and empirical research

The influence of individual cognitive style on performance in management education

This paper reports the outcomes of an empirical study undertaken to explore the possibility that cognitive style may be an important factor influencing performance on certain types of task in management education. Four hundred and twelve final-year undergraduate degree students studying management and business administration were tested using the Allinson-Hayes Cognitive Style Index. Their cognitive styles were then compared with assessment grades achieved for academic modules, the task categories of which were deemed to be consonant with either the wholist/intuitive or the analytic style of working. Overall ability defined by final degree grades was also tested against individuals’ cognitive styles. As expected, students whose dominant cognitive styles were analytic attained higher grades for long term solitary tasks involving careful planning and analysis of information. However, contrary to expectations, performance on tasks believed to be more suited to the wholist/intuitive style was also higher for analytic individuals, as was overall ability defined by final degree grades. The results were discussed in terms of the nature of the tasks and the need for methods of performance assessment that are independent of an orientation bias. Without this, it is argued, employment selection criteria may favour the wrong type of candidate in some circumstances