Decision-Making Styles

Fundamentals

A long-standing distinction is made between rational and intuitive decision-making styles. A rational approach is typified by making decisions in a deliberate and logical manner. This tends to be linked to a structured decision methodologies and reliance on existing concepts and cognitive categories to filter data. An intuitive individual is seen as working on the basis of a hunch or impression of an issue or situation. This is associated with iterative and trial-and-error decision-making approaches, where the individual’s focus tends to be on the stimulus for the decision itself. Much of the rhetoric on organizational decision-making tends to focus on the development of and mechanisms for rational approaches, but there is a growing recognition that effective decisions and decision makers combine rational and intuitive approaches. A major financial investment tends to be associated with need for rationality, whereas strong emotional investment tends to be linked with an intuitive bias. Hence, significant decisions such as purchasing a house that contain both financial and emotional elements tend to combine both approaches.

Other work has extended this rational-intuitive model; dependency is seen as a significant approach by a number of authors. Dependent decision makers are seen as requiring the advice, direction, and support of others when making decisions. Although this can be a dysfunctional style, in that it can manifest itself as a reliance on others, it also can be seen positively as a bias toward involving and engaging others in the decision-making process and is therefore an approach that supports employee involvement and engagement. Susanne Scott and Reginald Bruce suggest that individuals in their decision-making styles can, additionally, be either avoidant or spontaneous. An avoidant individual would typically seek to postpone or avoid making a decision. A spontaneous decision maker is likely to be impulsive and prone to making “snap” or “spur of the moment” decisions. Spontaneity is a trait typically valued by organizations, but this is not without the risks associated with undue haste, and while an avoidant approach [Page 189]is also potentially dysfunctional, it also perhaps represents a more considered approach to decision making than the focus on spontaneity encouraged by many organizations.

Victor Vroom and his coworkers have developed a different perspective that focuses on decision participation styles and suggests a continuum from autocratic approaches at one end to a group decision making style at the other. An autocratic style involves minimal input from subordinates (as providers of information), with a manager making a lone decision on the basis of the information available at that time. A group approach is predicated on a high level of subordinate involvement, with the manager delegating the decision to a group. The group then becomes responsible for making that decision through consensus. Between these approaches sits a consultative approach. This involves sharing a decision with subordinates (either individually as a group) to get their views on the decision, but significantly, the decision remains the responsibility of the individual manager and may or may not represent the views expressed by subordinates through consultation. Again group and consultative styles support employee engagement and involvement. Although the nature of the decision and constraints such as time might affect the selection of these choices, a manager’s approach will also be influenced by his or her personality, individual preferences, and experiences.

...