Personal Decision-Making Style
By Kristina Kemp
By Kristina Kemp
To discover and assess
the personal decision-making style, the author took the Decision-Making
Inventory by Johnson & Coscarelli.
Results determined the strongest match to the spontaneous/internal
decision maker, followed by a spontaneous/external style, having the ability to
be both introspective, as well as talk through the parts of an issue with
others while reaching a decision. The results were not surprising given many
previous personality type indicator test results validating this prevailing
dichotomy of ambiversion. The author
will examine her decision-making style in more detail, explore the process of
decision making, how the author handles emotions in decision making, and what
ways the author tests the effectiveness of decisions to gain further insight
into her personal decision-making style.
Decision-Making
Style
Without putting too much
emphasis on individual topics, the spontaneous thinker jumps from one goal or
idea to the next, linking one thought to the next, continually changing and
updating their thoughts about it as they discover more about each alternative.
To fully grasp an idea when making a decision, they put themselves within the
situation to create a vivid sense and a feeling about what that alternative
encompasses when evaluating it. They
tend to base their decision on the whole picture and how it feels rather than
on the individual parts (Coscarelli, 2007).
The spontaneous characteristic is a very accurate feature of the authors
thinking and decision making.
The main feature of the
internal decision-making style is the need for introspection before speaking. Organization
of their thoughts privately before sharing thoughts with others is important
and if they haven’t done so, may become aggravated or confused, however, the
author albeit primarily introspective, is contented to organize thoughts out
loud, argue all the sides of an idea, and speak while talking through an idea
(Coscarelli, 2007). The most important
consideration for the author in this assessment is the external and internal
decision maker features together embolden the author to both internalize
information and bounce ideas off people without needing to take time to
organize thoughts before discussing them.
This internal and external decision-making style is advantageous for the
author because it allows for flexibility to work alone or in a group dynamic
when assessing implications, different perspectives, ideal outcomes, and the
pros and cons of a problem. The decision-making
style informs the general process the author takes when faced with a decision.
The
Decision-Making Process
According to Duncan
Brodie, there are six steps in the decision-making process: Define the problem,
assess the implications, explore different perspectives, get clear on your
ideal outcome, weigh pros and cons, then decide and act (Brodie, 2007). Although the author does not explicitly list
and name each of these steps in an organized manner, the basic premise is
generally adhered to in making simple to complex decisions. When defining the problem, the author will
get clarity on what exactly the problem is if it seems ambiguous. After assessing the implications or all the possible
results and the effects, at this point, the author may solicit input from
others.
Because the nature of the
author's primary decision-making style, the tendency is most often to think
through the problem, assess the implications and have a good idea of the what
the decision should be before exploring different perspectives and bouncing
ideas off others. When it comes to
soliciting input, the author will most often solicit input from others
regardless if the decision should be made alone or if it involves anyone else
and especially if other people are affected, the author will ultimately get a
consensus from others or all parties having a connection or some involvement
with the decision. Because we’re human;
we have cognitive limitations, limited ability to forward plan, under-estimate
the value of future outcomes, have limits to observing from and learning from
the past, and have a tendency to use unbalanced intuition (Hoch,
Kunreuther, & Gunther, 2001). For
these reasons, the author believes it especially essential to solicit input,
buy-in, feedback, or a consensus from the most significant number and variety
of individuals where possible. Once the
pros and cons are assessed and talked through, the decision is often clear, and
action is taken. Most of the time, the
effectiveness of a decision is unknown until implemented.
Emotions
in Decision-Making
When engaged in decisions
involving emotions, it’s common for decision makers to minimize negative emotions
and decision effort and maximize the accuracy of their decisions through the
way they structure their choice strategies (Hoch, Kunreuther,
& Gunther, 2001). On the other hand, there are other ways that
managers tend to handle emotional decisions including constructive avoidance,
considering attributes sequentially instead of simultaneously, reframing to
reduce emotion, and lastly, and how the author tackles emotional decisions,
force decision makers to confront emotion.
The author firmly believes that ignoring or avoiding the emotional
component is avoiding the human aspect of decisions in work and everyday
life. Ignoring emotion and not
addressing it will result in someone being affected either presently or down
the line, it may also create a disengaged, problem-focused environment
especially if every decision is handled in this way. When making decisions involving emotions, the
author will typically face emotions head-on and ensure they are addressed as an
explicit part of the decision and not disregarded only to re-surface in the
future through possible negative effects.
The author agrees with Hoch, Kunreuther, and Gunthers conclusion that by
explicitly considering emotions, the effects become more easily manageable (Hoch,
Kunreuther, & Gunther, 2001). Next,
the author will analyze the thought process behind making a decision that
requires a higher level of experience and skill.
Unqualified
for Decision-Making
When faced with a
decision that requires more skill or experience and the author does not feel
qualified or equipped to respond, the best course of action is to consult with
an experienced and qualified individual when available depending on the gravity
of the effects of the decision. If the effects
are minimal, using heuristics and intuition may prove to be valuable, but when
the impacts of the decision are significant, the decision-making process
warrants further investigation. When a qualified individual is unavailable, the
researcher may conduct the necessary research to gather as much data as
possible to find the best solution and deliver a much an analytic as opposed to
a heuristic decision as possible. With
this in mind and getting a consensus of a group of individuals given the same
data, would warrant the best possible decision.
Using heuristics when appropriate, and by choosing more in-depth
analysis when called for, or by balancing the two with judicious use of models
can provide the due diligence when faced with a complex decision or a decision
out of the author's scope of ability (Hoch, Kunreuther, & Gunther, 2001). When finalizing a decision, especially a
complex one, it is appropriate to test its effectiveness.
Testing
Decision Effectiveness
Testing the effectiveness
of a decision is essential to discover where strengths and weaknesses are and what
needs to be done to increase the effectiveness of the decision. One way to test this is to ask those who will
be affected by the decision. If it
involves many individuals, tools such as surveys, feedback systems, and
measuring decision metrics, as well as forums for making and discussing
decisions (Blenko & Mankins, 2012) can all prove to be an effective way to
not only test effectiveness but provide insight for course correction. For
example, a survey would show the weaknesses in the decision and the areas it
should be improved. Surveys are a powerful measurement tool of improvement
stimulation that could shed light on decision effectiveness across the
organization and show where you or your firm stacks up against the competition,
or if you are getting worse or better over time.
Conclusion
After discovering a
personal decision-making style of spontaneous internal/external, the author
assessed the traits of these styles and found them to be accurate. Specifically, when it comes to the
spontaneous nature of her personality. Additionally, results from the
Decision-Making Inventory confirmed an internal/external decision-making
style. This finding gives insight into
how decisions are made, how they are made when emotions are involved, how the
author approaches a decision when she lacks the appropriate skills, and how
decision accuracy is tested. Overall,
the author discovered a wealth of information on her decision-making
process. The self-reflection was
insightful and helped her to understand the process as well as different
scenarios and looks forward to furthering research and insight into ways to
improve decision making across multiple different situations.
References
Blenko,
M., & Mankins, M. (2012). Measuring decision effectiveness. Retrieved Jun
2, 2019, from https://www.bain.com/insights/measuring-decision-effectiveness/
Brodie,
D. (2007). 6 steps to better decision making. Retrieved Jun 1, 2019, from https://ezinearticles.com/?6-Steps-to-Better-Decision-Making&id=817450
Coscarelli,
W. (2007). The Decision-Making Style Inventory, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Retrieved on May 31, 2019 from https://www2.humboldt.edu/acac/sites/default/files/ADD9-T10-AZ-Undecided.pdf
Hoch, S., Kunreuther, H., & Gunther, R. (2001). Wharton
on making decisions. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
No comments:
Post a Comment