phases of problem solving and decision making

• Business Essentials
• Leadership & Management
• Credential of Leadership, Impact, and Management in Business (CLIMB)
• Entrepreneurship & Innovation
• Digital Transformation
• Finance & Accounting
• Business in Society
• For Organizations
• Support Portal
• Media Coverage
• Founding Donors
• Leadership Team

• Harvard Business School →
• HBS Online →
• Business Insights →

Business Insights

Harvard Business School Online's Business Insights Blog provides the career insights you need to achieve your goals and gain confidence in your business skills.

• Career Development
• Communication
• Decision-Making
• Earning Your MBA
• Negotiation
• News & Events
• Productivity
• Staff Spotlight
• Student Profiles
• Work-Life Balance
• AI Essentials for Business
• Alternative Investments
• Business Analytics
• Business Strategy
• Business and Climate Change
• Design Thinking and Innovation
• Digital Marketing Strategy
• Disruptive Strategy
• Economics for Managers
• Entrepreneurship Essentials
• Financial Accounting
• Global Business
• Launching Tech Ventures
• Leadership Principles
• Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability
• Leading Change and Organizational Renewal
• Leading with Finance
• Management Essentials
• Negotiation Mastery
• Organizational Leadership
• Power and Influence for Positive Impact
• Strategy Execution
• Sustainable Business Strategy
• Sustainable Investing
• Winning with Digital Platforms

8 Steps in the Decision-Making Process

• 04 Feb 2020

Strong decision-making skills are essential for newly appointed and seasoned managers alike. The ability to navigate complex challenges and develop a plan can not only lead to more effective team management but drive key organizational change initiatives and objectives.

Despite decision-making’s importance in business, a recent survey by McKinsey shows that just 20 percent of professionals believe their organizations excel at it. Survey respondents noted that, on average, they spend 37 percent of their time making decisions, but more than half of it’s used ineffectively.

For managers, it’s critical to ensure effective decisions are made for their organizations’ success. Every managerial decision must be accompanied by research and data , collaboration, and alternative solutions.

Few managers, however, reap the benefits of making more thoughtful choices due to undeveloped decision-making models.

Access your free e-book today.

Why Is Making Decisions Important?

According to Harvard Business School Professor Leonard Schlesinger, who’s featured in the online course Management Essentials , most managers view decision-making as a single event, rather than a process. This can lead to managers overestimating their abilities to influence outcomes and closing themselves off from alternative perspectives and diverse ways of thinking.

“The reality is, it’s very rare to find a single point in time where ‘a decision of significance’ is made and things go forward from there,” Schlesinger says. “Embedded in this work is the notion that what we’re really talking about is a process. The role of the manager in managing that process is actually quite straightforward, yet, at the same time, extraordinarily complex.”

If you want to further your business knowledge and be more effective in your role, it’s critical to become a strong decision-maker. Here are eight steps in the decision-making process you can employ to become a better manager and have greater influence in your organization.

Steps in the Decision-Making Process

1. frame the decision.

Pinpointing the issue is the first step to initiating the decision-making process. Ensure the problem is carefully analyzed, clearly defined, and everyone involved in the outcome agrees on what needs to be solved. This process will give your team peace of mind that each key decision is based on extensive research and collaboration.

Schlesinger says this initial action can be challenging for managers because an ill-formed question can result in a process that produces the wrong decision.

“The real issue for a manager at the start is to make sure they are actively working to shape the question they’re trying to address and the decision they’re trying to have made,” Schlesinger says. “That’s not a trivial task.”

2. Structure Your Team

Managers must assemble the right people to navigate the decision-making process.

“The issue of who’s going to be involved in helping you to make that decision is one of the most central issues you face,” Schlesinger says. “The primary issue being the membership of the collection of individuals or group that you’re bringing together to make that decision.”

As you build your team, Schlesinger advises mapping the technical, political, and cultural underpinnings of the decision that needs to be made and gathering colleagues with an array of skills and experience levels to help you make an informed decision. .

“You want some newcomers who are going to provide a different point of view and perspective on the issue you’re dealing with,” he says. “At the same time, you want people who have profound knowledge and deep experience with the problem.”

It’s key to assign decision tasks to colleagues and invite perspectives that uncover blindspots or roadblocks. Schlesinger notes that attempting to arrive at the “right answer” without a team that will ultimately support and execute it is a “recipe for failure.”

3. Consider the Timeframe

This act of mapping the issue’s intricacies should involve taking the decision’s urgency into account. Business problems with significant implications sometimes allow for lengthier decision-making processes, whereas other challenges call for more accelerated timelines.

“As a manager, you need to shape the decision-making process in terms of both of those dimensions: The criticality of what it is you’re trying to decide and, more importantly, how quickly it needs to get decided given the urgency,” Schlesinger says. “The final question is, how much time you’re going to provide yourself and the group to invest in both problem diagnosis and decisions.”

4. Establish Your Approach

In the early stages of the decision-making process, it’s critical to set ground rules and assign roles to team members. Doing so can help ensure everyone understands how they contribute to problem-solving and agrees on how a solution will be reached.

“It’s really important to get clarity upfront around the roles people are going to play and the ways in which decisions are going to get made,” Schlesinger says. “Often, managers leave that to chance, so people self-assign themselves to roles in ways that you don’t necessarily want, and the decision-making process defers to consensus, which is likely to lead to a lower evaluation of the problem and a less creative solution.”

5. Encourage Discussion and Debate

One of the issues of leading a group that defaults to consensus is that it can shut out contrarian points of view and deter inventive problem-solving. Because of this potential pitfall, Schlesinger notes, you should designate roles that focus on poking holes in arguments and fostering debate.

“What we’re talking about is establishing a process of devil’s advocacy, either in an individual or a subgroup role,” he says. “That’s much more likely to lead to a deeper critical evaluation and generate a substantial number of alternatives.”

Schlesinger adds that this action can take time and potentially disrupt group harmony, so it’s vital for managers to guide the inner workings of the process from the outset to ensure effective collaboration and guarantee more quality decisions will be made.

“What we need to do is establish norms in the group that enable us to be open to a broader array of data and decision-making processes,” he says. “If that doesn’t happen upfront, but in the process without a conversation, it’s generally a source of consternation and some measure of frustration.”

Related: 3 Group Decision-Making Techniques for Success

6. Navigate Group Dynamics

In addition to creating a dynamic in which candor and debate are encouraged, there are other challenges you need to navigate as you manage your team throughout the decision-making process.

One is ensuring the size of the group is appropriate for the problem and allows for an efficient workflow.

“In getting all the people together that have relevant data and represent various political and cultural constituencies, each incremental member adds to the complexity of the decision-making process and the amount of time it takes to get a decision made and implemented,” Schlesinger says.

Another task, he notes, is identifying which parts of the process can be completed without face-to-face interaction.

“There’s no question that pieces of the decision-making process can be deferred to paper, email, or some app,” Schlesinger says. “But, at the end of the day, given that so much of decision-making requires high-quality human interaction, you need to defer some part of the process for ill-structured and difficult tasks to a face-to-face meeting.”

7. Ensure the Pieces Are in Place for Implementation

Throughout your team’s efforts to arrive at a decision, you must ensure you facilitate a process that encompasses:

• Shared goals that were presented upfront
• Alternative options that have been given rigorous thought and fair consideration
• Sound methods for exploring decisions’ consequences

According to Schlesinger, these components profoundly influence the quality of the solution that’s ultimately identified and the types of decisions that’ll be made in the future.

“In the general manager’s job, the quality of the decision is only one part of the equation,” he says. “All of this is oriented toward trying to make sure that once a decision is made, we have the right groupings and the right support to implement.”

8. Achieve Closure and Alignment

Achieving closure in the decision-making process requires arriving at a solution that sufficiently aligns members of your group and garners enough support to implement it.

As with the other phases of decision-making, clear communication ensures your team understands and commits to the plan.

In a video interview for the online course Management Essentials , Harvard Business School Dean Nitin Nohria says it’s essential to explain the rationale behind the decision to your employees.

“If it’s a decision that you have to make, say, ‘I know there were some of you who thought differently, but let me tell you why we went this way,’” Nohria says. “This is so the people on the other side feel heard and recognize the concerns they raised are things you’ve tried to incorporate into the decision and, as implementation proceeds, if those concerns become real, then they’ll be attended to.”

How to Improve Your Decision-Making

An in-depth understanding of the decision-making process is vital for all managers. Whether you’re an aspiring manager aiming to move up at your organization or a seasoned executive who wants to boost your job performance, honing your approach to decision-making can improve your managerial skills and equip you with the tools to advance your career.

Do you want to become a more effective decision-maker? Explore Management Essentials —one of our online leadership and management courses —to learn how you can influence the context and environment in which decisions get made.

This article was update on July 15, 2022. It was originally published on February 4, 2020.

About the Author

How it works

For Business

Join Mind Tools

Article • 4 min read

The Problem-Solving Process

Looking at the basic problem-solving process to help keep you on the right track.

By the Mind Tools Content Team

Problem-solving is an important part of planning and decision-making. The process has much in common with the decision-making process, and in the case of complex decisions, can form part of the process itself.

We face and solve problems every day, in a variety of guises and of differing complexity. Some, such as the resolution of a serious complaint, require a significant amount of time, thought and investigation. Others, such as a printer running out of paper, are so quickly resolved they barely register as a problem at all.

Despite the everyday occurrence of problems, many people lack confidence when it comes to solving them, and as a result may chose to stay with the status quo rather than tackle the issue. Broken down into steps, however, the problem-solving process is very simple. While there are many tools and techniques available to help us solve problems, the outline process remains the same.

The main stages of problem-solving are outlined below, though not all are required for every problem that needs to be solved.

1. Define the Problem

Clarify the problem before trying to solve it. A common mistake with problem-solving is to react to what the problem appears to be, rather than what it actually is. Write down a simple statement of the problem, and then underline the key words. Be certain there are no hidden assumptions in the key words you have underlined. One way of doing this is to use a synonym to replace the key words. For example, ‘We need to encourage higher productivity ’ might become ‘We need to promote superior output ’ which has a different meaning.

2. Analyze the Problem

Ask yourself, and others, the following questions.

• Where is the problem occurring?
• When is it occurring?
• Why is it happening?

Be careful not to jump to ‘who is causing the problem?’. When stressed and faced with a problem it is all too easy to assign blame. This, however, can cause negative feeling and does not help to solve the problem. As an example, if an employee is underperforming, the root of the problem might lie in a number of areas, such as lack of training, workplace bullying or management style. To assign immediate blame to the employee would not therefore resolve the underlying issue.

Once the answers to the where, when and why have been determined, the following questions should also be asked:

• Where can further information be found?
• Is this information correct, up-to-date and unbiased?
• What does this information mean in terms of the available options?

3. Generate Potential Solutions

When generating potential solutions it can be a good idea to have a mixture of ‘right brain’ and ‘left brain’ thinkers. In other words, some people who think laterally and some who think logically. This provides a balance in terms of generating the widest possible variety of solutions while also being realistic about what can be achieved. There are many tools and techniques which can help produce solutions, including thinking about the problem from a number of different perspectives, and brainstorming, where a team or individual write as many possibilities as they can think of to encourage lateral thinking and generate a broad range of potential solutions.

4. Select Best Solution

When selecting the best solution, consider:

• Is this a long-term solution, or a ‘quick fix’?
• Is the solution achievable in terms of available resources and time?
• Are there any risks associated with the chosen solution?
• Could the solution, in itself, lead to other problems?

This stage in particular demonstrates why problem-solving and decision-making are so closely related.

5. Take Action

In order to implement the chosen solution effectively, consider the following:

• What will the situation look like when the problem is resolved?
• What needs to be done to implement the solution? Are there systems or processes that need to be adjusted?
• What will be the success indicators?
• What are the timescales for the implementation? Does the scale of the problem/implementation require a project plan?
• Who is responsible?

Once the answers to all the above questions are written down, they can form the basis of an action plan.

6. Monitor and Review

One of the most important factors in successful problem-solving is continual observation and feedback. Use the success indicators in the action plan to monitor progress on a regular basis. Is everything as expected? Is everything on schedule? Keep an eye on priorities and timelines to prevent them from slipping.

If the indicators are not being met, or if timescales are slipping, consider what can be done. Was the plan realistic? If so, are sufficient resources being made available? Are these resources targeting the correct part of the plan? Or does the plan need to be amended? Regular review and discussion of the action plan is important so small adjustments can be made on a regular basis to help keep everything on track.

Once all the indicators have been met and the problem has been resolved, consider what steps can now be taken to prevent this type of problem recurring? It may be that the chosen solution already prevents a recurrence, however if an interim or partial solution has been chosen it is important not to lose momentum.

Problems, by their very nature, will not always fit neatly into a structured problem-solving process. This process, therefore, is designed as a framework which can be adapted to individual needs and nature.

Join Mind Tools and get access to exclusive content.

This resource is only available to Mind Tools members.

Already a member? Please Login here

Gain essential management and leadership skills

Busy schedule? No problem. Learn anytime, anywhere. 

Subscribe to unlimited access to meticulously researched, evidence-based resources.

Join today and take advantage of our 30% offer, available until May 31st .

Sign-up to our newsletter

Subscribing to the Mind Tools newsletter will keep you up-to-date with our latest updates and newest resources.

Subscribe now

Business Skills

Personal Development

Leadership and Management

Member Extras

Most Popular

Latest Updates

Working for Yourself

4-Step Action Plans Infographic

Mind Tools Store

About Mind Tools Content

Discover something new today

Successful strategy execution.

With Andrew MacLennan

Expert Interviews

Managing Arrogant People

Developing Team Players

How Emotionally Intelligent Are You?

Boosting Your People Skills

Self-Assessment

What's Your Leadership Style?

Learn About the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Way You Like to Lead

Recommended for you

The action priority matrix.

Making the Most of Your Opportunities

Business Operations and Process Management

Strategy Tools

Customer Service

Business Ethics and Values

Handling Information and Data

Project Management

Knowledge Management

Self-Development and Goal Setting

Time Management

Presentation Skills

Learning Skills

Career Skills

Communication Skills

Negotiation, Persuasion and Influence

Working With Others

Difficult Conversations

Creativity Tools

Self-Management

Work-Life Balance

Stress Management and Wellbeing

Coaching and Mentoring

Change Management

Team Management

Managing Conflict

Delegation and Empowerment

Performance Management

Leadership Skills

Developing Your Team

Talent Management

Problem Solving

Decision Making

Member Podcast

• INTERPERSONAL SKILLS
• Decision-Making and Problem Solving

Search SkillsYouNeed:

Interpersonal Skills:

• A - Z List of Interpersonal Skills
• Interpersonal Skills Self-Assessment
• Communication Skills
• Emotional Intelligence
• Conflict Resolution and Mediation Skills
• Customer Service Skills
• Team-Working, Groups and Meetings

Decision-Making and Problem-Solving

• Effective Decision Making
• Decision-Making Framework
• Introduction to Problem Solving

Identifying and Structuring Problems

Investigating Ideas and Solutions

Implementing a Solution and Feedback

• Creative Problem-Solving

Social Problem-Solving

• Negotiation and Persuasion Skills
• Personal and Romantic Relationship Skills

Subscribe to our FREE newsletter and start improving your life in just 5 minutes a day.

You'll get our 5 free 'One Minute Life Skills' and our weekly newsletter.

We'll never share your email address and you can unsubscribe at any time.

The SkillsYouNeed Guide to Interpersonal Skills

Making decisions and solving problems are two key areas in life, whether you are at home or at work. Whatever you’re doing, and wherever you are, you are faced with countless decisions and problems, both small and large, every day.

Many decisions and problems are so small that we may not even notice them. Even small decisions, however, can be overwhelming to some people. They may come to a halt as they consider their dilemma and try to decide what to do.

Small and Large Decisions

In your day-to-day life you're likely to encounter numerous 'small decisions', including, for example:

Tea or coffee?

What shall I have in my sandwich? Or should I have a salad instead today?

What shall I wear today?

Larger decisions may occur less frequently but may include:

Should we repaint the kitchen? If so, what colour?

Should we relocate?

Should I propose to my partner? Do I really want to spend the rest of my life with him/her?

These decisions, and others like them, may take considerable time and effort to make.

The relationship between decision-making and problem-solving is complex. Decision-making is perhaps best thought of as a key part of problem-solving: one part of the overall process.

Our approach at Skills You Need is to set out a framework to help guide you through the decision-making process. You won’t always need to use the whole framework, or even use it at all, but you may find it useful if you are a bit ‘stuck’ and need something to help you make a difficult decision.

Decision Making

Effective Decision-Making

This page provides information about ways of making a decision, including basing it on logic or emotion (‘gut feeling’). It also explains what can stop you making an effective decision, including too much or too little information, and not really caring about the outcome.

A Decision-Making Framework

This page sets out one possible framework for decision-making.

The framework described is quite extensive, and may seem quite formal. But it is also a helpful process to run through in a briefer form, for smaller problems, as it will help you to make sure that you really do have all the information that you need.

Problem Solving

Introduction to Problem-Solving

This page provides a general introduction to the idea of problem-solving. It explores the idea of goals (things that you want to achieve) and barriers (things that may prevent you from achieving your goals), and explains the problem-solving process at a broad level.

The first stage in solving any problem is to identify it, and then break it down into its component parts. Even the biggest, most intractable-seeming problems, can become much more manageable if they are broken down into smaller parts. This page provides some advice about techniques you can use to do so.

Sometimes, the possible options to address your problem are obvious. At other times, you may need to involve others, or think more laterally to find alternatives. This page explains some principles, and some tools and techniques to help you do so.

Having generated solutions, you need to decide which one to take, which is where decision-making meets problem-solving. But once decided, there is another step: to deliver on your decision, and then see if your chosen solution works. This page helps you through this process.

‘Social’ problems are those that we encounter in everyday life, including money trouble, problems with other people, health problems and crime. These problems, like any others, are best solved using a framework to identify the problem, work out the options for addressing it, and then deciding which option to use.

This page provides more information about the key skills needed for practical problem-solving in real life.

Further Reading from Skills You Need

The Skills You Need Guide to Interpersonal Skills eBooks.

Develop your interpersonal skills with our series of eBooks. Learn about and improve your communication skills, tackle conflict resolution, mediate in difficult situations, and develop your emotional intelligence.

Guiding you through the key skills needed in life

As always at Skills You Need, our approach to these key skills is to provide practical ways to manage the process, and to develop your skills.

Neither problem-solving nor decision-making is an intrinsically difficult process and we hope you will find our pages useful in developing your skills.

Start with: Decision Making Problem Solving

See also: Improving Communication Interpersonal Communication Skills Building Confidence

Work Life is Atlassian’s flagship publication dedicated to unleashing the potential of every team through real-life advice, inspiring stories, and thoughtful perspectives from leaders around the world.

Contributing Writer

Work Futurist

Senior Quantitative Researcher, People Insights

Principal Writer

This is how effective teams navigate the decision-making process

Zero Magic 8 Balls required.

Get stories like this in your inbox

Flipping a coin. Throwing a dart at a board. Pulling a slip of paper out of a hat.

Sure, they’re all ways to make a choice. But they all hinge on random chance rather than analysis, reflection, and strategy — you know, the things you actually need to make the big, meaty decisions that have major impacts.

So, set down that Magic 8 Ball and back away slowly. Let’s walk through the standard framework for decision-making that will help you and your team pinpoint the problem, consider your options, and make your most informed selection. Here’s a closer look at each of the seven steps of the decision-making process, and how to approach each one. 

Step 1: Identify the decision

Most of us are eager to tie on our superhero capes and jump into problem-solving mode — especially if our team is depending on a solution. But you can’t solve a problem until you have a full grasp on what it actually is .

This first step focuses on getting the lay of the land when it comes to your decision. What specific problem are you trying to solve? What goal are you trying to achieve? 

How to do it: 

• Use the 5 whys analysis to go beyond surface-level symptoms and understand the root cause of a problem.
• Try problem framing to dig deep on the ins and outs of whatever problem your team is fixing. The point is to define the problem, not solve it. 

⚠️ Watch out for: Decision fatigue , which is the tendency to make worse decisions as a result of needing to make too many of them. Making choices is mentally taxing , which is why it’s helpful to pinpoint one decision at a time. 

2. Gather information

Your team probably has a few hunches and best guesses, but those can lead to knee-jerk reactions. Take care to invest adequate time and research into your decision.

This step is when you build your case, so to speak. Collect relevant information — that could be data, customer stories, information about past projects, feedback, or whatever else seems pertinent. You’ll use that to make decisions that are informed, rather than impulsive.

• Host a team mindmapping session to freely explore ideas and make connections between them. It can help you identify what information will best support the process.
• Create a project poster to define your goals and also determine what information you already know and what you still need to find out. 

⚠️ Watch out for: Information bias , or the tendency to seek out information even if it won’t impact your action. We have the tendency to think more information is always better, but pulling together a bunch of facts and insights that aren’t applicable may cloud your judgment rather than offer clarity. 

3. Identify alternatives

Use divergent thinking to generate fresh ideas in your next brainstorm

Blame the popularity of the coin toss, but making a decision often feels like choosing between only two options. Do you want heads or tails? Door number one or door number two? In reality, your options aren’t usually so cut and dried. Take advantage of this opportunity to get creative and brainstorm all sorts of routes or solutions. There’s no need to box yourselves in. 

• Use the Six Thinking Hats technique to explore the problem or goal from all sides: information, emotions and instinct, risks, benefits, and creativity. It can help you and your team break away from your typical roles or mindsets and think more freely.
• Try brainwriting so team members can write down their ideas independently before sharing with the group. Research shows that this quiet, lone thinking time can boost psychological safety and generate more creative suggestions .

⚠️ Watch out for: Groupthink , which is the tendency of a group to make non-optimal decisions in the interest of conformity. People don’t want to rock the boat, so they don’t speak up. 

4. Consider the evidence

Armed with your list of alternatives, it’s time to take a closer look and determine which ones could be worth pursuing. You and your team should ask questions like “How will this solution address the problem or achieve the goal?” and “What are the pros and cons of this option?” 

Be honest with your answers (and back them up with the information you already collected when you can). Remind the team that this isn’t about advocating for their own suggestions to “win” — it’s about whittling your options down to the best decision. 

How to do it:

• Use a SWOT analysis to dig into the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of the options you’re seriously considering.
• Run a project trade-off analysis to understand what constraints (such as time, scope, or cost) the team is most willing to compromise on if needed. 

⚠️ Watch out for: Extinction by instinct , which is the urge to make a decision just to get it over with. You didn’t come this far to settle for a “good enough” option! 

5. Choose among the alternatives

This is it — it’s the big moment when you and the team actually make the decision. You’ve identified all possible options, considered the supporting evidence, and are ready to choose how you’ll move forward.

However, bear in mind that there’s still a surprising amount of room for flexibility here. Maybe you’ll modify an alternative or combine a few suggested solutions together to land on the best fit for your problem and your team. 

• Use the DACI framework (that stands for “driver, approver, contributor, informed”) to understand who ultimately has the final say in decisions. The decision-making process can be collaborative, but eventually someone needs to be empowered to make the final call.
• Try a simple voting method for decisions that are more democratized. You’ll simply tally your team’s votes and go with the majority. 

⚠️ Watch out for: Analysis paralysis , which is when you overthink something to such a great degree that you feel overwhelmed and freeze when it’s time to actually make a choice. 

6. Take action

Making a big decision takes a hefty amount of work, but it’s only the first part of the process — now you need to actually implement it. 

It’s tempting to think that decisions will work themselves out once they’re made. But particularly in a team setting, it’s crucial to invest just as much thought and planning into communicating the decision and successfully rolling it out. 

• Create a stakeholder communications plan to determine how you’ll keep various people — direct team members, company leaders, customers, or whoever else has an active interest in your decision — in the loop on your progress.
• Define the goals, signals, and measures of your decision so you’ll have an easier time aligning the team around the next steps and determining whether or not they’re successful. 

⚠️Watch out for: Self-doubt, or the tendency to question whether or not you’re making the right move. While we’re hardwired for doubt , now isn’t the time to be a skeptic about your decision. You and the team have done the work, so trust the process. 

7. Review your decision

9 retrospective techniques that won’t bore your team to tears

As the decision itself starts to shake out, it’s time to take a look in the rearview mirror and reflect on how things went.

Did your decision work out the way you and the team hoped? What happened? Examine both the good and the bad. What should you keep in mind if and when you need to make this sort of decision again? 

• Do a 4 L’s retrospective to talk through what you and the team loved, loathed, learned, and longed for as a result of that decision.
• Celebrate any wins (yes, even the small ones ) related to that decision. It gives morale a good kick in the pants and can also help make future decisions feel a little less intimidating.

⚠️ Watch out for: Hindsight bias , or the tendency to look back on events with the knowledge you have now and beat yourself up for not knowing better at the time. Even with careful thought and planning, some decisions don’t work out — but you can only operate with the information you have at the time. 

Making smart decisions about the decision-making process

You’re probably picking up on the fact that the decision-making process is fairly comprehensive. And the truth is that the model is likely overkill for the small and inconsequential decisions you or your team members need to make.

Deciding whether you should order tacos or sandwiches for your team offsite doesn’t warrant this much discussion and elbow grease. But figuring out which major project to prioritize next? That requires some careful and collaborative thought. 

It all comes back to the concept of satisficing versus maximizing , which are two different perspectives on decision making. Here’s the gist:

• Maximizers aim to get the very best out of every single decision.
• Satisficers are willing to settle for “good enough” rather than obsessing over achieving the best outcome.

One of those isn’t necessarily better than the other — and, in fact, they both have their time and place.

A major decision with far-reaching impacts deserves some fixation and perfectionism. However, hemming and hawing over trivial choices ( “Should we start our team meeting with casual small talk or a structured icebreaker?” ) will only cause added stress, frustration, and slowdowns. 

As with anything else, it’s worth thinking about the potential impacts to determine just how much deliberation and precision a decision actually requires. 

Decision-making is one of those things that’s part art and part science. You’ll likely have some gut feelings and instincts that are worth taking into account. But those should also be complemented with plenty of evidence, evaluation, and collaboration.

The decision-making process is a framework that helps you strike that balance. Follow the seven steps and you and your team can feel confident in the decisions you make — while leaving the darts and coins where they belong.

Advice, stories, and expertise about work life today.

• Subject List
• Take a Tour
• For Authors
• Subscriber Services
• Publications
• African American Studies
• African Studies
• American Literature
• Anthropology
• Architecture Planning and Preservation
• Art History
• Atlantic History
• Biblical Studies
• British and Irish Literature
• Childhood Studies
• Chinese Studies
• Cinema and Media Studies
• Communication
• Criminology
• Environmental Science
• Evolutionary Biology
• International Law
• International Relations
• Islamic Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Latino Studies
• Linguistics
• Literary and Critical Theory
• Medieval Studies
• Military History
• Political Science
• Public Health
• Renaissance and Reformation
• Social Work
• Urban Studies
• Victorian Literature
• Browse All Subjects

How to Subscribe

• Free Trials

In This Article Expand or collapse the "in this article" section Problem Solving and Decision Making

Introduction.

• General Approaches to Problem Solving
• Representational Accounts
• Problem Space and Search
• Working Memory and Problem Solving
• Domain-Specific Problem Solving
• The Rational Approach
• Prospect Theory
• Dual-Process Theory
• Cognitive Heuristics and Biases

Related Articles Expand or collapse the "related articles" section about

About related articles close popup.

Lorem Ipsum Sit Dolor Amet

Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Aliquam ligula odio, euismod ut aliquam et, vestibulum nec risus. Nulla viverra, arcu et iaculis consequat, justo diam ornare tellus, semper ultrices tellus nunc eu tellus.

• Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, and Psychology
• Counterfactual Reasoning
• Critical Thinking
• Heuristics and Biases
• Protocol Analysis
• Psychology and Law

Other Subject Areas

Forthcoming articles expand or collapse the "forthcoming articles" section.

• Data Visualization
• Remote Work
• Workforce Training Evaluation
• Find more forthcoming articles...
• Export Citations
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Problem Solving and Decision Making by Emily G. Nielsen , John Paul Minda LAST REVIEWED: 26 June 2019 LAST MODIFIED: 26 June 2019 DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199828340-0246

Problem solving and decision making are both examples of complex, higher-order thinking. Both involve the assessment of the environment, the involvement of working memory or short-term memory, reliance on long term memory, effects of knowledge, and the application of heuristics to complete a behavior. A problem can be defined as an impasse or gap between a current state and a desired goal state. Problem solving is the set of cognitive operations that a person engages in to change the current state, to go beyond the impasse, and achieve a desired outcome. Problem solving involves the mental representation of the problem state and the manipulation of this representation in order to move closer to the goal. Problems can vary in complexity, abstraction, and how well defined (or not) the initial state and the goal state are. Research has generally approached problem solving by examining the behaviors and cognitive processes involved, and some work has examined problem solving using computational processes as well. Decision making is the process of selecting and choosing one action or behavior out of several alternatives. Like problem solving, decision making involves the coordination of memories and executive resources. Research on decision making has paid particular attention to the cognitive biases that account for suboptimal decisions and decisions that deviate from rationality. The current bibliography first outlines some general resources on the psychology of problem solving and decision making before examining each of these topics in detail. Specifically, this review covers cognitive, neuroscientific, and computational approaches to problem solving, as well as decision making models and cognitive heuristics and biases.

General Overviews

Current research in the area of problem solving and decision making is published in both general and specialized scientific journals. Theoretical and scholarly work is often summarized and developed in full-length books and chapter. These may focus on the subfields of problem solving and decision making or the larger field of thinking and higher-order cognition.

back to top

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content on this page. Please subscribe or login .

Oxford Bibliographies Online is available by subscription and perpetual access to institutions. For more information or to contact an Oxford Sales Representative click here .

• About Psychology »
• Meet the Editorial Board »
• Abnormal Psychology
• Academic Assessment
• Acculturation and Health
• Action Regulation Theory
• Action Research
• Addictive Behavior
• Adolescence
• Adoption, Social, Psychological, and Evolutionary Perspect...
• Advanced Theory of Mind
• Affective Forecasting
• Affirmative Action
• Ageism at Work
• Allport, Gordon
• Alzheimer’s Disease
• Ambulatory Assessment in Behavioral Science
• Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA)
• Animal Behavior
• Animal Learning
• Anxiety Disorders
• Art and Aesthetics, Psychology of
• Assessment and Clinical Applications of Individual Differe...
• Attachment in Social and Emotional Development across the ...
• Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in Adults
• Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in Childre...
• Attitudinal Ambivalence
• Attraction in Close Relationships
• Attribution Theory
• Authoritarian Personality
• Bayesian Statistical Methods in Psychology
• Behavior Therapy, Rational Emotive
• Behavioral Economics
• Behavioral Genetics
• Belief Perseverance
• Bereavement and Grief
• Biological Psychology
• Birth Order
• Body Image in Men and Women
• Bystander Effect
• Categorical Data Analysis in Psychology
• Childhood and Adolescence, Peer Victimization and Bullying...
• Clark, Mamie Phipps
• Clinical Neuropsychology
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Consistency Theories
• Cognitive Dissonance Theory
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Communication, Nonverbal Cues and
• Comparative Psychology
• Competence to Stand Trial: Restoration Services
• Competency to Stand Trial
• Computational Psychology
• Conflict Management in the Workplace
• Conformity, Compliance, and Obedience
• Consciousness
• Coping Processes
• Correspondence Analysis in Psychology
• Counseling Psychology
• Creativity at Work
• Cross-Cultural Psychology
• Cultural Psychology
• Daily Life, Research Methods for Studying
• Data Science Methods for Psychology
• Data Sharing in Psychology
• Death and Dying
• Deceiving and Detecting Deceit
• Defensive Processes
• Depressive Disorders
• Development, Prenatal
• Developmental Psychology (Cognitive)
• Developmental Psychology (Social)
• Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM...
• Discrimination
• Dissociative Disorders
• Drugs and Behavior
• Eating Disorders
• Ecological Psychology
• Educational Settings, Assessment of Thinking in
• Effect Size
• Embodiment and Embodied Cognition
• Emerging Adulthood
• Emotional Intelligence
• Empathy and Altruism
• Employee Stress and Well-Being
• Environmental Neuroscience and Environmental Psychology
• Ethics in Psychological Practice
• Event Perception
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Expansive Posture
• Experimental Existential Psychology
• Exploratory Data Analysis
• Eyewitness Testimony
• Eysenck, Hans
• Factor Analysis
• Festinger, Leon
• Five-Factor Model of Personality
• Flynn Effect, The
• Forensic Psychology
• Forgiveness
• Friendships, Children's
• Fundamental Attribution Error/Correspondence Bias
• Gambler's Fallacy
• Game Theory and Psychology
• Geropsychology, Clinical
• Global Mental Health
• Habit Formation and Behavior Change
• Health Psychology
• Health Psychology Research and Practice, Measurement in
• Heider, Fritz
• History of Psychology
• Human Factors
• Humanistic Psychology
• Implicit Association Test (IAT)
• Industrial and Organizational Psychology
• Inferential Statistics in Psychology
• Insanity Defense, The
• Intelligence
• Intelligence, Crystallized and Fluid
• Intercultural Psychology
• Intergroup Conflict
• International Classification of Diseases and Related Healt...
• International Psychology
• Interviewing in Forensic Settings
• Intimate Partner Violence, Psychological Perspectives on
• Introversion–Extraversion
• Item Response Theory
• Law, Psychology and
• Lazarus, Richard
• Learned Helplessness
• Learning Theory
• Learning versus Performance
• LGBTQ+ Romantic Relationships
• Lie Detection in a Forensic Context
• Life-Span Development
• Locus of Control
• Loneliness and Health
• Mathematical Psychology
• Meaning in Life
• Mechanisms and Processes of Peer Contagion
• Media Violence, Psychological Perspectives on
• Mediation Analysis
• Memories, Autobiographical
• Memories, Flashbulb
• Memories, Repressed and Recovered
• Memory, False
• Memory, Human
• Memory, Implicit versus Explicit
• Memory in Educational Settings
• Memory, Semantic
• Meta-Analysis
• Metacognition
• Metaphor, Psychological Perspectives on
• Microaggressions
• Military Psychology
• Mindfulness
• Mindfulness and Education
• Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)
• Money, Psychology of
• Moral Conviction
• Moral Development
• Moral Psychology
• Moral Reasoning
• Nature versus Nurture Debate in Psychology
• Neuroscience of Associative Learning
• Nonergodicity in Psychology and Neuroscience
• Nonparametric Statistical Analysis in Psychology
• Observational (Non-Randomized) Studies
• Obsessive-Complusive Disorder (OCD)
• Occupational Health Psychology
• Olfaction, Human
• Operant Conditioning
• Optimism and Pessimism
• Organizational Justice
• Parenting Stress
• Parenting Styles
• Parents' Beliefs about Children
• Path Models
• Peace Psychology
• Perception, Person
• Performance Appraisal
• Personality and Health
• Personality Disorders
• Personality Psychology
• Person-Centered and Experiential Psychotherapies: From Car...
• Phenomenological Psychology
• Placebo Effects in Psychology
• Play Behavior
• Positive Psychological Capital (PsyCap)
• Positive Psychology
• Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
• Prejudice and Stereotyping
• Pretrial Publicity
• Prisoner's Dilemma
• Problem Solving and Decision Making
• Procrastination
• Prosocial Behavior
• Prosocial Spending and Well-Being
• Psycholinguistics
• Psychological Literacy
• Psychological Perspectives on Food and Eating
• Psychology, Political
• Psychoneuroimmunology
• Psychophysics, Visual
• Psychotherapy
• Psychotic Disorders
• Publication Bias in Psychology
• Reasoning, Counterfactual
• Rehabilitation Psychology
• Relationships
• Reliability–Contemporary Psychometric Conceptions
• Religion, Psychology and
• Replication Initiatives in Psychology
• Research Methods
• Risk Taking
• Role of the Expert Witness in Forensic Psychology, The
• Sample Size Planning for Statistical Power and Accurate Es...
• Schizophrenic Disorders
• School Psychology
• School Psychology, Counseling Services in
• Self, Gender and
• Self, Psychology of the
• Self-Construal
• Self-Control
• Self-Deception
• Self-Determination Theory
• Self-Efficacy
• Self-Esteem
• Self-Monitoring
• Self-Regulation in Educational Settings
• Self-Report Tests, Measures, and Inventories in Clinical P...
• Sensation Seeking
• Sex and Gender
• Sexual Minority Parenting
• Sexual Orientation
• Signal Detection Theory and its Applications
• Simpson's Paradox in Psychology
• Single People
• Single-Case Experimental Designs
• Skinner, B.F.
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Small Groups
• Social Class and Social Status
• Social Cognition
• Social Neuroscience
• Social Support
• Social Touch and Massage Therapy Research
• Somatoform Disorders
• Spatial Attention
• Sports Psychology
• Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE): Icon and Controversy
• Stereotype Threat
• Stereotypes
• Stress and Coping, Psychology of
• Student Success in College
• Subjective Wellbeing Homeostasis
• Taste, Psychological Perspectives on
• Teaching of Psychology
• Terror Management Theory
• Testing and Assessment
• The Concept of Validity in Psychological Assessment
• The Neuroscience of Emotion Regulation
• The Reasoned Action Approach and the Theories of Reasoned ...
• The Weapon Focus Effect in Eyewitness Memory
• Theory of Mind
• Therapy, Cognitive-Behavioral
• Thinking Skills in Educational Settings
• Time Perception
• Trait Perspective
• Trauma Psychology
• Twin Studies
• Type A Behavior Pattern (Coronary Prone Personality)
• Unconscious Processes
• Video Games and Violent Content
• Virtues and Character Strengths
• Women and Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM...
• Women, Psychology of
• Work Well-Being
• Wundt, Wilhelm
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility

Powered by:

• [66.249.64.20|185.66.14.133]
• 185.66.14.133

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

The Psychology of Decision-Making Strategies

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Carly Snyder, MD is a reproductive and perinatal psychiatrist who combines traditional psychiatry with integrative medicine-based treatments.

 Portra / Getty Images

You have to make decisions both large and small throughout every single day of your life. What do you want to have for breakfast? What time should you meet a friend for dinner? What college should you go to? How many children do you want to have?

When faced with some decisions, you might be tempted to just flip a coin and let chance determine your fate. In most cases, we follow a certain strategy or series of strategies in order to arrive at a decision.

For many of the relatively minor decisions that we make each and every day, flipping a coin wouldn't be such a terrible approach. For some of the complex and important decisions, we are more likely to invest a lot of time, research, effort, and mental energy into coming to the right conclusion.

So how exactly does this process work? The following are some of the major decision-making strategies that you might use.

The Single-Feature Model

This approach involves hinging your decision solely on a single feature. For example, imagine that you are buying soap. Faced with a wide variety of options at your local superstore, you decide to base your decision on price and buy the cheapest type of soap available. In this case, you ignored other variables (such as scent, brand, reputation, and effectiveness) and focused on just a single feature.

The single-feature approach can be effective in situations where the decision is relatively simple and you are pressed for time. However, it is generally not the best strategy when dealing with more complex decisions.

The Additive Feature Model

This method involves taking into account all the important features of the possible choices and then systematically evaluating each option. This approach tends to be a better method when making more complex decisions.

For example, imagine that you are interested in buying a new camera. You create a list of important features that you want the camera to have, then you rate each possible option on a scale of -5 to +5.

Cameras that have important advantages might get a +5 rating for that factor, while those that have major drawbacks might get a -5 rating for that factor. Once you have looked at each option, you can then tally up the results to determine which option has the highest rating.

The additive feature model can be a great way to determine the best option for a variety of choices. As you can imagine, however, it can be quite time-consuming and is probably not the best decision-making strategy to use if you are pressed for time.

The Elimination by Aspects Model

The elimination by aspects model was first proposed by psychologist Amos Tversky in 1972. In this approach, you evaluate each option one characteristic at a time beginning with whatever feature you believe is the most important. When an item fails to meet the criteria you have established, you cross the item off your list of options. Your list of possible choices gets smaller and smaller as you cross items off the list until you eventually arrive at just one alternative.

Decision Making

The previous three processes are often used in cases where decisions are pretty straightforward, but what happens when there is a certain amount of risk, ambiguity, or uncertainty involved? For example, imagine that you are running late for your psychology class.

Should you drive above the speed limit in order to get there on time, but risk getting a speeding ticket? Or should you drive the speed limit, risk being late, and possibly get docked points for missing a scheduled pop quiz? In this case, you have to weigh the possibility that you might be late for your appointment against the probability that you will get a speeding ticket.

When making a decision in such a situation, people tend to employ two different decision-making strategies: the availability heuristic and the representativeness heuristic. Remember, a heuristic  is a rule-of-thumb mental short-cut that allows people to make decisions and judgments quickly.

Get Advice From The Verywell Mind Podcast

Hosted by therapist Amy Morin, LCSW, this episode of The Verywell Mind Podcast shares a tip that can help you make better decisions.

Follow Now : Apple Podcasts / Spotify / Google Podcasts

The Availability Heuristic

When we are trying to determine how likely something is, we often base such estimates on how easily we can remember similar events happening in the past. For example, if you are trying to determine if you should drive over the speed limit and risk getting a ticket, you might think of how many times you have seen people getting pulled over by a police officer on a particular stretch of highway.

If you cannot immediately think of any examples, you might decide to go ahead and take a chance, since the availability heuristic has led to you judge that few people get pulled over for speeding on your particular route. If you can think of numerous examples of people getting pulled over, you might decide to just play it safe and drive the suggested speed limit.

The Representativeness Heuristic

This mental shortcut involves comparing our current situation to our prototype of a particular event or behavior. For example, when trying to determine whether you should speed to get to your class on time, you might compare yourself to your image a person who is most likely to get a speeding ticket.

If your prototype is that of a careless teen that drives a hot-rod car and you are a young businesswoman who drives a sedan, you might estimate that the probability of getting a speeding ticket is quite low.

Keep in Mind

The decision-making process can be both simple (such as randomly picking out of our available options) or complex (such as systematically rating different aspects of the existing choices). The strategy we use depends on various factors, including how much time we have to make the decision, the overall complexity of the decision, and the amount of ambiguity that is involved.

• Hockenbury, D. H. & Hockenbury, S. E. (2006). Psychology. New York: Worth Publishers.
• Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. In Daniel Kahneman, Paul Slovic, & Amos Tversky (Eds.).  Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases.  New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Tversky, A. (1972). Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice.  Psychological Review, 80,  281-299.

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

• Product overview
• All features
• App integrations

CAPABILITIES

• project icon Project management
• Project views
• Custom fields
• Status updates
• goal icon Goals and reporting
• Reporting dashboards
• workflow icon Workflows and automation
• portfolio icon Resource management
• Time tracking
• my-task icon Admin and security
• Admin console
• asana-intelligence icon Asana Intelligence
• list icon Personal
• premium icon Starter
• briefcase icon Advanced
• Goal management
• Organizational planning
• Campaign management
• Creative production
• Marketing strategic planning
• Request tracking
• Resource planning
• Project intake
• View all uses arrow-right icon
• Project plans
• Team goals & objectives
• Team continuity
• Meeting agenda
• View all templates arrow-right icon
• Work management resources Discover best practices, watch webinars, get insights
• What's new Learn about the latest and greatest from Asana
• Customer stories See how the world's best organizations drive work innovation with Asana
• Help Center Get lots of tips, tricks, and advice to get the most from Asana
• Asana Academy Sign up for interactive courses and webinars to learn Asana
• Developers Learn more about building apps on the Asana platform
• Community programs Connect with and learn from Asana customers around the world
• Events Find out about upcoming events near you
• Partners Learn more about our partner programs
• Support Need help? Contact the Asana support team
• Asana for nonprofits Get more information on our nonprofit discount program, and apply.

Featured Reads

• Leadership |
• 7 important steps in the decision makin ...

7 important steps in the decision making process

The decision making process is a method of gathering information, assessing alternatives, and making a final choice with the goal of making the best decision possible. In this article, we detail the step-by-step process on how to make a good decision and explain different decision making methodologies.

We make decisions every day. Take the bus to work or call a car? Chocolate or vanilla ice cream? Whole milk or two percent?

There's an entire process that goes into making those tiny decisions, and while these are simple, easy choices, how do we end up making more challenging decisions? 

At work, decisions aren't as simple as choosing what kind of milk you want in your latte in the morning. That’s why understanding the decision making process is so important. 

What is the decision making process?

The decision making process is the method of gathering information, assessing alternatives, and, ultimately, making a final choice. 

Decision-making tools for agile businesses

In this ebook, learn how to equip employees to make better decisions—so your business can pivot, adapt, and tackle challenges more effectively than your competition.

The 7 steps of the decision making process

Step 1: identify the decision that needs to be made.

When you're identifying the decision, ask yourself a few questions: 

What is the problem that needs to be solved?

What is the goal you plan to achieve by implementing this decision?

How will you measure success?

These questions are all common goal setting techniques that will ultimately help you come up with possible solutions. When the problem is clearly defined, you then have more information to come up with the best decision to solve the problem.

Step 2: Gather relevant information

​Gathering information related to the decision being made is an important step to making an informed decision. Does your team have any historical data as it relates to this issue? Has anybody attempted to solve this problem before?

It's also important to look for information outside of your team or company. Effective decision making requires information from many different sources. Find external resources, whether it’s doing market research, working with a consultant, or talking with colleagues at a different company who have relevant experience. Gathering information helps your team identify different solutions to your problem.

Step 3: Identify alternative solutions

This step requires you to look for many different solutions for the problem at hand. Finding more than one possible alternative is important when it comes to business decision-making, because different stakeholders may have different needs depending on their role. For example, if a company is looking for a work management tool, the design team may have different needs than a development team. Choosing only one solution right off the bat might not be the right course of action. 

Step 4: Weigh the evidence

This is when you take all of the different solutions you’ve come up with and analyze how they would address your initial problem. Your team begins identifying the pros and cons of each option, and eliminating alternatives from those choices.

There are a few common ways your team can analyze and weigh the evidence of options:

Pros and cons list

SWOT analysis

Decision matrix

Step 5: Choose among the alternatives

The next step is to make your final decision. Consider all of the information you've collected and how this decision may affect each stakeholder. 

Sometimes the right decision is not one of the alternatives, but a blend of a few different alternatives. Effective decision-making involves creative problem solving and thinking out of the box, so don't limit you or your teams to clear-cut options.

One of the key values at Asana is to reject false tradeoffs. Choosing just one decision can mean losing benefits in others. If you can, try and find options that go beyond just the alternatives presented.

Step 6: Take action

Once the final decision maker gives the green light, it's time to put the solution into action. Take the time to create an implementation plan so that your team is on the same page for next steps. Then it’s time to put your plan into action and monitor progress to determine whether or not this decision was a good one. 

Step 7: Review your decision and its impact (both good and bad)

Once you’ve made a decision, you can monitor the success metrics you outlined in step 1. This is how you determine whether or not this solution meets your team's criteria of success.

Here are a few questions to consider when reviewing your decision:

Did it solve the problem your team identified in step 1? 

Did this decision impact your team in a positive or negative way?

Which stakeholders benefited from this decision? Which stakeholders were impacted negatively?

If this solution was not the best alternative, your team might benefit from using an iterative form of project management. This enables your team to quickly adapt to changes, and make the best decisions with the resources they have. 

Types of decision making models

While most decision making models revolve around the same seven steps, here are a few different methodologies to help you make a good decision.

​Rational decision making models

This type of decision making model is the most common type that you'll see. It's logical and sequential. The seven steps listed above are an example of the rational decision making model. 

When your decision has a big impact on your team and you need to maximize outcomes, this is the type of decision making process you should use. It requires you to consider a wide range of viewpoints with little bias so you can make the best decision possible. 

Intuitive decision making models

This type of decision making model is dictated not by information or data, but by gut instincts. This form of decision making requires previous experience and pattern recognition to form strong instincts.

This type of decision making is often made by decision makers who have a lot of experience with similar kinds of problems. They have already had proven success with the solution they're looking to implement. 

Creative decision making model

The creative decision making model involves collecting information and insights about a problem and coming up with potential ideas for a solution, similar to the rational decision making model. 

The difference here is that instead of identifying the pros and cons of each alternative, the decision maker enters a period in which they try not to actively think about the solution at all. The goal is to have their subconscious take over and lead them to the right decision, similar to the intuitive decision making model. 

This situation is best used in an iterative process so that teams can test their solutions and adapt as things change.

Track key decisions with a work management tool

Tracking key decisions can be challenging when not documented correctly. Learn more about how a work management tool like Asana can help your team track key decisions, collaborate with teammates, and stay on top of progress all in one place.

Related resources

How to find alignment on AI

Grant management: A nonprofit’s guide

Fix these common onboarding challenges to boost productivity

How Asana uses work management to optimize resource planning

Effective Decision Making Process: 7 Steps with Examples

By Status.net Editorial Team on June 3, 2023 — 9 minutes to read

Making decisions is an inevitable part of life, and knowing how to navigate through the decision-making process can be crucial for both your personal and professional success. In this article, we will explore the seven essential steps to help you make thoughtful and informed choices.

Step 1: Identify the Decision

When you’re faced with a problem or challenge, it’s essential to identify the decision you need to make. Start by defining the objective of what you want to achieve. It’s helpful to take a step back and assess the situation to fully understand the problem at hand.

To get a clear picture of the issue, gather information from multiple angles and examine the factors involved. This will help you gain a better understanding of the context and possible options available. Make sure to evaluate the pros and cons of each scenario.

For example, if your company is facing a dip in sales, you might need to decide whether to launch a new advertising campaign or improve product offerings.

Step 2: Gather Relevant Information

Conduct thorough market research to understand the current state of the market, as well as any expected trends and developments. Make use of both primary and secondary sources, such as interviews with experts and published reports, while remaining mindful of any potential biases. Your objective is to collect accurate, up-to-date data that allows you to make an informed decision.

Consider the various resources at your disposal. These may be online databases, industry reports, or even colleagues with relevant expertise. As you gather information, remember to keep track of your sources to reference them later. Maintaining proper documentation can save time and simplify any further analysis.

Don’t forget to consult the stakeholders involved in the decision. Their opinions, concerns, and suggestions can offer valuable insights and expose any blind spots. Engaging them in the process also fosters a sense of shared responsibility and encourages open communication.

For example:

• If you’re deciding on a new product to launch, gather information on market trends, customer preferences, and competitor offerings. This will provide a comprehensive understanding of the market landscape and opportunities for growth.
• When selecting a new supplier, research their financial stability, environmental performance, and customer reviews. This will help you ensure a long-lasting and beneficial partnership.
• If you’re debating whether to pursue a new marketing campaign, consult your sales team, marketing department, and customer service representatives. Their firsthand experience interacting with customers and interpreting their needs can prove invaluable in shaping the objectives and strategies of the campaign.

Step3: Identify Alternatives

While brainstorming alternatives, keep an open mind and consider all possible options, even if they seem unconventional or unusual at first glance. Don’t limit yourself to the obvious; sometimes, the most effective solution might be the one that is least expected.

As you gather alternatives, it’s helpful to list them down. Organize your list in a way that makes it easy for you to see the various options, their pros, and cons. Summarizing each alternative in a concise manner can help you to better understand their implications.

For example, when deciding on a new marketing strategy, you could list these alternatives:

• Traditional Marketing : Pros: Familiarity, proven results; Cons: High cost, limited audience reach
• Social Media Marketing : Pros: Low cost, broad audience reach; Cons: Time-intensive, potential negative engagement
• Content Marketing : Pros: Engaging, builds trust; Cons: Slow results, resource-intensive

Once you’ve listed your alternatives with their pros and cons, you can start comparing them to one another. Try to objectively assess the advantages and drawbacks of each solution in relation to the decision at hand. It might be helpful to rank them based on their potential effectiveness and feasibility.

As you identify alternatives, always be prepared to revise or expand your list. Be open to new insights and feedback from others.

Step 4: Weigh the Evidence

After gathering all the relevant information and alternatives for a decision, you’ll want to weigh the evidence before making a choice. This step in the 7-step decision-making process is crucial and ensures that you’re evaluating each option fairly.

To weigh the evidence properly, consider starting with a decision matrix. A decision matrix is a tool that helps organize and compare different alternatives based on specific criteria that matter to you. This method helps you quantify each option, making it easier to evaluate and prioritize them.

When using a decision matrix, list your options in rows and your criteria in columns. You’ll then assign a weight to each criterion according to its importance. After that, rate each option based on how well it meets the specific criterion. Multiply the rating by the weight, and then sum the results to get a total score for each option.

While weighing the evidence, it’s essential to trust your intuition. Your gut feeling might provide valuable insights based on your past experiences and knowledge. However, don’t rely solely on intuition, as it may sometimes lead to bias or ignore critical data.

During this stage, it’s crucial to assess the risks of each option. Knowing the potential consequences of each choice allows you to anticipate possible setbacks and challenges, preparing you for better decision-making. Be mindful of the common pitfalls in the process, such as groupthink, lack of diversity in perspectives, or being overly influenced by emotional factors.

Here are some examples to illustrate this step:

• Career: You’re considering a job offer from two companies. You gather information about salary, benefits, company culture, and growth opportunities, then weigh the evidence using a decision matrix. Your intuition tells you that one company aligns better with your values, so you weigh that factor more heavily when making your decision.
• Investment: You’re evaluating two investments with different levels of risk and potential return. By weighing the evidence – historical performance, growth potential, and industry trends – you create a decision matrix that includes your personal risk tolerance and financial goals. This method helps you determine which investment is the better fit for your unique situation.
• Product Launch: You have several ideas for new products, and you need to decide which one to prioritize. By weighing the evidence – potential market demand, production costs, and competition – using a decision matrix, you can quantitatively assess each idea and make an informed decision on which product to develop first.

Weighing the evidence is essential to making well-informed decisions. By considering various factors, relying on both intuition and data, and assessing the risks and challenges, you’ll be better equipped to make choices that benefit both you and your organization.

Step 5: Choose Among Alternatives

Start by prioritizing your options. Analyze each alternative and determine which ones align best with your objectives. This part could be as simple as ranking alternatives from most desirable to least desirable. Prioritize based on factors such as potential benefits, risks, costs, and resources available.

Another approach is using a decision tree, a visual tool that can help clarify and map out your choices. A decision tree charts the various courses of action, outcome probabilities, and expected payoff. By working through a decision tree, you can systematically evaluate your options and find the optimal solution.

As you evaluate each choice, imagine potential outcomes and how they could impact your objectives. Assessing the pros and cons of each alternative will provide insight on the best course of action.

Example 1: Imagine you’re debating between accepting a job offer or staying at your current job. You could prioritize based on factors like salary, career growth potential, work-life balance, and job security. Use a decision tree to visualize the potential payoffs and risks of each choice.

Example 2: If you’re deciding on a marketing strategy for your business, prioritize options like cost-effectiveness, target audience reach, and expected return on investment. Use a decision tree to analyze each strategy, considering factors like potential growth and customer engagement.

Step 6: Take Action

Once you’ve weighed your options and made a decision, it’s time to take action. As a part of an organization, your leadership and management skills will play a crucial role in executing the plan. Follow these steps to bring your decision to life:

• Communicate the decision to all relevant parties: Make sure everyone involved, from team members to stakeholders, knows the chosen course of action. Clear communication will ensure everyone is on the same page.
• Set goals and expectations: Establish both short-term and long-term objectives to monitor progress and determine whether the chosen path is effective. It’s essential to have a clear set of expectations so that your team is aligned with your vision. Examples of goals: – Rolling out a new product within 6 months – Decreasing expenditure by 15% in the next quarter – Increasing overall market share by 10% in the following year
• Create a timeframe: Outline the sequence of tasks and establish deadlines for each step. A well-defined timeline will help in keeping the momentum going, and ensure that the desired results are reached within the allotted time.
• Delegate responsibilities and provide resources: Assign tasks to team members based on their expertise and provide the necessary tools, training, and support to help them succeed.
• Monitor progress and make adjustments as needed: Regularly review your team’s progress and be open to making changes if something isn’t working. Flexibility is crucial for effective decision-making.

Step 7: Review Your Decision

As you go through the decision-making process, it’s essential to review your decision to ensure it’s the best choice for you and your business. This step allows you to reflect on the potential risks and benefits associated with your decision. By reviewing your decision, you position yourself to make better choices and improve your overall decision-making skills.

Example : You decided to implement a new software system in your company. After a few months, review the system’s performance and observe if it increases productivity, reduces errors, and improves customer satisfaction. If needed, make adjustments to maximize its benefits.

Example : After launching a new product, analyze its sales performance, customer feedback, and market response. Identify areas where improvements can be made, or if necessary, consider discontinuing the product.

Don’t be afraid to adjust course if you find that your initial choice isn’t working as you had hoped. Keep in mind that making sound decisions is an ongoing process requiring flexibility and adaptability. As your situation evolves and circumstances change, you must be willing to reassess and revise your decisions to maintain success and growth.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which steps form the decision-making process.

The decision-making process usually consists of seven steps:

• Identify the problem or decision
• Gather information and resources
• Identify possible options or solutions
• Evaluate the options and their outcomes
• Choose the best option for the situation
• Implement your chosen decision
• Review the results and learn from them

What variations exist in the decision-making process?

While the decision-making process is typically broken down into seven steps, there may be variations depending on factors like individual preferences, the complexity of the decision, and time constraints. Some variations include:

• Relying more on intuition or gut feelings
• Skipping certain steps due to urgency
• Using decision-making tools or models like SWOT analysis or decision trees

How can I apply decision-making steps in real life?

You can apply the seven-step decision-making process in real life by:

• Clearly defining the problem or decision
• Gathering relevant information and resources
• Identifying possible options, solutions or alternatives
• Evaluating each option and predicting their outcomes
• Selecting the best option based on your criteria
• Implementing your chosen decision
• Reviewing the results and learning from the experience

Related: Personal SWOT Analysis: Unlock Your Potential in 4 Steps

• What is Problem Solving? (Steps, Techniques, Examples)
• Ethical Decision Making Models and 6 Steps of Ethical Decision Making Process
• Effective Nonverbal Communication in the Workplace (Examples)
• How to Resolve Employee Conflict at Work [Steps, Tips, Examples]
• How to Write Inspiring Core Values? 5 Steps with Examples
• Examples of Empathy (and 38 Empathy Statements)

Problem Solving and Decision Making - Two Essential Skills of a Good Leader

Problem solving and decision making are two fascinating skillsets. We call them out as two separate skills – and they are – but they also make use of the same core attributes.

They feed on a need to communicate well, both through questioning and listening, and be patient and not rushing both processes through. Thus, the greatest challenge any leader faces when it comes to solving problems and decision making is when the pressure of time comes into play. But as Robert Schuller highlights in his quote, allowing problem-solving to become the decision means you’ll never break free from the problem.

“Never bring the problem-solving stage into the decision-making stage. Otherwise, you surrender yourself to the problem rather than the solution.”—Robert H. Schuller

So how does a leader avoid this trap? How do they ensure the problem solving doesn’t become the be-all and end-all?

The 7 steps of Effective Problem Solving and Decision Making

A vital hurdle every leader must overcome is to avoid the impulsive urge to make quick decisions . Often when confronted with a problem, leaders or managers fall back in past behaviours. Urgency creates pressure to act quickly as a result, the problem still exists, just side-lined until it rears its ugly head again.

Good problem solving opens opportunity. A notable example of this is the first principles thinking executed by the likes of Elon Musk and others. Understanding the fundamentals blocks of a process and the problem it’s creating can lead to not just the problem but accelerate beyond it.

So, to avoid the trap, and use problem solving and decision making effectively , you should embody yourself with the following seven steps.

1.      What is the problem?

Often, especially in time-critical situations, people don’t define the problem. Some label themselves as fire-fighters, just content with dowsing out the flames. It is a reactionary behaviour and one commonplace with under-trained leaders. As great as some fire-fighters are, they can only put out so many fires at one time, often becoming a little industry.

The better approach is to define the problem, and this means asking the following questions:

• What is happening? ( What makes you think there is a problem?)
• Where is it taking place?
• How is it happening?
• When is it happening?
• Why is it happening?
• With whom is it happening? (This isn’t a blame game…all you want to do is isolate the problem to a granular level.)
• Define what you understand to be the problem in writing by using as few sentences as possible. (Look at the answers to your what, where, why, when, and how questions.)

2.      What are the potential causes?

Having defined the problem it is now time to find out what might be causing the problem. Your leadership skills: your communication skills need to be strong, as you look to gather input from your team and those involved in the problem.

Key points:

• Talk to those involved individually. Groupthink is a common cause of blindness to the problem, especially if there is blame culture within the business.
• Document what you’ve heard and what you think is the root cause is.
• Be inquisitive. You don’t know what you don’t know, so get the input of others and open yourself up to the feedback you’ll need to solve this problem.

3.      What other ways can you overcome the problem?

 Sometimes, getting to the root cause can take time. Of course, you can’t ignore it, but it is important to produce a plan to temporarily fix the problem. In business, a problem will be costing the business money, whether it be sales or profit. So, a temporary fix allows the business to move forward, providing it neutralises the downside of the original problem.

4.      How will you resolve the problem?

At this stage, you still don’t know what the actual problem is. All you have is a definition of the problem which is a diagnosis of the issue. You will have the team’s input, as well as your opinions as to what the next steps should be.

If you don’t, then at this stage you should think about reassessing the problem. One way forward could be to become more granular and adopt a first-principles approach.

• Break the problem down into its core parts
• What forms the foundational blocks of the system in operation?
• Ask powerful questions to get to the truth of the problem
• How do the parts fit together?
• What was the original purpose of the system working in this way?
• Name and separate your assumptions from the facts
• Remind yourself of the goal and create a new solution

Solve hard problems with inversion

Another way is to invert the problem using the following technique:

1. Understand the problem

Every solution starts with developing a clear understanding of what the problem is. In this instance, some clarity of the issue is vital.

2. Ask the opposite question

Convention wisdom means we see the world logically. But what if you turned the logical outcome on its head. Asking the opposite questions brings an unfamiliar perspective.

3. Answer the opposite question

It seems a simple logic, but you can’t just ask the opposite question and not answer it. You must think through the dynamics that come from asking the question. You're looking for alternative viewpoints and thoughts you've not had before.

4. Join your answers up with your original problem

This is where solutions are born. You’re taking your conventional wisdom and aligning it with the opposite perspective. So often the blockers seen in the original problem become part of the solution.

5.      Define a plan to either fix the problem permanently or temporarily

You now know the problem. You understand the fix, and you are a position to assess the risks involved.

Assessing the risks means considering the worst-case scenarios and ensuring you avoid them. Your plan should take into the following points:

• Is there any downtime to implementing the solution? If so, how long, and how much will it cost? Do you have backup systems in place to minimise the impact?
• If the risk is too great, consider a temporary fix which keeps current operations in place and gives you time to further prepare for a permanent fix.
• Document the plan and share it with all the relevant stakeholders. Communication is key.

Here we see the two skills of problem solving and decision making coming together. The two skills are vital to managing business risks as well as solving the problem.

6.      Monitor and measure the plan

Having evolved through the five steps to this stage, you mustn’t take your eye off the ball as it were.

• Define timelines and assess progress
• Report to the stakeholders, ensuring everyone is aware of progress or any delays.
• If the plan doesn’t deliver, ask why? Learn from failure.

7.      Have you fixed the problem?

Don’t forget the problem you started with. Have you fixed it? You might find it wasn’t a problem at all. You will have learnt a lot about the part of the business where the problem occurred, and improvements will have taken place.

Use the opportunity to assess what worked, what didn’t, and what would have helped. These are three good questions to give you some perspective on the process you’ve undertaken.

Problem solving and decision making in unison

Throughout the process of problem solving, you’re making decisions. Right from the beginning when the problem first becomes clear, you have a choice to either react – firefight or to investigate. This progresses as move onto risk assessing the problem and then defining the solutions to overcome the issue.

Throughout the process, the critical element is to make decisions with the correct information to hand. Finding out the facts, as well as defeating your assumptions are all part of the process of making the right decision.

Problem solving and decision making – a process 

Problem solving isn’t easy. It becomes even more challenging when you have decisions to make. The seven steps I’ve outlined will give you the ability to investigate and diagnose the problem correctly.

• What is the problem?
• What are the potential causes?
• What other ways can you overcome the problem?
• How will you resolve the problem?
• Define a plan to either fix the problem permanently or temporarily.
• Monitor and measure the plan.
• Have you fixed the problem?

Of course, this logical step by step process might not enable you to diagnose the issue at hand. Some problems can be extremely hard, and an alternative approach might help. In this instance, first principles thinking or using the power of inversion are excellent ways to dig into hard problems. Problem solving and decision making are two skills every good leader needs. Using them together is an effective way to work.

Become a Wiser Decision-Maker in Just 5 Minutes per Week.

Related articles.

How Thinking Like a Detective Will Improve Your Decisions

How Thinking in Patterns Will Make You Think Better

Fact-Based Decision Making: The Key to Making Progress as a Creator

Team Dynamics: Problem-Solving and Decision Making

• Teamwork and Team Leadership Table of Contents
• Fostering Communication & Promoting Cooperation
• Problem-Solving and Decision Making
• Handling Conflict
• Dealing with Power and Influence

1. Overview

• Different stages of team development call for different problem solving methods
• Problem solving requires the use of a systematic process
• The appropriate decision making method is determined by the amount of time available for the decision and the impact of the decision
• Effective decision making requires the use of smart techniques

2. Problem Solving in Team Development Stages

3. General Problem Solving Steps

• Defining the problem : phrase problem as probing questions to encourage explorative thinking; make explicit goal statement
• Establish criteria for evaluating the solution : identify characteristics of a satisfactory solution; distinguish requirements from desires
• Analyzing the problem : discover the root cause and extent of the problem
• Considering alternate solutions : brainstorm to generate many ideas before judging any of them
• Evaluate alternate solutions : use ranking-weighting matrix; check for issues/disagreement
• Deciding on a solution :  choose best answer to the problem from among all possible solutions
• Develop action plan : make team assignments with milestones(don’t underestimate time)
• Implementing the action plan : check for consistency with requirements identified in step 2
• Following up on the solution :  check up on the implementation and make necessary adjustments
• Evaluate outcomes and process :  review performance, process, and personal aspects of the solution

4. Decision Making Method Based on Time and Impact

5. Smart Decision Making is Enabled By. . .

• Modeling an open mind and asking for candid opinions
• What elements would you choose to change?
• What changes would you make to solve …?  
• Aligning rewards to team successes to ensure that individuals share what they know
• Ensuring that team members are aware of relevant roles and unique information required for team success
• Charging some team members to assume a position that opposes the team’s preference
• Creating an alternate team that attempts to find errors and weaknesses in the solution
• Using successive rounds of blind voting interspersed with discussions

6. Additional Readings

• Hartnett, T. (n.d). Consensus decision making. Retrieved from http://www.consensusdecisionmaking.org/
• UMass|Dartmouth (n.d.) 7 steps to effective decision making . Retrieved from https://www.umassd.edu/media/u massdartmouth/fycm/decision_ma king_process.pdf
• Sunstein, C.R. (2014).  Making dumb groups smarter.  Harvard Business Review, 92(12), 90-98. 
• << Previous: Fostering Communication & Promoting Cooperation
• Next: Handling Conflict >>

• Last Updated: Jan 12, 2023 10:00 AM
• URL: https://guides.himmelfarb.gwu.edu/teamdynamics

• Himmelfarb Intranet
• Privacy Notice
• Terms of Use
• GW is committed to digital accessibility. If you experience a barrier that affects your ability to access content on this page, let us know via the Accessibility Feedback Form .
• Himmelfarb Health Sciences Library
• 2300 Eye St., NW, Washington, DC 20037
• Phone: (202) 994-2850
• [email protected]
• https://himmelfarb.gwu.edu

• About the Journal

Decision Making and Problem-Solving: Implications for Learning Design

• The Disruption to the Practice of Instructional Design During COVID-19
• Expanding Online Professional Learning in the Post-COVID Era: The Potential of the Universal Design for Learning Framework
• Developing a Quality Assurance Approach for an Online Professional Military Education Institution
• Use the FORCE to Create Sociability and Connect with Online Students
• Exploring Dimensions of the Past: A Historiographical Analysis of Instructional Design and Technology Historical Works
• Designing Virtual Teams for K-12 Teachers
• Motivational Design for Inclusive Digital Learning Innovation: A Systematic Literature Review
• Translations

Choose a Sign-in Option

Tools and Settings

Questions and Tasks

Citation and Embed Code

Introduction

Practitioners in various domains are often faced with ill-structured problems. For example, teachers devise lesson plans that consider learners’ prior knowledge, curriculum guidelines, and classroom management strategies. Similarly, engineers must develop products that meet safety standards, yet achieve project guidelines that meet client needs. Given the types of problems that practitioners face in everyday decision-making, educators have increasingly begun to adopt inquiry-based learning, which better exposes learners to the types of issues faced within a domain (Hung et al., 2019; Koehler & Vilarinho-Pereira, 2021). This instructional approach includes multiple changes to the educational experience when compared to the teacher-centric classroom approach (Reigeluth & Carr-Chellman, 2009). As opposed to a didactic strategy to instruction, students take ownership of their learning and generate questions among their peers, while teachers serve as facilitators (Lazonder & Harmsen, 2016; Loyens & Rikers, 2011; Savery, 2009). The central focus of these strategies also includes ill-structured cases that are similar to the types of problems practitioners face. The complexity of these problems often consists of interconnected variables (latent, salient) and multiple perspectives, so there is rarely a single predetermined solution that satisfies all options (Ifenthaler, 2014). Additionally, these problems are challenging because they include multiple criteria for evaluation (Jonassen, 2011b; Ju & Choi, 2017), which makes it challenging to definitively determine when a ‘right’ answer has been achieved.

There are a number of skillsets needed for problem-solving instructional strategies, such as the inquiry process (Glazewski & Hmelo-Silver, 2018), collaboration (Koehler & Vilarinho-Pereira, 2021), and argumentation (Noroozi et al., 2017). Another important element of problem-solving includes decision-making; that is, the process by which individuals make choices as they resolve the ill-structured case. Understanding decision-making is important because individuals engage in a myriad of choices throughout the problem representation and solution generation phases of problem-solving (Ge et al., 2016). Moreover, learners must engage in multiple and interconnected decisions as they select evidence and determine causal chains during various stages of problem-solving (Shin & Jeong, 2021). The decision-making process is also closely linked with failure and the iterative choices needed to overcome errors in the problem-solving cycles (Schank et al., 1999; Sinha & Kapur, 2021). As such, decision-making is key for learners’ agency as they engage in self-directed learning and take ownership of ill-structured cases.

Despite its importance, the field of learning design only minimally addresses theories and models specifically associated with decision-making. The decision-making processes required for inquiry-based learning necessitates a more in-depth analysis because it is foundational to problem-solving as individuals weigh evidence, make strategic choices amidst an array of variables, and causal reasoning. In addition, an advanced understanding of this skill set would allow educators to develop systems that leverage specific decision-making strategies within design. Based on this gap, we survey broad decision-making paradigms (normative, descriptive, and prescriptive), along with case-based decision-making theory (Gilboa & Schmeidler, 1995; Kolodner, 1991). For each category, we then proffer an example that instantiates the theory. Finally, the article concludes with implications for practice.

Literature Review

Inquiry-based learning is an instructional strategy that affords learners with agency as they solve ill-structured problems. Although variations exist (problem-based learning, project-based learning, case-based instruction), the strategy often situates a contextual case to the learners that is representative of the domain (Lazonder & Harmsen, 2016; Loyens & Rikers, 2011). When compared with teacher-centric approaches where the instructor acts as the ‘sage on the stage’ (Reigeluth & Carr-Chellman, 2009), students in inquiry-based learning engage in a variety of learning actions in the problem representation and solution generation stage. The former necessitates learners define the problem, identify variables, and determine the underlying causal mechanisms of the issue (Delahunty et al., 2020; Ertmer & Koehler, 2018). Solution generation requires learners propose a way to resolve the issue, along with supporting evidence (Ge et al., 2016). This latter stage also includes how learners test out a solution and iterate based on the degree to which their approach meets its goals. As learners engage in these tasks, they must remedy knowledge gaps and work with their peers to reconcile different perspectives. Beyond just retention of facts, learners also engage in information seeking (Belland et al., 2020), question generation (Olney et al., 2012), causal reasoning (Giabbanelli & Tawfik, 2020; Shin & Jeong, 2021), argumentation (Ju & Choi, 2017; Noroozi & Hatami, 2019), and other higher-order thinking skills.

Another important aspect of inquiry-based learning also includes decision-making, which describes the choices learners select as they understand the problem and move towards its resolution. To that end, various theories and models that explicate the nuances of problem-solving have implicitly referenced decision-making. When describing the solution generation stage, Jonassen (1997) asserts that learners’ “resulting mental model of the problem will support the learner's decision and justify the chosen solution” (p. 81). Ge et al. (2016) proposed a conceptual model of self-regulated learning in ill-structured problem-solving in which “students not only must make informed decisions and select the most viable against alternative solutions, but also must support their decisions with defensible and cogent arguments” (p. 4). In terms of encountered failure during problem-solving, Kapur (2008) explains how students must “decide on the criteria for decision making or general parameters for solutions” (p. 391) during criteria development. Indeed, these foundation theories and models of problem-solving highlight the importance of decision-making in various aspects of inquiry-based learning.

Despite its importance, very little understanding is known within the learning design field about the specific decision-making processes inherent within problem-solving. Instead, there is a large body of literature dedicated to strategic approaches to self-directed learning (Xie et al., 2019), collaboration (Radkowitsch et al., 2020), and others. However, specific attention is needed towards decision-making to understand how learners seek out information, weigh evidence, and make choices as they engage in problem-solving. A review of theories argues for three distinct overarching theoretical paradigms of decision-making (Schwartz & Bergus, 2008): normative, descriptive, and prescriptive. There is also a related body of literature around case-based decision-making theory (Gilboa & Schmeidler, 1995), which describes how prior experiences are used to inform choices for new problems. Below we define the theory and related literature, along with a design example that instantiates the decision-making approach.

Outline of Decision-Making Theories and Constructs

Normative Decision-Making

Normative decision-making theoretical foundations.

Normative decision-making describes how learners make choices based on the following: (a) perceived subjective utility and (b) probability (Gati & Kulcsár, 2021). The former focuses on the values of each outcome, especially in terms of how the individual assesses expected benefits and costs associated with one’s goals and preferences. Alternatively, probability describes the degree to which individuals perceive that a selected action will lead to a specific outcome. Hence, a key assumption - and potential criticism - of normative decision-making is that individuals are logically consistent as they make choices under the constraints of rationality, which has been called into question.

Another important element of normative decision-making includes ‘compensatory models’; that is, how the benefits of an alternative outweigh the disadvantages. The most common compensatory model described in the literature is multi-attribute utility theory (MAUT), which is used to account for decision-making amidst multiple criteria (Jansen, 2011). MAUT thus aligns well with ill-structured problem-solving because it assumes that choices are made amongst a variety of competing alternatives. In a conservation example, one might select a green energy alternative to reduce carbon emissions, but it may be disruptive to the existing energy sources (e.g., fossil fuels) and raise costs in the short term. In the context of medicine, a surgery might ultimately resolve an issue, but it poses a risk for post-procedure infections and other complications. As individuals consider each alternative, MAUT is a way of “measuring the decision-maker’s values separately for a set of influential attributes and by weighting these by the relative importance of these attributes as perceived by the decision-maker” (Jansen, 2011, p. 101). MAUT component of normative decision-making specifically argues individuals progress in the following five steps (Von Winterfeldt & Edwards, 1993): 

• Individuals explicate the various alternatives and salient attributes associated with each choice.
• Each alternative is evaluated separately based on each attribute in terms of the following: complete (all essential aspects are addressed), operational (attributes can be meaningfully used), decomposable (deconstructing aspects of evaluation as to simplify evaluation process), non-redundant (remove duplicates of aspects), and minimal (keep a number of attributes focused and central to the problem).
• Individuals assign relative weights to each attribute
• Individuals sum the aggregate weight to evaluate each alternative.
• Individuals make a final choice.

Rather than pursue a less than optimal selection, MAUT argues that “they [individuals] strive to choose the most beneficial alternative and obtain all information relevant to the decision, and they are capable of considering all possible outcomes of the choice, estimating the value of each alternative and aggregating these values into a composite variable” (Gati et al., 2019, p. 123). Another characteristic is how individuals select the factors and assess the degree to which they can be compensated. Some individuals (e.g., expert, novice) may weigh a specific factor differently, even if the other aspects align with their desired outcomes. Given that individuals are not always rational and consistent in decision-making, some argue that the normative decision-making model is not truly representative of how individuals actually engage in everyday problem-solving (Gati et al., 2019; Jansen, 2011; Schwartz & Bergus, 2008). 

Normative decision-making theoretical application

Normative decision-making approaches applied to learning design make choices and probabilities salient to the learner, such as in the case of learner dashboards (Valle et al., 2021) or heuristics. Arguably, the most common application of decision-making in learning technologies for inquiry-based learning includes simulations, which situate individuals within an authentic context and posit a series of choices, and allow them to model choices (Liu et al., 2021). Systems that especially exhibit normative decision-making often consist of the following: (a) encourages learners to consider what is currently known about the phenomena vs. what knowledge the decision-makers lack, (b) makes probability associated with a choice clear, and (c) observes the outcomes of the decision.

One example of normative decision-making applied to design includes The Wildlife Module/Wildfire Explorer project developed by Concord Consortium. In this environment, learners are tasked with lowering wildfire risk in terms of fires and other natural hazards (see Figure 1). The decision-making is especially focused on choices around terrain and weather conditions, which add to or limit the amount of risk that is posed to each town. As learners make decisions, the interface allows individuals to manipulate variables and thus observe how certain choices will result in higher benefits relative to others. For instance, reducing the amount of brush in the area will better prevent wildfire when compared with cutting fire lines. In another instance, they explore how dry terrain and 30 mile per hour (MPH) winds would increase the potential wildfire risk of an area. The learning environment thus instantiates aspects of normative decision-making as learners select the parameters and discern its effects on the wildfire within the region.

Wildlife Module/Wildfire Explorer as Applying Normative Decision-Making

Descriptive Decision-Making

Descriptive decision-making theoretical foundations.

Whereas the normative decision-making approaches assume individuals make rational decisions that maximize choices, descriptive decision-making illustrates the gap between optimal decision-making and how people actually make choices (Gati et al., 2019). Although it is sometimes criticized for the lack of clarity, there are some elements of descriptive decision-making that have emerged. One key component includes satisficing, which posits that individuals attempt to make decisions based on how choices are maximized and meet specific goals. As outlined in the seminal work by Simon (1972), individuals aspire to engage in complex rational selections; however, humans have limited cognitive resources available to process the information available during decision-making. Because choices for ill-structured problems often have competing alternatives, individuals settle for decisions that meet some kind of determined threshold for acceptance in light of a given set of defined criteria. The theory further argues individuals will likely choose the first option that satisfices the desire; so while the final selection may be satisficing, it may not necessarily be the best and most rational decision (Gati et al., 2019). This is especially true in ill-structured problems that include multiple perspectives and constraints that make an ideal solution difficult. Rather, individuals instead strive for a viable choice that can be justified in light of multiple criteria and constraints.

Descriptive decision-making theoretical application

One example includes the EstemEquity project (Gish-Lieberman et al., 2021), which is a learning environment designed to address attrition rates for women of color in STEM through mentorship strategies aimed at building self-efficacy. Because the dynamics of mentorship can be difficult, the system relies heavily on decision-making and reflection upon choice outcomes (see Figure 2). The first steps of a scenario outline a common mentor/mentee challenge, such as a mentee frustrated because she feels as though the mentor is not listening to her underlying problem as she navigates higher education in pursuit of her STEM career. The learning environment then poses two choices that would resolve the issue. Although no single solution will fully remedy the ill-structured mentorship challenge, they must make value judgments about the criteria for success and the degree to which their decision meets the requirements. Based on the goals, the learning environment provides feedback as to how the choice satisfices given their determined threshold of optimal mentor and mentee relationships.

EstemEquity as Applying Descriptive Decision-Making

Prescriptive Decision-Making

Prescriptive decision-making theoretical foundations.

The aforementioned approaches highlight how individuals engage in sense-making as they make a selection among latent and salient variables. To better support ideal decision-making, the prescriptive approach is concerned with providing overt aids to make the best decisions (Divekar et al., 2012). Moreover, prescriptive decision-making “bridges the gap between descriptive observations of the way people make choices and normative guidelines for how they should make choices” (Keller, 1989, p. 260). Prescriptive decision-making thus provides explicit guidelines for making better decisions while taking into consideration human limitations. For example, physicians may use a heuristic that outlines a specific medication based on symptoms and patient characteristics (e.g., height, weight, age). Similarly, a mental health counselor may select a certain intervention approach when a client presents certain behavioral characteristics. In doing so, prescriptive decision-making outlines a series of “if-then” scenarios and details the ideal choice; that is, the pragmatic benefit of the decision to be made given a set of certain circumstances (Gati et al., 2019).

There are multiple challenges and benefits to the prescriptive approach to decision-making. In terms of the former, some question the degree to which a single set of heuristics can be applied across multiple ill-structured problems with varying degrees of nuance. That said, the prescriptive approach has gained traction in the ‘big data’ era, which compiles a considerable amount of information to make it actionable for the individual. An emerging subset of the field includes prescriptive analytics, especially in the business domain (Lepenioti et al., 2020). Beyond just presenting information, prescriptive analytics distinguishes itself because it provides the optimal solution based on input and data-mining strategies from various sources (Poornima & Pushpalatha, 2020). As theorists and practitioners look to align analytics with prescriptive decision-making, Frazzetto et al., (2019) argues: 

If the past has been understood (descriptive analytics; ‘DA’), and predictions about the future are available (predictive analytics; ‘PDA’), then it is possible to actively suggest (prescribe) a best option for adapting and shaping the plans according to the predicted future (p. 5).

Prescriptive decision-making theoretical application

Prescriptive decision-making approaches arguably are most used in adaptive tutoring systems, which outline a series of “if-then” steps based on learners’ interactions. ElectronixTutor is an adaptive system that helps learners understand electrical engineering principles within a higher educational context (see Figure 3). Rather than allowing the learner to navigate as desired or make ad-hoc selections, the recommender system leverages user input from completed lessons to prescribe the optimal lesson choice that best furthers their electrical engineering knowledge. For example, after successful completion on the “Series and Parallel Circuit” (the “if”), the system prescribes that the learner advance to the next “Amplifier” lessons (the “then”) because the system has determined that as the next stage of the learning trajectory. When a learner inputs the correct decision, they are prompted with the optimal selection the system deems as best advances their learning. Alternatively, a wrong selection constrains the choices for the learner and reduces the complexity of the process to a few select decisions. In doing so, the adaptive system implements artificial intelligence to prescribe the optimal path the learner should take based on the previous input from the learner (Hampton & Graesser, 2019).

Autotutor as Applying Prescriptive Decision-Making

Case-Based Decision-Making Theory

Case-based decision-making theoretical foundations.

The literature suggests case-based decision-making theory (CBDMT) is another problem-solving approach individuals employ within domain practice (Gilboa & Schmeidler, 1995). The premise behind CBDMT is that individuals recall previous experiences which are similar to the extant issue and select the solution that yielded a successful resolution (Huang & Pape, 2020; Pape & Kurtz, 2013). These cases are often referred to as ‘repeated choice problems’ whereby individuals see available actions as similar between the new problem and prior experiences (Ossadnik et al., 2013). According to the theory, memory is a set of cases that consists of the following constructs: problem, a potential act chosen in the problem, and ensuing consequence. Specifically, “the memory contains the information required by the decision-maker to evaluate an act, which is specific to the problem” (Ossadnik et al., 2013, p. 213). A key element in a case-based approach to decision-making includes the problem features, the assigned weights of said features, and observed consequences as a reference point for the new problem (Bleichrodt et al., 2017).

The CBDMT approach is similar to the normative approach to decision-making in that it describes how learners make a summative approach to decision-making; however, it differs in that it explicates how one leverages prior experience to calculate these values. Moreover, the value of a case for decision-making is evaluated through a comparison of related acts of other known issues when the new problem is assessed by the individual. Specifically, Gilboa and Schmeidler (1995) propose: “Each act is evaluated by the sum of the utility levels that resulted from using this act in past cases, each weighted by the similarity of that past case to the problem at hand” (p. 605). In this instance, utility refers to the benefits of the decision being made and the forecasting of outcomes (Grosskopf et al., 2015; Lovallo et al., 2012). The individual compares the new case to a previous case and then selects the decision with the highest utility outcome. As one gains expertise, CBDMT proffers one can “combine variations in memory with variations in sets of choice alternatives, leading to generalized versions” (Bleichrodt et al., 2017, p. 127) 

Case-based decision-making theoretical application

Because novices lack prior experiences, one might argue it may be difficult to apply CBDMT in learning design. However, the most often applied approach is by leveraging narratives as a form of vicarious experience (Jonassen, 2011a). In one example by Rong et al. (2020), veterinary students are asked to solve ill-structured problems about how to treat animals that go through various procedures. As part of the main problem to solve, learners must take into consideration the animal’s medical history, height, weight, and a variety of other characteristics. To engender learners’ problem-solving, the case profiles multiple decision points, and later asks the learners to make their own choice and justify its selection. Decision-making is supported through expert cases, which serve as vicarious memory and encourage the learners to transfer the lessons learned towards the main problem to solve (Figure 4). In doing so, the exemplars serve as key decision-making aids as novices navigate the complexity of the ill-structured problem.

Video Exemplars as Applying Case-Based Decision-Making Theory

Discussion and Implications for Design

Theorists of education have often discussed ways to foster various elements of ill-structured problem-solving, including problem representation (Ge et al., 2016), information-seeking (Glazewski & Hmelo-Silver, 2018), question generation (Olney et al., 2012), and others. While this has undoubtedly advanced the field of learning design, we argue decision-making is an equally foundational aspect of problem-solving that requires further attention. Despite its importance, there is very little discourse as to the nuances of decision-making within learning design and how each perspective impacts the problem-solving process. A further explication of these approaches would allow educators and designers to better support learners as they engage in inquiry-based learning and similar instructional strategies that engender complex problemsolving. To address this gap, this article introduces and discusses the application of the following decision-making paradigms: normative, descriptive, prescriptive, and CBDMT.

The above theoretical paradigms have implications for how these theories align with other design approaches of learning systems. In many instances, scaffolds are designed to support specific aspects of problem solving. Some systems are designed to support the collaborative process that occurs during inquiry-based learning (Noroozi et al., 2017), while other scaffolds outline the argumentation process (Malogianni et al., 2021). Alternatively, learning environments may embed prior narratives to model how practitioners solve problems (Tawfik et al., 2020). While each of these theories supports a critical aspect of problem solving, there are opportunities to further refine these learning systems by more directly supporting the decision-making process. For example, one way to align these design strategies and normative decision-making theories would be to outline the different choices and probabilities of expected outcomes. A learning system might embed supports that outline alternative perspectives or reflection questions, but could also include scaffolds that explicate optimal solution paths as it applies a prescriptive decision-making approach. In doing so, designers can simultaneously support various aspects of ill-structured problem solving.

There are also implications as it relates to the expert-novice continuum, which is often cited as a critical component of problem-solving (Jonassen, 2011a; Kim & Hannafin, 2008). Indeed, a body of rich literature has described differences as experts and novices identify variables within ill-structured problems (Jacobson, 2001; Wolff et al., 2021) and define the problem-space within contexts (Ertmer & Koehler, 2018; Hmelo-Silver, 2013). Whereas many post-hoc artifacts have documented outcomes that describe how novices grow during inquiry-based learning (e.g., concept map, argumentation scores), less is known about in situ decision-making processes and germane design strategies novice learners engage in when they are given problem-solving cases. For example, it may be that novices might benefit more from a prescriptive decision-making design strategy given the inherent complexity and challenges of cognitive load presented within an inquiry-based learning module. Alternatively, one might argue simulation learning environments designed for normative decision-making would make the variables more explicit, and thus better aid learners in their choice selection when presented with a case. The simulation approach often employed for normative decision-making might also allow for iterative decision-making, which may be especially advantageous for novices that are newly exposed to the domain. A further understanding of these decision-making approaches allows educators and designers to better support learners and develop systems that emphasize this higher-order learning skillset.

As learners engage in information-seeking during problem-solving, it follows that a choice is made based on the synthetization of multiple different sources (Glazewski & Hmelo-Silver, 2018). Future explorations around information seeking and decision-making would yield important insights for problem solving in multiple respects. For instance, the normative decision-making approach argues individuals assign values to various attributes and use this assessment to make a selection. As learners engage in inquiry-based learning, designers can use understanding of normative approaches to determine how individuals search for information to satisfice an opinion, use this to assess the probability of an action, and the resulting choice. From a descriptive decision-making approach, learners weigh various information sources as they seek out an answer that satisfices. Finally, a case-based decision-making theory approach may find learners search for information and related weights for the following: problem (q ∈ Q), a potential act chosen in the problem (a ∈ A), and ensuing consequence (r ∈ R). Although the design of inquiry-based learning environments often overlooks the intersection of information-seeking approaches and decision-making, a better understanding of the role of theory would aid designers as they construct learning environments that support this aspect of problem solving.

Belland, B., Weiss, D. M., & Kim, N. J. (2020). High school students’ agentic responses to modeling during problem-based learning. The Journal of Educational Research, 113(5), 374–383. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2020.1838407  

Bleichrodt, H., Filko, M., Kothiyal, A., & Wakker, P. P. (2017). Making case-based decision theory directly observable. American Economic Journal, 9(1), 123–151. https://doi.org/10.1257/mic.20150172  

Delahunty, T., Seery, N., & Lynch, R. (2020). Exploring problem conceptualization and performance in STEM problem solving contexts. Instructional Science, 48, 395–425. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-020-09515-4  

Divekar, A. A., Bangal, S., & Sumangala, D. (2012). The study of prescriptive and descriptive models of decision making. International Journal of Advanced Research in Artificial Intelligence, 1(1), 77–80. https://doi.org/10.14569/IJARAI.2012.010112  

Ertmer, P., & Koehler, A. A. (2018). Facilitation strategies and problem space coverage: comparing face-to-face and online case-based discussions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66(3), 639–670. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-017-9563-9  

Frazzetto, D., Nielsen, T. D., Pedersen, T. B., & Šikšnys, L. (2019). Prescriptive analytics: a survey of emerging trends and technologies. The VLDB Journal, 28(4), 575–595. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00778-019-00539-y  

Gati, I., & Kulcsár, V. (2021). Making better career decisions: From challenges to opportunities. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 126, 103545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2021.103545  

Gati, I., Levin, N., & Landman-Tal, S. (2019). Decision-making models and career guidance. In J. A. Athanasou & H. N. Perera (Eds.), International handbook of career guidance (pp. 115–145). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25153-6_6  

Ge, X., Law, V., & Huang, K. (2016). Detangling the interrelationships between self-regulation and ill-structured problem solving in problem-based learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 10(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1622  

Giabbanelli, P. J., & Tawfik, A. A. (2020). Reducing the gap between the conceptual models of students and experts using graph-based adaptive instructional systems. In C. Stephanidis (Ed.), HCI International - Late breaking papers: cognition, learning and games (pp. 538–556). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60128-7_40  

Gilboa, I., & Schmeidler, D. (1995). Case-based decision theory. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(3), 605–639. https://doi.org/10.2307/2946694  

Gish-Lieberman, J. J., Rockinson-Szapkiw, A., Tawfik, A. A., & Theiling, T. M. (2021). Designing for self-efficacy: E-mentoring training for ethnic and racial minority women in STEM. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 12(3), 71–85. https://doi.org/10.14434/ijdl.v12i3.31433  

Glazewski, K. D., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2018). Scaffolding and supporting use of information for ambitious learning practices. Information and Learning Sciences, 120(1), 39–58. https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-08-2018-0087  

Grosskopf, B., Sarin, R., & Watson, E. (2015). An experiment on case-based decision making. Theory and Decision, 79(4), 639–666. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-015-9492-1  

Hampton, A. J., & Graesser, A. C. (2019). Foundational principles and design of a hybrid tutor. Adaptive Instructional Systems, 96–107. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22341-0_8  

Hmelo-Silver, C. (2013). Creating a learning space in problem-based learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1334  

Huang, M., & Pape, A. D. (2020). The impact of online consumer reviews on online sales: The case-based decision theory approach. Journal of Consumer Policy, 43(3), 463–490. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-020-09464-y  

Hung, W., Dolmans, D. H. J. M., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2019). A review to identify key perspectives in PBL meta-analyses and reviews: trends, gaps and future research directions. Advances in Health Sciences Education: Theory and Practice, 24(5), 943–957. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-019-09945-x  

Ifenthaler, D. (2014). Toward automated computer-based visualization and assessment of team-based performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(3), 651. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035505  

Jacobson, M. J. (2001). Problem solving, cognition, and complex systems: Differences between experts and novices. Complexity, 6(3), 41–49. https://doi.org/10.1002/cplx.1027  

Jansen, S. J. T. (2011). The multi-attribute utility method. In S. J. T. Jansen, H. C. C. H. Coolen, & R. W. Goetgeluk (Eds.), The measurement and analysis of housing preference and choice (pp. 101–125). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8894-9_5  

Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and ill-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(1), 65–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299613  

Jonassen, D. H. (2011a). Learning to solve problems: A handbook for designing problem-solving learning environments (1st ed.). Routledge.

Jonassen, D. H. (2011b). Supporting problem solving in PBL. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1256  

Ju, H., & Choi, I. (2017). The role of argumentation in hypothetico-deductive reasoning during problem-based learning in medical education: A conceptual framework. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 12(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1638  

Kapur, M. (2008). Productive failure. Cognition and Instruction, 26(3), 379–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000802212669  

Kim, H., & Hannafin, M. J. (2008). Grounded design of web-enhanced case-based activity. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(2), 161–179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-006-9010-9  

Koehler, A. A., & Vilarinho-Pereira, D. R. (2021). Using social media affordances to support ill-structured problem-solving skills: considering possibilities and challenges. Educational Technology Research and Development. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10060-1  

Kolodner, J. (1991). Improving human decision making through case-based decision aiding. AI Magazine, 12(2), 52–68. https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v12i2.895  

Lazonder, A., & Harmsen, R. (2016). Meta-analysis of inquiry-based learning: effects of guidance. Review of Educational Research, 87(4), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315627366  

Lepenioti, K., Bousdekis, A., Apostolou, D., & Mentzas, G. (2020). Prescriptive analytics: Literature review and research challenges. International Journal of Information Management, 50, 57–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.04.003  

Liu, A. L., Hajian, S., Jain, M., Fukuda, M., Obaid, T., Nesbit, J. C., & Winne, P. H. (2021). A microanalysis of learner questions and tutor guidance in simulation‐assisted inquiry learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12637  

Lovallo, D., Clarke, C., & Camerer, C. (2012). Robust analogizing and the outside view: two empirical tests of case-based decision making. Strategic Management Journal, 33(5), 496–512. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.962  

Loyens, S., & Rikers, R. (2011). Instruction based on inquiry. In R. Mayer & R. Rikers (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction (pp. 361–381). Routledge Press.

Malogianni, C., Luo, T., Stefaniak, J., & Eckhoff, A. (2021). An exploration of the relationship between argumentative prompts and depth to elicit alternative positions in ill-structured problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development: ETR & D, 69(5), 2353–2375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10019-2  

Noroozi, O., & Hatami, J. (2019). The effects of online peer feedback and epistemic beliefs on students’ argumentation-based learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 56(5), 548–557. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2018.1431143  

Noroozi, O., Kirschner, P. A., Biemans, H. J. A., & Mulder, M. (2017). Promoting argumentation competence: Extending from first- to second-order scaffolding through adaptive fading. Educational Psychology Review, 30, 153–176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9400-z  

Olney, A. M., Graesser, A. C., & Person, N. K. (2012). Question generation from concept maps. Dialogue & Discourse, 3(2), 75–99. https://doi.org/10.5087/dad.2012.204  

Ossadnik, W., Wilmsmann, D., & Niemann, B. (2013). Experimental evidence on case-based decision theory. Theory and Decision, 75(2), 211–232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-012-9333-4  

Pape, A. D., & Kurtz, K. J. (2013). Evaluating case-based decision theory: Predicting empirical patterns of human classification learning. Games and Economic Behavior, 82, 52–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geb.2013.06.010  

Poornima, S., & Pushpalatha, M. (2020). A survey on various applications of prescriptive analytics. International Journal of Intelligent Networks, 1, 76–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijin.2020.07.001  

Radkowitsch, A., Vogel, F., & Fischer, F. (2020). Good for learning, bad for motivation? A meta-analysis on the effects of computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 15(1), 5–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-020-09316-4  

Reigeluth, C., & Carr-Chellman, A. (2009). Instructional-design theories and models: Building a common knowledge base (C. Reigeluth & A. Carr-Chellman (eds.); Vol. 3). Routledge.

Rong, H., Choi, I., Schmiedt, C., & Clarke, K. (2020). Using failure cases to promote veterinary students’ problem-solving abilities: a qualitative study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(5), 2121–2146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09751-y  

Savery, J. (2009). Problem-based approach to instruction. In C. Reigeluth & A. Carr-Chellman (Eds.), Instructional-design theories and models: Building a common knowledge base (Vol. 3, pp. 143–166). Routledge.

Schank, R., Berman, T., & Macpherson, K. (1999). Learning by doing. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (1st ed., Vol. 2, pp. 241–261). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Schwartz, A., & Bergus, G. (2008). Medical decision making: A physician’s guide. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511722080  

Shin, H. S., & Jeong, A. (2021). Modeling the relationship between students’ prior knowledge, causal reasoning processes, and quality of causal maps. Computers & Education, 163, 104113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104113  

Simon, H. A. (1972). Theories of bounded rationality. Decision and Organization, 1(1), 161–176. https://edtechbooks.org/-EUvQ  

Sinha, T., & Kapur, M. (2021). When problem solving followed by instruction works: Evidence for productive failure. Review of Educational Research, 00346543211019105. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543211019105  

Tawfik, A. A., Schmidt, M., & Hooper, C. P. (2020). Role of conjecture mapping in applying a game-based strategy towards a case library: a view from educational design research. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 32, 655–681. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-020-09251-1  

Valle, N., Antonenko, P., Valle, D., Dawson, K., Huggins-Manley, A. C., & Baiser, B. (2021). The influence of task-value scaffolding in a predictive learning analytics dashboard on learners’ statistics anxiety, motivation, and performance. Computers & Education, 173, 104288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104288  

Von Winterfeldt, D., & Edwards, W. (1993). Decision analysis and behavioral research. Cambridge University Press.

Wolff, C. E., Jarodzka, H., & Boshuizen, H. P. A. (2021). Classroom management scripts: a theoretical model contrasting expert and novice teachers’ knowledge and awareness of classroom events. Educational Psychology Review, 33(1), 131–148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09542-0  

Xie, K., Hensley, L. C., Law, V., & Sun, Z. (2019). Self-regulation as a function of perceived leadership and cohesion in small group online collaborative learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(1), 456–468. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12594  

University of Memphis

This content is provided to you freely by EdTech Books.

Access it online or download it at https://edtechbooks.org/jaid_11_2/decision_making_and_ .

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

14.3 Problem Solving and Decision Making in Groups

Learning objectives.

• Discuss the common components and characteristics of problems.
• Explain the five steps of the group problem-solving process.
• Describe the brainstorming and discussion that should take place before the group makes a decision.
• Compare and contrast the different decision-making techniques.
• Discuss the various influences on decision making.

Although the steps of problem solving and decision making that we will discuss next may seem obvious, we often don’t think to or choose not to use them. Instead, we start working on a problem and later realize we are lost and have to backtrack. I’m sure we’ve all reached a point in a project or task and had the “OK, now what?” moment. I’ve recently taken up some carpentry projects as a functional hobby, and I have developed a great respect for the importance of advanced planning. It’s frustrating to get to a crucial point in building or fixing something only to realize that you have to unscrew a support board that you already screwed in, have to drive back to the hardware store to get something that you didn’t think to get earlier, or have to completely start over. In this section, we will discuss the group problem-solving process, methods of decision making, and influences on these processes.

Group Problem Solving

The problem-solving process involves thoughts, discussions, actions, and decisions that occur from the first consideration of a problematic situation to the goal. The problems that groups face are varied, but some common problems include budgeting funds, raising funds, planning events, addressing customer or citizen complaints, creating or adapting products or services to fit needs, supporting members, and raising awareness about issues or causes.

Problems of all sorts have three common components (Adams & Galanes, 2009):

• An undesirable situation. When conditions are desirable, there isn’t a problem.
• A desired situation. Even though it may only be a vague idea, there is a drive to better the undesirable situation. The vague idea may develop into a more precise goal that can be achieved, although solutions are not yet generated.
• Obstacles between undesirable and desirable situation. These are things that stand in the way between the current situation and the group’s goal of addressing it. This component of a problem requires the most work, and it is the part where decision making occurs. Some examples of obstacles include limited funding, resources, personnel, time, or information. Obstacles can also take the form of people who are working against the group, including people resistant to change or people who disagree.

Discussion of these three elements of a problem helps the group tailor its problem-solving process, as each problem will vary. While these three general elements are present in each problem, the group should also address specific characteristics of the problem. Five common and important characteristics to consider are task difficulty, number of possible solutions, group member interest in problem, group member familiarity with problem, and the need for solution acceptance (Adams & Galanes, 2009).

• Task difficulty. Difficult tasks are also typically more complex. Groups should be prepared to spend time researching and discussing a difficult and complex task in order to develop a shared foundational knowledge. This typically requires individual work outside of the group and frequent group meetings to share information.
• Number of possible solutions. There are usually multiple ways to solve a problem or complete a task, but some problems have more potential solutions than others. Figuring out how to prepare a beach house for an approaching hurricane is fairly complex and difficult, but there are still a limited number of things to do—for example, taping and boarding up windows; turning off water, electricity, and gas; trimming trees; and securing loose outside objects. Other problems may be more creatively based. For example, designing a new restaurant may entail using some standard solutions but could also entail many different types of innovation with layout and design.
• Group member interest in problem. When group members are interested in the problem, they will be more engaged with the problem-solving process and invested in finding a quality solution. Groups with high interest in and knowledge about the problem may want more freedom to develop and implement solutions, while groups with low interest may prefer a leader who provides structure and direction.
• Group familiarity with problem. Some groups encounter a problem regularly, while other problems are more unique or unexpected. A family who has lived in hurricane alley for decades probably has a better idea of how to prepare its house for a hurricane than does a family that just recently moved from the Midwest. Many groups that rely on funding have to revisit a budget every year, and in recent years, groups have had to get more creative with budgets as funding has been cut in nearly every sector. When group members aren’t familiar with a problem, they will need to do background research on what similar groups have done and may also need to bring in outside experts.
• Need for solution acceptance. In this step, groups must consider how many people the decision will affect and how much “buy-in” from others the group needs in order for their solution to be successfully implemented. Some small groups have many stakeholders on whom the success of a solution depends. Other groups are answerable only to themselves. When a small group is planning on building a new park in a crowded neighborhood or implementing a new policy in a large business, it can be very difficult to develop solutions that will be accepted by all. In such cases, groups will want to poll those who will be affected by the solution and may want to do a pilot implementation to see how people react. Imposing an excellent solution that doesn’t have buy-in from stakeholders can still lead to failure.

Group problem solving can be a confusing puzzle unless it is approached systematically.

Muness Castle – Problem Solving – CC BY-SA 2.0.

Group Problem-Solving Process

There are several variations of similar problem-solving models based on US American scholar John Dewey’s reflective thinking process (Bormann & Bormann, 1988). As you read through the steps in the process, think about how you can apply what we learned regarding the general and specific elements of problems. Some of the following steps are straightforward, and they are things we would logically do when faced with a problem. However, taking a deliberate and systematic approach to problem solving has been shown to benefit group functioning and performance. A deliberate approach is especially beneficial for groups that do not have an established history of working together and will only be able to meet occasionally. Although a group should attend to each step of the process, group leaders or other group members who facilitate problem solving should be cautious not to dogmatically follow each element of the process or force a group along. Such a lack of flexibility could limit group member input and negatively affect the group’s cohesion and climate.

Step 1: Define the Problem

Define the problem by considering the three elements shared by every problem: the current undesirable situation, the goal or more desirable situation, and obstacles in the way (Adams & Galanes, 2009). At this stage, group members share what they know about the current situation, without proposing solutions or evaluating the information. Here are some good questions to ask during this stage: What is the current difficulty? How did we come to know that the difficulty exists? Who/what is involved? Why is it meaningful/urgent/important? What have the effects been so far? What, if any, elements of the difficulty require clarification? At the end of this stage, the group should be able to compose a single sentence that summarizes the problem called a problem statement . Avoid wording in the problem statement or question that hints at potential solutions. A small group formed to investigate ethical violations of city officials could use the following problem statement: “Our state does not currently have a mechanism for citizens to report suspected ethical violations by city officials.”

Step 2: Analyze the Problem

During this step a group should analyze the problem and the group’s relationship to the problem. Whereas the first step involved exploring the “what” related to the problem, this step focuses on the “why.” At this stage, group members can discuss the potential causes of the difficulty. Group members may also want to begin setting out an agenda or timeline for the group’s problem-solving process, looking forward to the other steps. To fully analyze the problem, the group can discuss the five common problem variables discussed before. Here are two examples of questions that the group formed to address ethics violations might ask: Why doesn’t our city have an ethics reporting mechanism? Do cities of similar size have such a mechanism? Once the problem has been analyzed, the group can pose a problem question that will guide the group as it generates possible solutions. “How can citizens report suspected ethical violations of city officials and how will such reports be processed and addressed?” As you can see, the problem question is more complex than the problem statement, since the group has moved on to more in-depth discussion of the problem during step 2.

Step 3: Generate Possible Solutions

During this step, group members generate possible solutions to the problem. Again, solutions should not be evaluated at this point, only proposed and clarified. The question should be what could we do to address this problem, not what should we do to address it. It is perfectly OK for a group member to question another person’s idea by asking something like “What do you mean?” or “Could you explain your reasoning more?” Discussions at this stage may reveal a need to return to previous steps to better define or more fully analyze a problem. Since many problems are multifaceted, it is necessary for group members to generate solutions for each part of the problem separately, making sure to have multiple solutions for each part. Stopping the solution-generating process prematurely can lead to groupthink. For the problem question previously posed, the group would need to generate solutions for all three parts of the problem included in the question. Possible solutions for the first part of the problem (How can citizens report ethical violations?) may include “online reporting system, e-mail, in-person, anonymously, on-the-record,” and so on. Possible solutions for the second part of the problem (How will reports be processed?) may include “daily by a newly appointed ethics officer, weekly by a nonpartisan nongovernment employee,” and so on. Possible solutions for the third part of the problem (How will reports be addressed?) may include “by a newly appointed ethics commission, by the accused’s supervisor, by the city manager,” and so on.

Step 4: Evaluate Solutions

During this step, solutions can be critically evaluated based on their credibility, completeness, and worth. Once the potential solutions have been narrowed based on more obvious differences in relevance and/or merit, the group should analyze each solution based on its potential effects—especially negative effects. Groups that are required to report the rationale for their decision or whose decisions may be subject to public scrutiny would be wise to make a set list of criteria for evaluating each solution. Additionally, solutions can be evaluated based on how well they fit with the group’s charge and the abilities of the group. To do this, group members may ask, “Does this solution live up to the original purpose or mission of the group?” and “Can the solution actually be implemented with our current resources and connections?” and “How will this solution be supported, funded, enforced, and assessed?” Secondary tensions and substantive conflict, two concepts discussed earlier, emerge during this step of problem solving, and group members will need to employ effective critical thinking and listening skills.

Decision making is part of the larger process of problem solving and it plays a prominent role in this step. While there are several fairly similar models for problem solving, there are many varied decision-making techniques that groups can use. For example, to narrow the list of proposed solutions, group members may decide by majority vote, by weighing the pros and cons, or by discussing them until a consensus is reached. There are also more complex decision-making models like the “six hats method,” which we will discuss later. Once the final decision is reached, the group leader or facilitator should confirm that the group is in agreement. It may be beneficial to let the group break for a while or even to delay the final decision until a later meeting to allow people time to evaluate it outside of the group context.

Step 5: Implement and Assess the Solution

Implementing the solution requires some advanced planning, and it should not be rushed unless the group is operating under strict time restraints or delay may lead to some kind of harm. Although some solutions can be implemented immediately, others may take days, months, or years. As was noted earlier, it may be beneficial for groups to poll those who will be affected by the solution as to their opinion of it or even to do a pilot test to observe the effectiveness of the solution and how people react to it. Before implementation, groups should also determine how and when they would assess the effectiveness of the solution by asking, “How will we know if the solution is working or not?” Since solution assessment will vary based on whether or not the group is disbanded, groups should also consider the following questions: If the group disbands after implementation, who will be responsible for assessing the solution? If the solution fails, will the same group reconvene or will a new group be formed?

Once a solution has been reached and the group has the “green light” to implement it, it should proceed deliberately and cautiously, making sure to consider possible consequences and address them as needed.

Jocko Benoit – Prodigal Light – CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

Certain elements of the solution may need to be delegated out to various people inside and outside the group. Group members may also be assigned to implement a particular part of the solution based on their role in the decision making or because it connects to their area of expertise. Likewise, group members may be tasked with publicizing the solution or “selling” it to a particular group of stakeholders. Last, the group should consider its future. In some cases, the group will get to decide if it will stay together and continue working on other tasks or if it will disband. In other cases, outside forces determine the group’s fate.

“Getting Competent”

Problem Solving and Group Presentations

Giving a group presentation requires that individual group members and the group as a whole solve many problems and make many decisions. Although having more people involved in a presentation increases logistical difficulties and has the potential to create more conflict, a well-prepared and well-delivered group presentation can be more engaging and effective than a typical presentation. The main problems facing a group giving a presentation are (1) dividing responsibilities, (2) coordinating schedules and time management, and (3) working out the logistics of the presentation delivery.

In terms of dividing responsibilities, assigning individual work at the first meeting and then trying to fit it all together before the presentation (which is what many college students do when faced with a group project) is not the recommended method. Integrating content and visual aids created by several different people into a seamless final product takes time and effort, and the person “stuck” with this job at the end usually ends up developing some resentment toward his or her group members. While it’s OK for group members to do work independently outside of group meetings, spend time working together to help set up some standards for content and formatting expectations that will help make later integration of work easier. Taking the time to complete one part of the presentation together can help set those standards for later individual work. Discuss the roles that various group members will play openly so there isn’t role confusion. There could be one point person for keeping track of the group’s progress and schedule, one point person for communication, one point person for content integration, one point person for visual aids, and so on. Each person shouldn’t do all that work on his or her own but help focus the group’s attention on his or her specific area during group meetings (Stanton, 2009).

Scheduling group meetings is one of the most challenging problems groups face, given people’s busy lives. From the beginning, it should be clearly communicated that the group needs to spend considerable time in face-to-face meetings, and group members should know that they may have to make an occasional sacrifice to attend. Especially important is the commitment to scheduling time to rehearse the presentation. Consider creating a contract of group guidelines that includes expectations for meeting attendance to increase group members’ commitment.

Group presentations require members to navigate many logistics of their presentation. While it may be easier for a group to assign each member to create a five-minute segment and then transition from one person to the next, this is definitely not the most engaging method. Creating a master presentation and then assigning individual speakers creates a more fluid and dynamic presentation and allows everyone to become familiar with the content, which can help if a person doesn’t show up to present and during the question-and-answer section. Once the content of the presentation is complete, figure out introductions, transitions, visual aids, and the use of time and space (Stanton, 2012). In terms of introductions, figure out if one person will introduce all the speakers at the beginning, if speakers will introduce themselves at the beginning, or if introductions will occur as the presentation progresses. In terms of transitions, make sure each person has included in his or her speaking notes when presentation duties switch from one person to the next. Visual aids have the potential to cause hiccups in a group presentation if they aren’t fluidly integrated. Practicing with visual aids and having one person control them may help prevent this. Know how long your presentation is and know how you’re going to use the space. Presenters should know how long the whole presentation should be and how long each of their segments should be so that everyone can share the responsibility of keeping time. Also consider the size and layout of the presentation space. You don’t want presenters huddled in a corner until it’s their turn to speak or trapped behind furniture when their turn comes around.

• Of the three main problems facing group presenters, which do you think is the most challenging and why?
• Why do you think people tasked with a group presentation (especially students) prefer to divide the parts up and have members work on them independently before coming back together and integrating each part? What problems emerge from this method? In what ways might developing a master presentation and then assigning parts to different speakers be better than the more divided method? What are the drawbacks to the master presentation method?

Decision Making in Groups

We all engage in personal decision making daily, and we all know that some decisions are more difficult than others. When we make decisions in groups, we face some challenges that we do not face in our personal decision making, but we also stand to benefit from some advantages of group decision making (Napier & Gershenfeld, 2004). Group decision making can appear fair and democratic but really only be a gesture that covers up the fact that certain group members or the group leader have already decided. Group decision making also takes more time than individual decisions and can be burdensome if some group members do not do their assigned work, divert the group with self-centered or unproductive role behaviors, or miss meetings. Conversely, though, group decisions are often more informed, since all group members develop a shared understanding of a problem through discussion and debate. The shared understanding may also be more complex and deep than what an individual would develop, because the group members are exposed to a variety of viewpoints that can broaden their own perspectives. Group decisions also benefit from synergy, one of the key advantages of group communication that we discussed earlier. Most groups do not use a specific method of decision making, perhaps thinking that they’ll work things out as they go. This can lead to unequal participation, social loafing, premature decisions, prolonged discussion, and a host of other negative consequences. So in this section we will learn some practices that will prepare us for good decision making and some specific techniques we can use to help us reach a final decision.

Brainstorming before Decision Making

Before groups can make a decision, they need to generate possible solutions to their problem. The most commonly used method is brainstorming, although most people don’t follow the recommended steps of brainstorming. As you’ll recall, brainstorming refers to the quick generation of ideas free of evaluation. The originator of the term brainstorming said the following four rules must be followed for the technique to be effective (Osborn, 1959):

• Evaluation of ideas is forbidden.
• Wild and crazy ideas are encouraged.
• Quantity of ideas, not quality, is the goal.
• New combinations of ideas presented are encouraged.

To make brainstorming more of a decision-making method rather than an idea-generating method, group communication scholars have suggested additional steps that precede and follow brainstorming (Cragan & Wright, 1991).

• Do a warm-up brainstorming session. Some people are more apprehensive about publicly communicating their ideas than others are, and a warm-up session can help ease apprehension and prime group members for task-related idea generation. The warm-up can be initiated by anyone in the group and should only go on for a few minutes. To get things started, a person could ask, “If our group formed a band, what would we be called?” or “What other purposes could a mailbox serve?” In the previous examples, the first warm up gets the group’s more abstract creative juices flowing, while the second focuses more on practical and concrete ideas.
• Do the actual brainstorming session. This session shouldn’t last more than thirty minutes and should follow the four rules of brainstorming mentioned previously. To ensure that the fourth rule is realized, the facilitator could encourage people to piggyback off each other’s ideas.
• Eliminate duplicate ideas. After the brainstorming session is over, group members can eliminate (without evaluating) ideas that are the same or very similar.
• Clarify, organize, and evaluate ideas. Before evaluation, see if any ideas need clarification. Then try to theme or group ideas together in some orderly fashion. Since “wild and crazy” ideas are encouraged, some suggestions may need clarification. If it becomes clear that there isn’t really a foundation to an idea and that it is too vague or abstract and can’t be clarified, it may be eliminated. As a caution though, it may be wise to not throw out off-the-wall ideas that are hard to categorize and to instead put them in a miscellaneous or “wild and crazy” category.

Discussion before Decision Making

The nominal group technique guides decision making through a four-step process that includes idea generation and evaluation and seeks to elicit equal contributions from all group members (Delbecq & Ven de Ven, 1971). This method is useful because the procedure involves all group members systematically, which fixes the problem of uneven participation during discussions. Since everyone contributes to the discussion, this method can also help reduce instances of social loafing. To use the nominal group technique, do the following:

• Silently and individually list ideas.
• Create a master list of ideas.
• Clarify ideas as needed.
• Take a secret vote to rank group members’ acceptance of ideas.

During the first step, have group members work quietly, in the same space, to write down every idea they have to address the task or problem they face. This shouldn’t take more than twenty minutes. Whoever is facilitating the discussion should remind group members to use brainstorming techniques, which means they shouldn’t evaluate ideas as they are generated. Ask group members to remain silent once they’ve finished their list so they do not distract others.

During the second step, the facilitator goes around the group in a consistent order asking each person to share one idea at a time. As the idea is shared, the facilitator records it on a master list that everyone can see. Keep track of how many times each idea comes up, as that could be an idea that warrants more discussion. Continue this process until all the ideas have been shared. As a note to facilitators, some group members may begin to edit their list or self-censor when asked to provide one of their ideas. To limit a person’s apprehension with sharing his or her ideas and to ensure that each idea is shared, I have asked group members to exchange lists with someone else so they can share ideas from the list they receive without fear of being personally judged.

During step three, the facilitator should note that group members can now ask for clarification on ideas on the master list. Do not let this discussion stray into evaluation of ideas. To help avoid an unnecessarily long discussion, it may be useful to go from one person to the next to ask which ideas need clarifying and then go to the originator(s) of the idea in question for clarification.

During the fourth step, members use a voting ballot to rank the acceptability of the ideas on the master list. If the list is long, you may ask group members to rank only their top five or so choices. The facilitator then takes up the secret ballots and reviews them in a random order, noting the rankings of each idea. Ideally, the highest ranked idea can then be discussed and decided on. The nominal group technique does not carry a group all the way through to the point of decision; rather, it sets the group up for a roundtable discussion or use of some other method to evaluate the merits of the top ideas.

Specific Decision-Making Techniques

Some decision-making techniques involve determining a course of action based on the level of agreement among the group members. These methods include majority, expert, authority, and consensus rule. Table 14.1 “Pros and Cons of Agreement-Based Decision-Making Techniques” reviews the pros and cons of each of these methods.

Majority rule is a simple method of decision making based on voting. In most cases a majority is considered half plus one.

Becky McCray – Voting – CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

Majority rule is a commonly used decision-making technique in which a majority (one-half plus one) must agree before a decision is made. A show-of-hands vote, a paper ballot, or an electronic voting system can determine the majority choice. Many decision-making bodies, including the US House of Representatives, Senate, and Supreme Court, use majority rule to make decisions, which shows that it is often associated with democratic decision making, since each person gets one vote and each vote counts equally. Of course, other individuals and mediated messages can influence a person’s vote, but since the voting power is spread out over all group members, it is not easy for one person or party to take control of the decision-making process. In some cases—for example, to override a presidential veto or to amend the constitution—a super majority of two-thirds may be required to make a decision.

Minority rule is a decision-making technique in which a designated authority or expert has final say over a decision and may or may not consider the input of other group members. When a designated expert makes a decision by minority rule, there may be buy-in from others in the group, especially if the members of the group didn’t have relevant knowledge or expertise. When a designated authority makes decisions, buy-in will vary based on group members’ level of respect for the authority. For example, decisions made by an elected authority may be more accepted by those who elected him or her than by those who didn’t. As with majority rule, this technique can be time saving. Unlike majority rule, one person or party can have control over the decision-making process. This type of decision making is more similar to that used by monarchs and dictators. An obvious negative consequence of this method is that the needs or wants of one person can override the needs and wants of the majority. A minority deciding for the majority has led to negative consequences throughout history. The white Afrikaner minority that ruled South Africa for decades instituted apartheid, which was a system of racial segregation that disenfranchised and oppressed the majority population. The quality of the decision and its fairness really depends on the designated expert or authority.

Consensus rule is a decision-making technique in which all members of the group must agree on the same decision. On rare occasions, a decision may be ideal for all group members, which can lead to unanimous agreement without further debate and discussion. Although this can be positive, be cautious that this isn’t a sign of groupthink. More typically, consensus is reached only after lengthy discussion. On the plus side, consensus often leads to high-quality decisions due to the time and effort it takes to get everyone in agreement. Group members are also more likely to be committed to the decision because of their investment in reaching it. On the negative side, the ultimate decision is often one that all group members can live with but not one that’s ideal for all members. Additionally, the process of arriving at consensus also includes conflict, as people debate ideas and negotiate the interpersonal tensions that may result.

Table 14.1 Pros and Cons of Agreement-Based Decision-Making Techniques

“Getting Critical”

Six Hats Method of Decision Making

Edward de Bono developed the Six Hats method of thinking in the late 1980s, and it has since become a regular feature in decision-making training in business and professional contexts (de Bono, 1985). The method’s popularity lies in its ability to help people get out of habitual ways of thinking and to allow group members to play different roles and see a problem or decision from multiple points of view. The basic idea is that each of the six hats represents a different way of thinking, and when we figuratively switch hats, we switch the way we think. The hats and their style of thinking are as follows:

• White hat. Objective—focuses on seeking information such as data and facts and then processes that information in a neutral way.
• Red hat. Emotional—uses intuition, gut reactions, and feelings to judge information and suggestions.
• Black hat. Negative—focuses on potential risks, points out possibilities for failure, and evaluates information cautiously and defensively.
• Yellow hat. Positive—is optimistic about suggestions and future outcomes, gives constructive and positive feedback, points out benefits and advantages.
• Green hat. Creative—tries to generate new ideas and solutions, thinks “outside the box.”
• Blue hat. Philosophical—uses metacommunication to organize and reflect on the thinking and communication taking place in the group, facilitates who wears what hat and when group members change hats.

Specific sequences or combinations of hats can be used to encourage strategic thinking. For example, the group leader may start off wearing the Blue Hat and suggest that the group start their decision-making process with some “White Hat thinking” in order to process through facts and other available information. During this stage, the group could also process through what other groups have done when faced with a similar problem. Then the leader could begin an evaluation sequence starting with two minutes of “Yellow Hat thinking” to identify potential positive outcomes, then “Black Hat thinking” to allow group members to express reservations about ideas and point out potential problems, then “Red Hat thinking” to get people’s gut reactions to the previous discussion, then “Green Hat thinking” to identify other possible solutions that are more tailored to the group’s situation or completely new approaches. At the end of a sequence, the Blue Hat would want to summarize what was said and begin a new sequence. To successfully use this method, the person wearing the Blue Hat should be familiar with different sequences and plan some of the thinking patterns ahead of time based on the problem and the group members. Each round of thinking should be limited to a certain time frame (two to five minutes) to keep the discussion moving.

• This decision-making method has been praised because it allows group members to “switch gears” in their thinking and allows for role playing, which lets people express ideas more freely. How can this help enhance critical thinking? Which combination of hats do you think would be best for a critical thinking sequence?
• What combinations of hats might be useful if the leader wanted to break the larger group up into pairs and why? For example, what kind of thinking would result from putting Yellow and Red together, Black and White together, or Red and White together, and so on?
• Based on your preferred ways of thinking and your personality, which hat would be the best fit for you? Which would be the most challenging? Why?

Influences on Decision Making

Many factors influence the decision-making process. For example, how might a group’s independence or access to resources affect the decisions they make? What potential advantages and disadvantages come with decisions made by groups that are more or less similar in terms of personality and cultural identities? In this section, we will explore how situational, personality, and cultural influences affect decision making in groups.

Situational Influences on Decision Making

A group’s situational context affects decision making. One key situational element is the degree of freedom that the group has to make its own decisions, secure its own resources, and initiate its own actions. Some groups have to go through multiple approval processes before they can do anything, while others are self-directed, self-governing, and self-sustaining. Another situational influence is uncertainty. In general, groups deal with more uncertainty in decision making than do individuals because of the increased number of variables that comes with adding more people to a situation. Individual group members can’t know what other group members are thinking, whether or not they are doing their work, and how committed they are to the group. So the size of a group is a powerful situational influence, as it adds to uncertainty and complicates communication.

Access to information also influences a group. First, the nature of the group’s task or problem affects its ability to get information. Group members can more easily make decisions about a problem when other groups have similarly experienced it. Even if the problem is complex and serious, the group can learn from other situations and apply what it learns. Second, the group must have access to flows of information. Access to archives, electronic databases, and individuals with relevant experience is necessary to obtain any relevant information about similar problems or to do research on a new or unique problem. In this regard, group members’ formal and information network connections also become important situational influences.

The urgency of a decision can have a major influence on the decision-making process. As a situation becomes more urgent, it requires more specific decision-making methods and types of communication.

Judith E. Bell – Urgent – CC BY-SA 2.0.

The origin and urgency of a problem are also situational factors that influence decision making. In terms of origin, problems usually occur in one of four ways:

• Something goes wrong. Group members must decide how to fix or stop something. Example—a firehouse crew finds out that half of the building is contaminated with mold and must be closed down.
• Expectations change or increase. Group members must innovate more efficient or effective ways of doing something. Example—a firehouse crew finds out that the district they are responsible for is being expanded.
• Something goes wrong and expectations change or increase. Group members must fix/stop and become more efficient/effective. Example—the firehouse crew has to close half the building and must start responding to more calls due to the expanding district.
• The problem existed from the beginning. Group members must go back to the origins of the situation and walk through and analyze the steps again to decide what can be done differently. Example—a firehouse crew has consistently had to work with minimal resources in terms of building space and firefighting tools.

In each of the cases, the need for a decision may be more or less urgent depending on how badly something is going wrong, how high the expectations have been raised, or the degree to which people are fed up with a broken system. Decisions must be made in situations ranging from crisis level to mundane.

Personality Influences on Decision Making

A long-studied typology of value orientations that affect decision making consists of the following types of decision maker: the economic, the aesthetic, the theoretical, the social, the political, and the religious (Spranger, 1928).

• The economic decision maker makes decisions based on what is practical and useful.
• The aesthetic decision maker makes decisions based on form and harmony, desiring a solution that is elegant and in sync with the surroundings.
• The theoretical decision maker wants to discover the truth through rationality.
• The social decision maker emphasizes the personal impact of a decision and sympathizes with those who may be affected by it.
• The political decision maker is interested in power and influence and views people and/or property as divided into groups that have different value.
• The religious decision maker seeks to identify with a larger purpose, works to unify others under that goal, and commits to a viewpoint, often denying one side and being dedicated to the other.

In the United States, economic, political, and theoretical decision making tend to be more prevalent decision-making orientations, which likely corresponds to the individualistic cultural orientation with its emphasis on competition and efficiency. But situational context, as we discussed before, can also influence our decision making.

Personality affects decision making. For example, “economic” decision makers decide based on what is practical and useful.

One Way Stock – Tough Decisions Ahead – CC BY-ND 2.0.

The personalities of group members, especially leaders and other active members, affect the climate of the group. Group member personalities can be categorized based on where they fall on a continuum anchored by the following descriptors: dominant/submissive, friendly/unfriendly, and instrumental/emotional (Cragan & Wright, 1999). The more group members there are in any extreme of these categories, the more likely that the group climate will also shift to resemble those characteristics.

• Dominant versus submissive. Group members that are more dominant act more independently and directly, initiate conversations, take up more space, make more direct eye contact, seek leadership positions, and take control over decision-making processes. More submissive members are reserved, contribute to the group only when asked to, avoid eye contact, and leave their personal needs and thoughts unvoiced or give into the suggestions of others.
• Friendly versus unfriendly. Group members on the friendly side of the continuum find a balance between talking and listening, don’t try to win at the expense of other group members, are flexible but not weak, and value democratic decision making. Unfriendly group members are disagreeable, indifferent, withdrawn, and selfish, which leads them to either not invest in decision making or direct it in their own interest rather than in the interest of the group.
• Instrumental versus emotional. Instrumental group members are emotionally neutral, objective, analytical, task-oriented, and committed followers, which leads them to work hard and contribute to the group’s decision making as long as it is orderly and follows agreed-on rules. Emotional group members are creative, playful, independent, unpredictable, and expressive, which leads them to make rash decisions, resist group norms or decision-making structures, and switch often from relational to task focus.

Cultural Context and Decision Making

Just like neighborhoods, schools, and countries, small groups vary in terms of their degree of similarity and difference. Demographic changes in the United States and increases in technology that can bring different people together make it more likely that we will be interacting in more and more heterogeneous groups (Allen, 2011). Some small groups are more homogenous, meaning the members are more similar, and some are more heterogeneous, meaning the members are more different. Diversity and difference within groups has advantages and disadvantages. In terms of advantages, research finds that, in general, groups that are culturally heterogeneous have better overall performance than more homogenous groups (Haslett & Ruebush, 1999). Additionally, when group members have time to get to know each other and competently communicate across their differences, the advantages of diversity include better decision making due to different perspectives (Thomas, 1999). Unfortunately, groups often operate under time constraints and other pressures that make the possibility for intercultural dialogue and understanding difficult. The main disadvantage of heterogeneous groups is the possibility for conflict, but given that all groups experience conflict, this isn’t solely due to the presence of diversity. We will now look more specifically at how some of the cultural value orientations we’ve learned about already in this book can play out in groups with international diversity and how domestic diversity in terms of demographics can also influence group decision making.

International Diversity in Group Interactions

Cultural value orientations such as individualism/collectivism, power distance, and high-/low-context communication styles all manifest on a continuum of communication behaviors and can influence group decision making. Group members from individualistic cultures are more likely to value task-oriented, efficient, and direct communication. This could manifest in behaviors such as dividing up tasks into individual projects before collaboration begins and then openly debating ideas during discussion and decision making. Additionally, people from cultures that value individualism are more likely to openly express dissent from a decision, essentially expressing their disagreement with the group. Group members from collectivistic cultures are more likely to value relationships over the task at hand. Because of this, they also tend to value conformity and face-saving (often indirect) communication. This could manifest in behaviors such as establishing norms that include periods of socializing to build relationships before task-oriented communication like negotiations begin or norms that limit public disagreement in favor of more indirect communication that doesn’t challenge the face of other group members or the group’s leader. In a group composed of people from a collectivistic culture, each member would likely play harmonizing roles, looking for signs of conflict and resolving them before they become public.

Power distance can also affect group interactions. Some cultures rank higher on power-distance scales, meaning they value hierarchy, make decisions based on status, and believe that people have a set place in society that is fairly unchangeable. Group members from high-power-distance cultures would likely appreciate a strong designated leader who exhibits a more directive leadership style and prefer groups in which members have clear and assigned roles. In a group that is homogenous in terms of having a high-power-distance orientation, members with higher status would be able to openly provide information, and those with lower status may not provide information unless a higher status member explicitly seeks it from them. Low-power-distance cultures do not place as much value and meaning on status and believe that all group members can participate in decision making. Group members from low-power-distance cultures would likely freely speak their mind during a group meeting and prefer a participative leadership style.

How much meaning is conveyed through the context surrounding verbal communication can also affect group communication. Some cultures have a high-context communication style in which much of the meaning in an interaction is conveyed through context such as nonverbal cues and silence. Group members from high-context cultures may avoid saying something directly, assuming that other group members will understand the intended meaning even if the message is indirect. So if someone disagrees with a proposed course of action, he or she may say, “Let’s discuss this tomorrow,” and mean, “I don’t think we should do this.” Such indirect communication is also a face-saving strategy that is common in collectivistic cultures. Other cultures have a low-context communication style that places more importance on the meaning conveyed through words than through context or nonverbal cues. Group members from low-context cultures often say what they mean and mean what they say. For example, if someone doesn’t like an idea, they might say, “I think we should consider more options. This one doesn’t seem like the best we can do.”

In any of these cases, an individual from one culture operating in a group with people of a different cultural orientation could adapt to the expectations of the host culture, especially if that person possesses a high degree of intercultural communication competence (ICC). Additionally, people with high ICC can also adapt to a group member with a different cultural orientation than the host culture. Even though these cultural orientations connect to values that affect our communication in fairly consistent ways, individuals may exhibit different communication behaviors depending on their own individual communication style and the situation.

Domestic Diversity and Group Communication

While it is becoming more likely that we will interact in small groups with international diversity, we are guaranteed to interact in groups that are diverse in terms of the cultural identities found within a single country or the subcultures found within a larger cultural group.

Gender stereotypes sometimes influence the roles that people play within a group. For example, the stereotype that women are more nurturing than men may lead group members (both male and female) to expect that women will play the role of supporters or harmonizers within the group. Since women have primarily performed secretarial work since the 1900s, it may also be expected that women will play the role of recorder. In both of these cases, stereotypical notions of gender place women in roles that are typically not as valued in group communication. The opposite is true for men. In terms of leadership, despite notable exceptions, research shows that men fill an overwhelmingly disproportionate amount of leadership positions. We are socialized to see certain behaviors by men as indicative of leadership abilities, even though they may not be. For example, men are often perceived to contribute more to a group because they tend to speak first when asked a question or to fill a silence and are perceived to talk more about task-related matters than relationally oriented matters. Both of these tendencies create a perception that men are more engaged with the task. Men are also socialized to be more competitive and self-congratulatory, meaning that their communication may be seen as dedicated and their behaviors seen as powerful, and that when their work isn’t noticed they will be more likely to make it known to the group rather than take silent credit. Even though we know that the relational elements of a group are crucial for success, even in high-performance teams, that work is not as valued in our society as the task-related work.

Despite the fact that some communication patterns and behaviors related to our typical (and stereotypical) gender socialization affect how we interact in and form perceptions of others in groups, the differences in group communication that used to be attributed to gender in early group communication research seem to be diminishing. This is likely due to the changing organizational cultures from which much group work emerges, which have now had more than sixty years to adjust to women in the workplace. It is also due to a more nuanced understanding of gender-based research, which doesn’t take a stereotypical view from the beginning as many of the early male researchers did. Now, instead of biological sex being assumed as a factor that creates inherent communication differences, group communication scholars see that men and women both exhibit a range of behaviors that are more or less feminine or masculine. It is these gendered behaviors, and not a person’s gender, that seem to have more of an influence on perceptions of group communication. Interestingly, group interactions are still masculinist in that male and female group members prefer a more masculine communication style for task leaders and that both males and females in this role are more likely to adapt to a more masculine communication style. Conversely, men who take on social-emotional leadership behaviors adopt a more feminine communication style. In short, it seems that although masculine communication traits are more often associated with high status positions in groups, both men and women adapt to this expectation and are evaluated similarly (Haslett & Ruebush, 1999).

Other demographic categories are also influential in group communication and decision making. In general, group members have an easier time communicating when they are more similar than different in terms of race and age. This ease of communication can make group work more efficient, but the homogeneity may sacrifice some creativity. As we learned earlier, groups that are diverse (e.g., they have members of different races and generations) benefit from the diversity of perspectives in terms of the quality of decision making and creativity of output.

In terms of age, for the first time since industrialization began, it is common to have three generations of people (and sometimes four) working side by side in an organizational setting. Although four generations often worked together in early factories, they were segregated based on their age group, and a hierarchy existed with older workers at the top and younger workers at the bottom. Today, however, generations interact regularly, and it is not uncommon for an older person to have a leader or supervisor who is younger than him or her (Allen, 2011). The current generations in the US workplace and consequently in work-based groups include the following:

• The Silent Generation. Born between 1925 and 1942, currently in their midsixties to mideighties, this is the smallest generation in the workforce right now, as many have retired or left for other reasons. This generation includes people who were born during the Great Depression or the early part of World War II, many of whom later fought in the Korean War (Clarke, 1970).
• The Baby Boomers. Born between 1946 and 1964, currently in their late forties to midsixties, this is the largest generation in the workforce right now. Baby boomers are the most populous generation born in US history, and they are working longer than previous generations, which means they will remain the predominant force in organizations for ten to twenty more years.
• Generation X. Born between 1965 and 1981, currently in their early thirties to midforties, this generation was the first to see technology like cell phones and the Internet make its way into classrooms and our daily lives. Compared to previous generations, “Gen-Xers” are more diverse in terms of race, religious beliefs, and sexual orientation and also have a greater appreciation for and understanding of diversity.
• Generation Y. Born between 1982 and 2000, “Millennials” as they are also called are currently in their late teens up to about thirty years old. This generation is not as likely to remember a time without technology such as computers and cell phones. They are just starting to enter into the workforce and have been greatly affected by the economic crisis of the late 2000s, experiencing significantly high unemployment rates.

The benefits and challenges that come with diversity of group members are important to consider. Since we will all work in diverse groups, we should be prepared to address potential challenges in order to reap the benefits. Diverse groups may be wise to coordinate social interactions outside of group time in order to find common ground that can help facilitate interaction and increase group cohesion. We should be sensitive but not let sensitivity create fear of “doing something wrong” that then prevents us from having meaningful interactions. Reviewing Chapter 8 “Culture and Communication” will give you useful knowledge to help you navigate both international and domestic diversity and increase your communication competence in small groups and elsewhere.

Key Takeaways

• Every problem has common components: an undesirable situation, a desired situation, and obstacles between the undesirable and desirable situations. Every problem also has a set of characteristics that vary among problems, including task difficulty, number of possible solutions, group member interest in the problem, group familiarity with the problem, and the need for solution acceptance.

The group problem-solving process has five steps:

• Define the problem by creating a problem statement that summarizes it.
• Analyze the problem and create a problem question that can guide solution generation.
• Generate possible solutions. Possible solutions should be offered and listed without stopping to evaluate each one.
• Evaluate the solutions based on their credibility, completeness, and worth. Groups should also assess the potential effects of the narrowed list of solutions.
• Implement and assess the solution. Aside from enacting the solution, groups should determine how they will know the solution is working or not.
• Before a group makes a decision, it should brainstorm possible solutions. Group communication scholars suggest that groups (1) do a warm-up brainstorming session; (2) do an actual brainstorming session in which ideas are not evaluated, wild ideas are encouraged, quantity not quality of ideas is the goal, and new combinations of ideas are encouraged; (3) eliminate duplicate ideas; and (4) clarify, organize, and evaluate ideas. In order to guide the idea-generation process and invite equal participation from group members, the group may also elect to use the nominal group technique.
• Common decision-making techniques include majority rule, minority rule, and consensus rule. With majority rule, only a majority, usually one-half plus one, must agree before a decision is made. With minority rule, a designated authority or expert has final say over a decision, and the input of group members may or may not be invited or considered. With consensus rule, all members of the group must agree on the same decision.

Several factors influence the decision-making process:

• Situational factors include the degree of freedom a group has to make its own decisions, the level of uncertainty facing the group and its task, the size of the group, the group’s access to information, and the origin and urgency of the problem.
• Personality influences on decision making include a person’s value orientation (economic, aesthetic, theoretical, political, or religious), and personality traits (dominant/submissive, friendly/unfriendly, and instrumental/emotional).
• Cultural influences on decision making include the heterogeneity or homogeneity of the group makeup; cultural values and characteristics such as individualism/collectivism, power distance, and high-/low-context communication styles; and gender and age differences.
• Scenario 1. Task difficulty is high, number of possible solutions is high, group interest in problem is high, group familiarity with problem is low, and need for solution acceptance is high.
• Scenario 2. Task difficulty is low, number of possible solutions is low, group interest in problem is low, group familiarity with problem is high, and need for solution acceptance is low.
• Scenario 1: Academic. A professor asks his or her class to decide whether the final exam should be an in-class or take-home exam.
• Scenario 2: Professional. A group of coworkers must decide which person from their department to nominate for a company-wide award.
• Scenario 3: Personal. A family needs to decide how to divide the belongings and estate of a deceased family member who did not leave a will.
• Scenario 4: Civic. A local branch of a political party needs to decide what five key issues it wants to include in the national party’s platform.
• Group communication researchers have found that heterogeneous groups (composed of diverse members) have advantages over homogenous (more similar) groups. Discuss a group situation you have been in where diversity enhanced your and/or the group’s experience.

Adams, K., and Gloria G. Galanes, Communicating in Groups: Applications and Skills , 7th ed. (Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill, 2009), 220–21.

Allen, B. J., Difference Matters: Communicating Social Identity , 2nd ed. (Long Grove, IL: Waveland, 2011), 5.

Bormann, E. G., and Nancy C. Bormann, Effective Small Group Communication , 4th ed. (Santa Rosa, CA: Burgess CA, 1988), 112–13.

Clarke, G., “The Silent Generation Revisited,” Time, June 29, 1970, 46.

Cragan, J. F., and David W. Wright, Communication in Small Group Discussions: An Integrated Approach , 3rd ed. (St. Paul, MN: West Publishing, 1991), 77–78.

de Bono, E., Six Thinking Hats (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, 1985).

Delbecq, A. L., and Andrew H. Ven de Ven, “A Group Process Model for Problem Identification and Program Planning,” The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 7, no. 4 (1971): 466–92.

Haslett, B. B., and Jenn Ruebush, “What Differences Do Individual Differences in Groups Make?: The Effects of Individuals, Culture, and Group Composition,” in The Handbook of Group Communication Theory and Research , ed. Lawrence R. Frey (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1999), 133.

Napier, R. W., and Matti K. Gershenfeld, Groups: Theory and Experience , 7th ed. (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 2004), 292.

Osborn, A. F., Applied Imagination (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1959).

Spranger, E., Types of Men (New York: Steckert, 1928).

Stanton, C., “How to Deliver Group Presentations: The Unified Team Approach,” Six Minutes Speaking and Presentation Skills , November 3, 2009, accessed August 28, 2012, http://sixminutes.dlugan.com/group-presentations-unified-team-approach .

Thomas, D. C., “Cultural Diversity and Work Group Effectiveness: An Experimental Study,” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 30, no. 2 (1999): 242–63.

Communication in the Real World Copyright © 2016 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Decision Making: a Theoretical Review

• Regular Article
• Published: 15 November 2021
• Volume 56 , pages 609–629, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

• Matteo Morelli 1 ,
• Maria Casagrande   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4430-3367 2 &
• Giuseppe Forte 1 , 3  

6471 Accesses

14 Citations

Explore all metrics

Decision-making is a crucial skill that has a central role in everyday life and is necessary for adaptation to the environment and autonomy. It is the ability to choose between two or more options, and it has been studied through several theoretical approaches and by different disciplines. In this overview article, we contend a theoretical review regarding most theorizing and research on decision-making. Specifically, we focused on different levels of analyses, including different theoretical approaches and neuropsychological aspects. Moreover, common methodological measures adopted to study decision-making were reported. This theoretical review emphasizes multiple levels of analysis and aims to summarize evidence regarding this fundamental human process. Although several aspects of the field are reported, more features of decision-making process remain uncertain and need to be clarified. Further experimental studies are necessary for understanding this process better and for integrating and refining the existing theories.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Ethical decision-making theory: an integrated approach.

In AI we trust? Perceptions about automated decision-making by artificial intelligence

Estimating power in (generalized) linear mixed models: An open introduction and tutorial in R

André, M., Borgquist, L., Foldevi, M., & Mölstad, S. (2002). Asking for ‘rules of thumb’: a way to discover tacit knowledge in general practice. Family Practice, 19 (6), 617–22. https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/19.6.617

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bechara, A., Damasio, A. R., Damasio, H., & Anderson, S. W. (1994). Insensitivity to future consequences following damage to human prefrontal cortex. Cognition, 50 (1–3), 7–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(94)90018-3

Bechara, A., Damasio, H., Tranel, D., & Damasio, A. R. (1997). Deciding advantageously before knowing the advantageous strategy. Science, 275 (5304), 1293–5. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.275.5304.1293

Bechara, A., Damasio, H., & Damasio, A. R. (2000a). Emotion, decision making and the orbitofrontal cortex. Cerebral cortex, 10 (3), 295–307.

Bechara, A., Tranel, D., & Damasio, H. (2000b). Characterization of the decision-making deficit of patients with ventromedial prefrontal cortex lesions. Brain, 123 (Pt 11), 2189–202. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/123.11.2189

Bechara, A., & Damasio, A. R. (2005). The somatic marker hypothesis: a neural theory of economic decision. Games and Economic Behavior, 52, 336–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geb.2004.06.010

Article   Google Scholar  

Blanchard, T. C., Strait, C. E., & Hayden, B. Y. (2015). Ramping ensemble activity in dorsal anterior cingulate neurons during persistent commitment to a decision. Journal of Neurophysiology, 114 (4), 2439–49. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00711.2015

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Bohanec, M. (2009). Decision making: A computer-science and information-technology viewpoint. Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems, 7 (2), 22–37

Google Scholar  

Brand, M., Fujiwara, E., Borsutzky, S., Kalbe, E., Kessler, J., & Markowitsch, H. J. (2005). Decision-Making deficits of korsakoff patients in a new gambling task with explicit rules: associations with executive functions. Neuropsychology, 19 (3), 267–277. https://doi.org/10.1037/0894-4105.19.3.267

Broche-Pérez, Y., Jiménez, H., & Omar-Martínez, E. (2016). Neural substrates of decision-making. Neurologia, 31 (5), 319–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nrl.2015.03.001

Byrnes, J. P. (2013). The nature and development of decision-making: A self-regulation model . Psychology Press

Clark, L., & Manes, F. (2004). Social and emotional decision-making following frontal lobe injury. Neurocase, 10 (5), 398–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/13554790490882799

Cummings, J. L. (1995). Anatomic and behavioral aspects of frontal-subcortical circuits a. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 769 (1), 1–14

Dale, S. (2015). Heuristics and biases: The science of decision-making. Business Information Review, 32 (2), 93–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266382115592536

Damasio, A. R. (1996). The somatic marker hypothesis and the possible functions of the prefrontal cortex. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 351 (1346), 1413–20. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1996.0125

Dewberry, C., Juanchich, M., & Narendran, S. (2013). Decision-making competence in everyday life: The roles of general cognitive styles, decision-making styles and personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 55 (7), 783–788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.06.012

Doya, K. (2008). Modulators of decision making. Nature Neuroscience, 11 (4), 410–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn2077

Dunn, B. D., Dalgleish, T., & Lawrence, A. D. (2006). The somatic marker hypothesis: a critical evaluation. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 30 (2), 239–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2005.07.001

Elliott, R., Rees, G., & Dolan, R. J. (1999). Ventromedial prefrontal cortex mediates guessing. Neuropsychologia, 37 (4), 403–411

Ernst, M., Bolla, K., Mouratidis, M., Contoreggi, C., Matochik, J. A., Kurian, V., et al. (2002). Decision-making in a risk-taking task: a PET study. Neuropsychopharmacology, 26 (5), 682–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0893-133X(01)00414-6

Ernst, M., & Paulus, M. P. (2005). Neurobiology of decision making: a selective review from a neurocognitive and clinical perspective. Biological Psychiatry, 58 (8), 597–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.06.004

Evans, J. S. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255–78. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093629

Fellows, L. K. (2004). The cognitive neuroscience of human decision making: A review and conceptual framework. Behavioral & Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews, 3 (3), 159–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534582304273251

Fellows, L. K., & Farah, M. J. (2007). The role of ventromedial prefrontal cortex in decision making: judgment under uncertainty or judgment per se? Cerebral Cortex, 17 (11), 2669–74. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhl176

Fehr, E., & Camerer, C. F. (2007). Social neuroeconomics: the neural circuitry of social preferences. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11 (10), 419–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2007.09.002

Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., & Johnson, S. M. (2000). The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13, 1–17.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(200001/03)13:1<1::AID-BDM333>3.0.CO;2-S

Fischhoff, B. (2010). Judgment and decision making. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1 (5), 724–735. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.65

Forte, G., Favieri, F., & Casagrande, M. (2019). Heart rate variability and cognitive function: a systematic review. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 13, 710

Forte, G., Morelli, M., & Casagrande, M. (2021). Heart rate variability and decision-making: autonomic responses in making decisions. Brain Sciences, 11 (2), 243

Forte, G., Favieri, F., Oliha, E. O., Marotta, A., & Casagrande, M. (2021). Anxiety and attentional processes: the role of resting heart rate variability. Brain Sciences, 11 (4), 480

Frith, C. D., & Singer, T. (2008). The role of social cognition in decision making. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 363 (1511), 3875–86. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0156

Galotti, K. M. (2002). Making decisions that matter: How people face important life choices . Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers

Gigerenzer, G., & Gaissmaier, W. (2011). Heuristic decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 451–82. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120709-145346

Gigerenzer, G., & Selten, R. (Eds.). (2001). Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox . MIT Press

Goel, V., Gold, B., Kapur, S., & Houle, S. (1998). Neuroanatomical correlates of human reasoning. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10 (3), 293–302

Gold, J. I., & Shadlen, M. N. (2007). The neural basis of decision making. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 30, 535–74. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.29.051605.113038

Gottlieb, J. (2007). From thought to action: the parietal cortex as a bridge between perception, action, and cognition. Neuron, 53 (1), 9–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2006.12.009

Gozli, D. G. (2017). Behaviour versus performance: The veiled commitment of experimental psychology. Theory & Psychology, 27, 741–758

Gozli, D. (2019). Free Choice. Experimental Psychology and Human Agency . Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20422-8_6

Group, T. M. A. D., Fawcett, T. W., Fallenstein, B., Higginson, A. D., Houston, A. I., Mallpress, D. E., & McNamara, J. M., …. (2014). The evolution of decision rules in complex environments. Trends in Cognitive Sciences , 18 (3), 153–161

Guess, C. (2004). Decision making in individualistic and collectivistic cultures. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture , 4 (1). https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1032

Gupta, R., Koscik, T. R., Bechara, A., & Tranel, D. (2011). The amygdala and decision-making. Neuropsychologia, 49 (4), 760–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.09.029

Heilbronner, S. R., & Hayden, B. Y. (2016). Dorsal anterior cingulate cortex: a bottom-up view. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 39, 149–70. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-neuro-070815-013952

Hickson, L., & Khemka, I. (2014). The psychology of decision making. International review of research in developmental disabilities (Vol 47, pp. 185–229). Academic

Johnson, J. G., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2010). Decision making under risk and uncertainty. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1 (5), 736–749. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.76

Kable, J. W., & Glimcher, P. W. (2009). The neurobiology of decision: consensus and controversy. Neuron , 63 (6),733–45.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2009.09.003

Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice. Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist, 58 (9), 697–720. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.9.697

Kahneman, D. (2011). P ensieri lenti e veloci . Trad.it. a cura di Serra, L., Arnoldo Mondadori Editore

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47 (2), 263–292

Kheramin, S., Body, S., Mobini, S., Ho, M. Y., Velázquez-Martinez, D. N., Bradshaw, C. M., et al. (2002). Effects of quinolinic acid-induced lesions of the orbital prefrontal cortex on inter-temporal choice: a quantitative analysis. Psychopharmacology (Berl), 165 (1), 9–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-002-1228-6

Lee, V. K., & Harris, L. T. (2013). How social cognition can inform social decision making. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 7, 259. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2013.00259

Lerner, J. S., Li, Y., Valdesolo, P., & Kassam, K. S. (2015). Emotion and decision making.  Annual Review of Psychology, 66 , 799–823

Loewenstein, G., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K., & Welch, N. (2001). Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin, 127 (2), 267–286. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.267

Mather, M. (2006). A review of decision-making processes: weighing the risks and benefits of aging. In Carstensen, L. L., & Hartel, C. R. (Eds.), & Committee on Aging Frontiers in Social Psychology, Personality, and Adult Developmental Psychology, Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences, When I’m 64 (pp. 145–173). National Academies Press

Mazzucchi, L. (2012). La riabilitazione neuropsicologica: Premesse teoriche e applicazioni cliniche (3rd ed.). EDRA

Mishra, S. (2014). Decision-making under risk: integrating perspectives from biology, economics, and psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18 (3), 280–307. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314530517

Moreira, C. (2018). Unifying decision-making: a review on evolutionary theories on rationality and cognitive biases. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.12455

Naqvi, N., Shiv, B., & Bechara, A. (2006). The role of emotion in decision making: a cognitive neuroscience perspective. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15 (5), 260–264. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00448.x

O’Doherty, J. P., Buchanan, T. W., Seymour, B., & Dolan, R. J. (2006). Predictive neural coding of reward preference involves dissociable responses in human ventral midbrain and ventral striatum. Neuron, 49 (1), 157–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2005.11.014

Padoa-Schioppa, C., & Assad, J. A. (2008). The representation of economic value in the orbitofrontal cortex is invariant for changes of menu. Nature Neuroscience, 11 (1), 95–102. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn2020

Palombo, D. J., Keane, M. M., & Verfaellie, M. (2015). How does the hippocampus shape decisions? Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 125, 93–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nlm.2015.08.005

Pardo-Vazquez, J. L., Padron, I., Fernandez-Rey, J., & Acuña, C. (2011). Decision-making in the ventral premotor cortex harbinger of action. Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, 5, 54. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnint.2011.00054

Paulus, M. P., & Yu, A. J. (2012). Emotion and decision-making: affect-driven belief systems in anxiety and depression. Trends in Cognitive Science, 16, 476–483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2012.07.009

Payne, J. W. (1973). Alternative approaches to decision making under risk: Moments versus risk dimensions. Psychological Bulletin, 80 (6), 439–453. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0035260

Payne, J. W., Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1993). The adaptive decision maker . Cambridge University Press

Phelps, E. A., Lempert, K. M., & Sokol-Hessner, P. (2014). Emotion and decision making: multiple modulatory neural circuits. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 37, 263–287

Pronin, E. (2007). Perception and misperception of bias in human judgment. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11 (1), 37–43

Rangel, A., Camerer, C., & Read Montague, P. (2008). Neuroeconomics: The neurobiology of value-based decision-making. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9 (7), 545–556. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2357

Reyna, V. F., & Lloyd, F. J. (2006). Physician decision making and cardiac risk: Effects of knowledge, risk perception, risk tolerance, and fuzzy processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 12 (3), 179–195. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.12.3.179

Rilling, J. K., & Sanfey, A. G. (2011). The neuroscience of social decision-making. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 23–48. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.121208.131647

Robinson, D. N. (2016). Explanation and the “brain sciences". Theory & Psychology, 26 (3), 324–332

Robbins, T. W., James, M., Owen, A. M., Sahakian, B. J., McInnes, L., & Rabbitt, P. (1994). Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB): a factor analytic study of a large sample of normal elderly volunteers. Dementia, 5 (5), 266–81. https://doi.org/10.1159/000106735

Rogers, R. D., Owen, A. M., Middleton, H. C., Williams, E. J., Pickard, J. D., Sahakian, B. J., et al. (1999). Choosing between small, likely rewards and large, unlikely rewards activates inferior and orbital prefrontal cortex. The Journal of Neuroscience, 19 (20), 9029–9038. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.19-20-09029.1999

Rolls, E. T., & Baylis, L. L. (1994). Gustatory, olfactory, and visual convergence within the primate orbitofrontal cortex. The Journal of Neuroscience, 14 (9), 5437–52. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.14-09-05437.1994

Rolls, E. T., Critchley, H. D., Browning, A. S., Hernadi, I., & Lenard, L. (1999). Responses to the sensory properties of fat of neurons in the primate orbitofrontal cortex. The Journal of Neuroscience, 19 (4), 1532–40. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.19-04-01532.1999

Rosenbloom, M. H., Schmahmann, J. D., & Price, B. H. (2012). The functional neuroanatomy of decision-making. The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 24 (3), 266–77. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.neuropsych.11060139

Rushworth, M. F., & Behrens, T. E. (2008). Choice, uncertainty and value in prefrontal and cingulate cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 11 (4), 389–97. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn2066

Sanfey, A. G. (2007). Social decision-making: insights from game theory and neuroscience. Science, 318 (5850), 598–602. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1142996

Serra, L., Bruschini, M., Ottaviani, C., Di Domenico, C., Fadda, L., Caltagirone, C., et al. (2019). Thalamocortical disconnection affects the somatic marker and social cognition: a case report. Neurocase, 25 (1–2), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/13554794.2019.1599025

Shahsavarani, A. M., & Abadi, E. A. M. (2015). The bases, principles, and methods of decision-making: A review of literature. International Journal of Medical Reviews, 2 (1), 214–225

Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2002). Rational actors or rational fools: Implications of the affect heuristic for behavioral economics. Journal of Socio-Economics, 31 (4), 329–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-5357(02)00174-9

Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2004). Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis, 24, 311–322. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00433.x

Staerklé, C. (2015). Political Psychology. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences , 427–433. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.24079-8

Tremblay, S., Sharika, K. M., & Platt, M. L. (2017). Social decision-making and the brain: a comparative perspective. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21 (4), 265–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2017.01.007

Trepel, C., Fox, C. R., & Poldrack, R. A. (2005). Prospect theory on the brain? Toward a cognitive neuroscience of decision under risk. Brain Research. Cognitive Brain Research, 23 (1), 34–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2005.01.016

Van Der Pligt, J. (2015). Decision making, psychology of. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2 (5), 917–922. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.24014-2

Von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of games and economic behavior . Princeton University Press

Weber, E. U., & Hsee, C. K. (2000). Culture and individual judgment and decision making. Applied Psychology: An International Journal, 49, 32–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00005

Weller, J. A., Levin, I. P., Shiv, B., & Bechara, A. (2009). The effects of insula damage on decision-making for risky gains and losses. Society for Neuroscience, 4 (4), 347–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470910902934400

Williams, D. J., & Noyes, J. M. (2007). How does our perception of risk influence decision-making? Implications for the design of risk information. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 8, 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/14639220500484419

Yamada, H., Inokawa, H., Matsumoto, N., Ueda, Y., & Kimura, M. (2011). Neuronal basis for evaluating selected action in the primate striatum. European Journal of Neuroscience, 34 (3), 489–506. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9568.2011.07771.x

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Dipartimento di Psicologia, Università di Roma “Sapienza”, Via dei Marsi. 78, 00185, Rome, Italy

Matteo Morelli & Giuseppe Forte

Dipartimento di Psicologia Dinamica, Clinica e Salute, Università di Roma “Sapienza”, Via degli Apuli, 1, 00185, Rome, Italy

Maria Casagrande

Body and Action Lab, IRCCS Fondazione Santa Lucia, Rome, Italy

Giuseppe Forte

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Maria Casagrande or Giuseppe Forte .

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Morelli, M., Casagrande, M. & Forte, G. Decision Making: a Theoretical Review. Integr. psych. behav. 56 , 609–629 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-021-09669-x

Download citation

Accepted : 09 November 2021

Published : 15 November 2021

Issue Date : September 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-021-09669-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Decision making
• Neural correlates of decision making
• Decision-making tasks
• Decision-making theories
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Connection denied by Geolocation Setting.

Reason: Blocked country: Russia

The connection was denied because this country is blocked in the Geolocation settings.

Please contact your administrator for assistance.

Into all problem-solving, a little dissent must fall

Events of the past several years have reiterated for executives the importance of collaboration and of welcoming diverse perspectives when trying to solve complicated workplace problems. Companies weren’t fully prepared for the onset of a global pandemic, for instance, and all that it engendered—including supply chain snarls and the resulting Great Attrition  and shift to remote (and now hybrid) work, which required employers to fundamentally rethink their talent strategies . But in most cases leaders have been able to collaborate their way through the uncertainty, engage in rigorous debate and analyses about the best steps to take, and work with employees, suppliers, partners, and other critical stakeholders to react and, ultimately, recover.

And It’s not just COVID-19: many organisations have had to rethink their business strategies and practices in the wake of environmental concerns, the war in Ukraine, and social movements sparked by racial injustice, sexual misconduct, and widespread economic inequity . Ours are fast-moving, complex times, rich not just in worrisome challenges but also in exciting potential—organisations that enable innovation will find ample opportunities to thrive. So now more than ever, decision makers can’t act alone; they must bring diverse perspectives to the table and ensure that those voices are fully heard . 1 Sundiatu Dixon-Fyle, Kevin Dolan, Vivian Hunt, and Sara Prince, “ Diversity wins: How inclusion matters ,” McKinsey, May 19, 2020.

But while many leaders say they welcome dissent, their reactions often change when they actually get some. They may feel defensive. They may question their own judgment. They may resent having to take time to revisit the decision-making process. These are natural responses, of course; employees’ loyalty and affirmation are more reassuring to leaders than robust challenges from the group. There is discomfort, too, for potential dissenters; it is much safer to keep your thoughts to yourself and conform  than to risk expulsion from the group. 2 Derived from this work on the evolutionary origins of social and political behavior: Christopher Boehm, Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior , Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2001.

What’s missing in many companies, in our experience, is the use of “contributory dissent” or the capabilities required to engage in healthy if divergent discussions about critical business problems. Contributory dissent allows individuals and groups to air their differences in a way that moves the discussion toward a positive outcome and doesn’t undermine leadership or group cohesion . 3 McKinsey itself has established obligation to dissent as one of its core values alongside those focused on client service and talent development. For more, see Bill Taylor, “True leaders believe dissent is an obligation,” Harvard Business Review , January 12, 2017.

McKinsey’s research and experience in the field point to several steps leaders can take to engage in healthy dissent and build a culture where constructive feedback is expected and where communication is forthright. These include modeling “open” behaviors, embedding psychological safety  and robust debate into decision-making processes, and equipping employees with the communication skills that will allow them to contribute dissenting opinions effectively.

In this article we outline the steps leaders can take to encourage healthy dissent, and the actions teams and individuals can take to share their voices and perspectives most effectively. It takes both sides, after all, to engage in robust debate, find the right solutions, and enable lasting, positive change.

How leaders can encourage contributory dissent

Senior leaders in an organisation play a central role in ensuring that individuals and teams see contributory dissent as a normal part of any discussion. They can signal the importance of dissent by taking a series of steps to institutionalise the practice within an organisation and empower employees to share their ideas freely and productively. Specifically, senior leaders should strive to inspire rather than direct employees to collaborate, explicitly demand dissent and, taking that one step further, actively engage with naysayers (see sidebar “How to encourage healthy dissent”). 4 Leaders can also draw on McKinsey’s “influence model” for changing mindsets and behaviors: role modeling, fostering understanding and conviction, reinforcing with formal mechanisms, and developing talent and skills. For more, see Tessa Basford and Bill Schaninger, “ The four building blocks of change ,” McKinsey Quarterly , April 11, 2016.

Inspire, don’t direct

How to encourage healthy dissent.

To encourage dissent through personal leadership:

Lead to inspire, not to direct:

• Empower the group to come up with ideas: “None of us knows the answer yet, but we can work it out together if we harness the best of everyone’s thinking.”

Foster dissent by actively seeking it:

• Explicitly seek dissent; give people permission and encouragement.
• Consider including dissent as a stated organisational value.
• Make provision for open discussion in the buildup to decisions.

Welcome open discussion when it comes:

• Listen to dissenters and naysayers, and thank them for their insights.
• Recognise this as a usefully unfiltered channel for understanding the organisation’s perceptions on issues.
• Seek to bring dissenters along the decision journey, so they become positive influencers later during implementation.
• Employ deliberate techniques such as red teaming and pre-mortems to widen the debate and mitigate groupthink.

As the inspirational speaker Simon Sinek put it, “The role of a leader is not to come up with all the great ideas. The role of a leader is to create an environment in which great ideas can happen.” 5 Simon Sinek, Start with Why: How Great Leaders Inspire Everyone to Take Action , New York, NY: Portfolio, 2009. That is especially important for fostering an atmosphere of collaboration and contributory dissent. Rather than immediately jump into a discussion about solutions, one senior leader in an international organisation addressed his team’s anxiety in the wake of a crisis. “Let me guess,” he said, “you’re all feeling confused and uncertain about the way ahead. Terrific. I’m so glad we are of one mind and that we all understand our situation correctly! I’m sure that we can work it out together, but it’s going to require the best of everyone’s thinking. Let’s get started.” His authenticity and understated humor allowed him to connect with the group and inspired them to keep calm, carry on, and generate solutions that the leader alone couldn’t have come up with. Harvard professor Ron Heifetz describes this as creating a holding environment, a key element of adaptive leadership. 6 Ronald A. Heifetz and Mary Linksy, Leadership on the Line: Staying Alive through the Dangers of Leading , Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 2002; Ronald Heifetz, Alexander Grashow, and Marty Linksy, The Practice of Adaptive Leadership: Tools and Tactics for Changing Your Organization and the World , Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press, 2009.

Explicitly demand dissent

It’s not enough for leaders to give people permission to dissent; they must demand it of people. In many companies, individuals and teams may (understandably) default to collegiality, not realizing that there are ways to challenge ideas while still respecting colleagues’ roles and intellect. It’s on senior leaders, then, to help employees understand where the boundaries are. In World War 1, Australia’s General Sir John Monash was determined to develop better tactics to overcome the catastrophic impasse of trench warfare. He knew there were answers to be found from the experience of soldiers in the trenches, but he needed to loosen the military discipline of blind obedience: “I don’t care a damn for your loyal service when you think I am right; when I really want it most is when you think I am wrong.” Monash scheduled open battle planning sessions and pulled in advice from whoever offered it. In doing so, he built ownership of and confidence in his plans among all ranks. The resulting orchestration of tanks, artillery, aircraft, and troops led to rapid advances along the Somme Valley, and Monash garnered respect and appreciation from his troops, whose chances of survival and ultimate victory had increased markedly.

Actively engage with naysayers

Taking the demand imperative one step further, it’s beneficial for leaders to actively seek out the views of vocal naysayers , who can turn into influential champions just by being part of the conversation. They can immediately improve the nature of business debate and may boost the quality of the final decision, although engaging with naysayers can be tough. Some dissenting opinions can be ill-informed or uncomfortable to hear. The objective for senior leaders, then, is to put their discomfort aside and listen for signs of cognitive dissonance within an organisation. As an example, front-line employees may say things like “We’re not considered strategic thinkers,” or “The company doesn’t put people first,” while senior management may actually feel as though they have made strides in both of those areas. Still, leaders need to absorb such comments, treat them as useful data points, assess their validity, and engage in what may be a challenging discussion. They may want to use red teams  and premortems , in which teams at the outset anticipate all the ways a project could fail, to frame up dissenting opinions, mitigate groupthink, and find a positive resolution. These behaviours also serve to enhance organizational agility and resilience .

How leaders can establish psychological safety

Senior leaders need to establish a work environment in which it is safe to offer dissenting views. The McKinsey Health Institute’s work on employee well-being points to a strong correlation between leadership behaviors, collaborative culture, and resistance to mental health problems and burnout : only 15 percent of employees in environments with low inclusivity and low support for personal growth are highly engaged, compared with 38 percent in high-scoring environments. 7 “ Addressing employee burnout: Are you solving the right problem? ,” McKinsey, May 27, 2022. Leaders can build psychological safety (where team members feel they can take interpersonal risks and remain respected and accepted) and set the conditions for contributory dissent by rethinking how they engage in debate—both the dynamics and the choreography of it.

The dynamics of debate

The poet and playwright Oscar Wilde described a healthy debating culture as one in which people are “playing gracefully with ideas”— listening to, and even nourishing, opposing points of view in a measured and respectful way. 8 The Complete Works of Oscar Wilde, Volume 2: De Profundis, “Epistola: In Carcere et Vinculis,” Oxford, United Kingdom: Clarendon Press, 2005. Indeed, the best ideas can emerge at the intersection of cultures and opinions. In 15th century Florence, for instance, the Medici family attracted and funded creators from across the arts and sciences to establish an epicenter of innovative thinking that sparked the Renaissance. 9 Frans Johansson, The Medici Effect: Breakthrough Insights at the Intersection of Ideas, Concepts, and Culture , Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 2004. Closer to this century, we have seen cross-discipline innovations like the application of biologists’ research on ant colonies to solve problems in telecommunications routing. And in the business world, extraordinary innovations have been achieved by open-minded leaders bringing together smart people and creating the conditions for playful exploration.

To achieve a state of “graceful play,” senior leaders must carefully manage group dynamics during debates. Rather than lead with their own opinions, for instance, which might immediately carry outsize weight in the group and stifle discussion, senior leaders can hold back and let others lead the discussion . They can lean in to show genuine curiosity or to explicitly recognise when a dissenting view has changed their thinking. But by letting other, more junior voices carry the agenda and work through ideas, however imperfect, senior leaders can establish a climate of psychological safety—and garner more respect from colleagues long term. 10 Amy C. Edmondson, The Fearless Organization: Creating Psychological Safety in the Workplace for Learning, Innovation, and Growth , Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2019.

Leaders will also need to be aware of cultural differences that may crop up during debates. For example, many Australians speak candidly and are happy to address issues squarely. By contrast, the concept of “face” is so important in many Asian cultures that a more circumspect approach is taken. And the Pacific and Maori cultures emphasize displays of both strength and respect. 11 Erin Meyer, The Culture Map: Breaking through the Invisible Boundaries of Global Business , Philadelphia, PA: PublicAffairs, 2014. These differences in debate dynamics really matter. They can be a great source of hybrid vigour, 12 “Heterosis, also called hybrid vigour: the increase in such characteristics as size, growth rate, fertility, and yield of a hybrid organism over those of its parents. The first-generation offspring generally show, in greater measure, the desired characteristics of both parents.” Encyclopedia Britannica , accessed September 19, 2022. if sensitively managed, or a source of conflict and disenfranchisement if not. To approach these differences in a positive way, senior leaders could undertake a mapping exercise that identifies the different styles of the cultures present, thereby providing validation and enabling pragmatic measures to integrate them.

Choreographing debate

Beyond just managing debate dynamics, business leaders must take a hand in choreographing the debate and, specifically, in helping to design collective-thinking processes  so people know how best to play their part. Business leaders may adopt a structured approach  to brainstorming, for instance, or plan strategic off-site schedules that combine deliberate thinking with “distracted” thinking—taking time to engage in a social activity, for instance—to take advantage of employees’ deep-thinking processes.

How deliberate choices by the leader can optimise a decision-making process

A leader must consciously assess each new situation and design the collective-thinking process accordingly, then articulate this so that people know how best to play their part.

In doing so, the leader should consider an array of questions, the answers to which will determine the context, for example:

• What does success look like?
• Will the organisation underwrite initial failures in the interests of agility and innovation?
• How broad and freethinking an analysis is required?
• What are the explicit expectations for contributory dissent?
• Are any topics and behaviours out of bounds?
• Who will lead the discussion, and how will comments be captured?
• Does urgency mean that it’s better to be directive?
• Who will be consulted?
• Which decisions can be delegated, and to whom?
• Whose support needs to be built?
• What parameters and boundaries exist?
• Are there interim decisions and communications required?
• What form should the deliverable outcomes take?
• When are the deliverables required?
• Direction setting on these parameters by the leader focuses the team, while also creating space for creativity and iterative learning.

To create a sustainable structure for debate, business leaders will need to consider questions relating to team structure and rules of engagement: What does success look like when it comes to contributory dissent? What topics and behaviors are out of bounds? Who will lead the discussion, and how will comments be captured? Who has the final say on decisions, or which decisions can be delegated, and to whom? (For a more comprehensive explanation, see sidebar “How deliberate choices by the leader can optimise a decision-making process.”)

Having these parameters in place can free up the team to think more creatively about the issue at hand. Establishing such protocols can also make it easier to raise dissenting opinions. At one company, people are asked to call out their underlying values or potential biases when expressing a dissenting view. During meetings of the promotion committee, for instance, a statement like “I think we are making the wrong decision” would be rephrased as “I am someone who values experience over collaboration, and this decision would risk losing too much institutional knowledge.”

How individuals and teams can engage and dissent

As we’ve shared, senior leaders can take steps to set conditions for robust discussion and problem-solving, but individuals and teams themselves must also have the right mindsets and skills for contributory dissent to work well (see sidebar “How teams and individuals can dissent effectively”). In particular, they must embrace the obligation to dissent, actively make space to analyse ideas that are different from their own, and then find ways to either iterate on others’ ideas or respectfully agree to disagree.

Embrace the obligation to dissent

How teams and individuals can dissent effectively.

For dissent to be effective, its delivery requires courage and tactical skills underpinned by sincere respect and grace. Speaking up with respect is the right thing to do, and the responsibility to do so exists, even if there is uncertainty. The following guidelines are useful in enabling effective dissent:

Prepare a welcome for dissenting views:

• Understand the context and motivations of others, appreciate their views, and syndicate your own.
• Stop and strategise before wading into the conversations, establish a solid platform for agreement, and explicitly seek permission to dissent.

Play the long game:

• Be open minded and iterative. Don’t expect to succeed on the first try.
• Listen to others for what their views might add rather than to defend your own.

Withhold assent if you need to, but do it carefully:

• Withholding assent is a legitimate option if done judiciously.
• Minimise offense to and loss of face for the decision maker.
• If principles or legality is at stake, document your dissent.

Individuals and teams need to exhibit a certain amount of humility and confidence in order to speak truth to power with respect; they must be sure for themselves that doing so is the right thing to do. To build this confidence, individuals and teams should remember that the very act of dissent can be valuable, even if the contribution itself isn’t 100 percent baked. Others can react or build on the dissenting view—which, in itself, can be a satisfying process for a dissenter. If the ultimate decision isn’t what they proposed, they still helped shape it by offering and testing a worthy possibility.

Make space to analyse different views

Individuals and teams may need time to determine their positions on an issue. During this period, it’s important to be (and seen to be) open-minded and respectful of others’ views. That means asking lots of questions, gathering information, assessing others’ motivations, and acknowledging their views before syndicating alternatives of your own. Much of this fact gathering can be done one-on-one, in a nonconfrontational way, in offline conversations rather than in a tension-filled meeting room. In these conversations, individuals could start by reaffirming a shared commitment to finding a solution to the issue at hand, their respect for the decision-making process and the group, and areas of broad agreement. They could also signal their possible intention to dissent and seek permission to do so rather than confronting people head-on. People will find it harder to refuse that permission, and will be less likely to get defensive, when approached with statements like “This is a great discussion, and I love the vision of where we are headed, but would it be OK for us to explore some alternatives for how to get there?”

Agree to iterate …

Individuals and teams that decide to offer dissenting views should agree to iterate on other solutions, rather than digging in. Their dissenting opinions should be cogent, persuasive, and open-minded—but dissenters shouldn’t expect to change hearts and minds on the first try. They should plant seeds gently and bide their time; they might even see their idea come back as someone else’s. The critical skill required here is active, open listening: dissenters should listen carefully for others’ additive insights and find ways to build on them. In their contributory dissent, individuals and teams can take a moment to summarize what others have said and then use statements like “Can I offer another take?” and then allow the momentum of the conversation to take over.

… or agree to disagree

But what happens if, after all the considered and tactful input, the dissenter still believes a decision is heading in the wrong direction? In our experience, withholding assent then becomes a legitimate option: people shouldn’t agree if they don’t agree. This is where all the careful, respectful groundwork the dissenter has done can pay dividends. In fact, a dissenting view gains even more power when an individual can say something like, “I still believe in my alternate solution, but I’m grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this process, and I respect that you have the final say.” In this case, the dissenter is supporting the leader while flagging that the open debate hasn’t convinced them to change their initial view.

Of course, withholding assent should be a relatively rare action, taken only after an individual or team has shown that they can accommodate other views and have aligned with the consensus when they believe it’s right to do so. Think of US Supreme Court associate justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who joined the consensus view on many decisions but who is especially celebrated for the positive changes that arose from her highly influential dissenting opinions on issues such as gender equity, human rights, and religious freedom.

Contributory dissent can help strengthen employee engagement, unlock hidden insights, and help organisations solve tough challenges. But putting it into practice takes courage and humility, and it won’t just happen by accident. Leaders need to be intentional about welcoming challenges to their plans and opinions, even when it’s uncomfortable to do so. They need to establish cultures and structures where respectful debate can occur and where individuals and teams feel free to bring innovative—and often better—alternative solutions to the table.

Ben Fletcher is a senior partner in McKinsey’s Sydney office, Chris Hartley is a partner in the Melbourne office, Rupe Hoskin is a senior expert in the Canberra office, and Dana Maor is a senior partner in the Tel Aviv office.

The authors wish to thank Jacqueline Brassey, Nikki Dines, Richard Fitzgerald, Sam Hemphill, Ayush Jain, Jemma King, and Martin Nimmo for their contributions to this article.

Explore a career with us

Related articles.

Psychological safety and the critical role of leadership development

How to demonstrate calm and optimism in a crisis

The four building blocks of change