right decision essay

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

How to Make Great Decisions, Quickly

• Martin G. Moore

It’s a skill that will set you apart.

As a new leader, learning to make good decisions without hesitation and procrastination is a capability that can set you apart from your peers. While others vacillate on tricky choices, your team could be hitting deadlines and producing the type of results that deliver true value. That’s something that will get you — and them — noticed. Here are a few of a great decision:

• Great decisions are shaped by consideration of many different viewpoints. This doesn’t mean you should seek out everyone’s opinion. The right people with the relevant expertise need to clearly articulate their views to help you broaden your perspective and make the best choice.
• Great decisions are made as close as possible to the action. Remember that the most powerful people at your company are rarely on the ground doing the hands-on work. Seek input and guidance from team members who are closest to the action.
• Great decisions address the root cause, not just the symptoms. Although you may need to urgently address the symptoms, once this is done you should always develop a plan to fix the root cause, or else the problem is likely to repeat itself.
• Great decisions balance short-term and long-term value. Finding the right balance between short-term and long-term risks and considerations is key to unlocking true value.
• Great decisions are timely. If you consider all of the elements listed above, then it’s simply a matter of addressing each one with a heightened sense of urgency.

Where your work meets your life. See more from Ascend here .

Like many young leaders, early in my career, I thought a great decision was one that attracted widespread approval. When my colleagues smiled and nodded their collective heads, it reinforced (in my mind, at least) that I was an excellent decision maker.

• MM Martin G. Moore is the founder of Your CEO Mentor and author of No Bullsh!t Leadership and host of the No Bullsh!t Leadership podcast. His purpose is to improve the quality of leaders globally through practical, real world leadership content. For more information, please visit, www.martingmoore.com.

Partner Center

Greater Good Science Center • Magazine • In Action • In Education

Right and Wrong in the Real World

Some years ago, a student asked to see me during office hours to talk about a personal problem that, she assured me, related to our recent ethics class. It seemed she was having difficulties with a new friend from the Dominican Republic. She explained that in normal circumstances she would have ended the relationship, but she was reluctant to do so now because of affirmative action.

“I’m convinced by the arguments and decided it would be wrong to demand the same standards from this girl as I do from my other friends,” she said. I, of course, immediately commented on how this was condescending and then pointed out that governmental and institutional policies don’t readily apply to our personal relationships.

“But why not?” she pressed. “If it’s a good moral argument, shouldn’t it apply to my own life?”

My student’s sensitivities were surely misplaced, but explaining why isn’t quite so easy. In fact, they reflect the complex relationship between communal and personal ethics, between moral theory and our everyday ethical decisions. These aren’t idle ruminations: How we understand these connections is critical to understanding the moral quality of our lives. This is the realm of everyday ethics.

Now would certainly seem to be the time to care more about everyday ethics. We regularly complain about the moral decay of our age, and we have good reason to do so. Ethical misconduct is a mainstay of the news: CEOs raiding corporate coffers, widespread auditing fraud, unbridled cheating in school, scientists doctoring data, reporters lying about sources, politicians still acting like politicians—the incidence and variety of transgressions seem interminable. No wonder that in a recent Gallup Poll , nearly 80 percent of Americans rated the overall state of morality in the United States as fair or poor. Even more troubling is the widely held opinion that people are becoming more selfish and dishonest. According to that same Gallup Poll, 77 percent of Americans believe that the state of moral values is getting worse. This perception of decaying values—accurate or not—has its own adverse consequences: It lowers our expectations for other people’s behavior and leads us to tolerate unethical actions. For example, in a National Business Survey conducted in October of 2005, a majority of workers claimed to have observed ethical misconduct in the workplace, roughly the same number as reported misconduct in the 2003 survey, but the number of employees who bothered reporting those transgressions fell by 10 percentage points.

But should these findings surprise us? Isn’t wrongdoing just part of “the human condition”? Can we really teach our children to be more ethical? Or improve ourselves when we are adults? Moreover, when it comes to our personal interactions, who decides—and how—what is or isn’t moral?

These are difficult but not rhetorical questions. To address them, we need to get a better sense of what we mean by “everyday ethics” and where it fits into the larger picture of morality.

What is everyday ethics?

• The ATM spits out an extra $100 in your favor. Keep the money and your mouth shut?

• At a restaurant you notice your friend’s wife engaged in some serious flirting with another man. Tell your friend—and possibly ruin his marriage—or mind your own business?

• You can avail yourself of a free wireless connection by accessing the account of your next-door neighbor. Silly not to? 

• Your colleague is forever taking credit for your and other people’s work. Is it okay to exact a little revenge and for once take credit for her labors?

• Your friend is on her way out the door for a significant date and asks whether you like her blouse. Do you tell her the truth: It’s hideous?

• Is it all right to laugh at a sexist joke?

We face choices like these daily: morally laden quandaries that demand direct and immediate decisions. Unlike moral issues that dominate our dinner conversations—legalizing abortion, preemptive war, raising the minimum wage—about which we do little more than pontificate, the problems of everyday ethics call for our own resolutions. But how do we arrive at our judgments? For example, in answering the questions above, do you have a quick, intuitive response about what is proper, or do you consider broader moral principles and then derive a solution? 

The history of philosophy is filled with competing theories that offer such moral principles—for example, there’s theological ethics, which looks to religious sources for moral guidance ( see sidebar ); consequentialist theories, which judge the moral value of an act by its results; rational, rule-based theories, such as proposed by Immanuel Kant , which argue that proper intentions are essential to moral value; and virtue-based theories, which focus more on character than on behavior.

But when your teenager asks if you ever did drugs, it’s unlikely that you’ll undertake a complex utilitarian calculus or work out the details of how a categorical imperative would apply in this case. In fact, in dealing with so many of our everyday moral challenges, it is difficult to see just how one would implement the principles of a moral theory. No wonder that many moral philosophers insist they have no more to say about these specific situations than a theoretical physicist does when confronting a faulty spark plug. Nonetheless, your response to your curious teenager, as with all cases in the domain of everyday ethics, presents a practical, immediate moral challenge that you cannot avoid.

Embracing the moral importance of these ordinary dilemmas, some ethicists have posited a bottom-up perspective of ethical decision making that places these “mundane,” ordinary human interactions at the very heart of moral philosophy.

According to this view, because traditional moral theories can’t reach down to our routine lives, we should question their practical value. Take, for example, the “demand for impartiality,” the notion, common to many moral theories, that we treat everyone the same. But of course we don’t—nor should we. Suppose you spend three hours at the bedside of your sick spouse and then declare, “Hey, you know I would do the same for anyone. It’s my moral duty.” Don’t expect your spouse to be delighted with your righteousness. Caring for a loved one because of a moral principle is, as the philosopher Bernard Williams said, “one reason too many.”

Other philosophers are uneasy with the moral ideal posited in mainstream theories; not only is the theoretical idea of moral perfection unattainable, it’s not even desirable. After all, who wants to hang out and grab a beer with a moral saint? Indeed, who wants to be the kind of person who never hangs out and has a beer because of more pressing moral tasks? Still other critics note that typical academic moral arguments ignore the complexity and texture of our ordinary lives. As philosopher Martha Nussbaum and others suggest, an observant novel will often be more instructive about our moral lives than an academic treatise. 

Well, if we don’t appeal to moral theories when deciding problems of everyday ethics, how then do we make these decisions? 

At the outset, we need to recognize—and take seriously—the difficulties inherent in these judgments. The interesting ethical questions aren’t those that offer a choice between good and evil—that’s easy—but pit good versus good, or bad versus even worse. Take, for example, the case of our friend walking out the door wearing that unappealing blouse on her way to a crucial date. She asks for your opinion on her attire. Honesty demands you to tell her the truth, but compassion urges you to give her the thumbs up. It’s worth noticing that other values, say friendship, surely should count here… but how? Perhaps one ought to be more truthful to a friend than a stranger, but then, too, one ought to be especially encouraging to a friend. Appealing to clear-cut moral principles such as “Do unto others as you have them do unto you” isn’t decisive here, either: Do you want to be told the truth in this case?

Presumably, different people might offer different answers.

We can, nonetheless, draw a few lessons from even this hasty consideration of everyday moral dilemmas.

One: We need to be clear about which values are at play. While we often don’t have the luxury of a long, careful weighing of competing principles, our actions will be moral only if they are the firm result of our intention to act morally and not, say, to fulfill a selfish interest.

Two: Intellectual honesty is always a challenge. With regard to lying, for example, we need to acknowledge how easy it is to justify dishonesty by claiming compassion or some other good when, in fact, we merely want to avoid unpleasant confrontations. Our capacity for rationalization is remarkable: “Everyone does it,” “I’ll do it just this one time,” “It’s for her own good,” “It’s none of my business,” and on and on.

Three: We need to give slack to people with whom we disagree. Inasmuch as the problems posed by everyday ethics are genuine dilemmas but do not allow the luxury of lengthy, careful analysis, decent people for decent reasons can reach opposing conclusions. 

But how then do we make our quick judgments about what to do in these everyday moral situations? What’s going on in our minds?

The science of everyday ethics

Over the past few years, evolutionary biologists, neuroscientists, and cognitive psychologists have been exploring these very questions. And they are making some startling discoveries. 

For example, using functional MRI (fMRI) scans of the brain, neuropsychologist Joshua Greene has found that different types of moral choices stimulate different areas of the brain. His findings present an astonishing challenge to the way we usually approach moral decisions.

Consider, for example, a popular thought experiment posed by moral philosophers: the “trolley-car” cases. Suppose you are the driver of a runaway trolley car that is approaching five men working on the track. As you speed down toward this tragedy, you realize you can divert the train to a side track and thereby kill only one person who is working on that other track. What do you do?

Now consider an alternative case: Suppose you aren’t the train conductor but are standing on a cliff watching the train careen toward the endangered five people. Next to you is a fat person whose sheer bulk could stop the oncoming trolley. Should you give him a shove so that he’ll fall onto the track and be killed by the train—but in the process, you’d save five other lives?

Most people say they would save the five lives in case one, but not in case two—and offer complicated reasons for their choices. What Greene found in his research was that different parts of our brains are at work when we consider these two different scenarios. In the first case, the area associated with the emotions remains quiet—we are just calculating—but in the second case, which asks us to imagine actually killing someone up close and personally, albeit to save five other people, the emotional area of the brain lights up. In Greene’s view, this suggests that we bring to our moral judgments predilections that are hard-wired in our brains, and emotions might play a more significant role in our decision making than we realize, particularly in the case of everyday ethical dilemmas that affect us personally.

Brain research of this kind underscores the claims of evolutionary psychologists who maintain that many of our moral attitudes are grounded in our genetic history. They suggest, as does Greene, that because we evolved in small groups, unaware of people living halfway around the world, we have stronger instinctive moral reactions to problems that affect us directly than to those that are more abstract. In this view, for example, evolutionary strategy dictates our preferences for kin over strangers, and makes us more likely to display altruism toward people we can see first-hand.

Cognitive psychologists, for their part, are examining how moral decisions are formed—demonstrating, for example, how selective images, such as pictures of starving children, can alter and enlarge our sphere of empathy, and how social environments can either stultify or nurture compassion. 

Many warn against seeing a “science of ethics” as the ultimate arena for the study of moral decision making. They remind us that our pre-set inclinations—how we are—do not prescribe or justify how we ought to be.

But this ongoing research is of vital importance to our understanding of ethics, and in particular, everyday ethics. In the first place, we will better acknowledge the constraints we battle in acting “against our natures.” For example, if evolutionary psychologists are right and our ethical decisions are informed by an evolutionary preference for those in our immediate group, we can better understand why it takes such an effort to get people to spend their money on the poor of Africa rather than on another pair of ice skates for their kids, or to respect members of other cultures as they do their own. Moreover, this research can be extremely helpful as we determine how best to teach ethics to our children. Indeed, studies of the brain and our genome might shed light on how it is that some individuals turn out decent and caring and others cold and obnoxious.

The challenges of everyday ethics

All this data cannot, however, answer our fundamental challenge: How should we act and what kind of people should we strive to be? As we’ve seen, we cannot rely on rarified moral theories to help us deal with the pressing demands of everyday ethics. Nor can we rely on our biological dispositions to point us toward the best ethical judgments. Rather, we have to confront the integrity of our character, our honed intuitions, our developed sense of fairness and honesty. And to see how these traits are exhibited, we need to see how they work in action. 

The articles in the rest of this issue do just that. This is how ethics gets played in the classroom, at work, at the supermarket, over the dinner table. While the usual moral evaluations of societies tend to focus on such broad issues as crime, economic equity, and foreign policy, just as important to consider is the moral health of our everyday interactions. For after all, this is how our lives are lived: day by day, one “small” moral judgment after another. 

About the Author

Joshua halberstam.

Joshua Halberstam, Ph.D., is the author of Everyday Ethics: Inspired Solutions to Moral Dilemmas (Viking) and is currently an adjunct professor at Teachers College, Columbia University. In addition to his professional writings in philosophy, he has written several books for the general reader on the subjects of ethics and culture.

You May Also Enjoy

Empathy vs. Logic vs. Morality

Moral intuition.

In Search of the Moral Voice

Primal empathy & the roots of morality.

A Framework for Ethical Decision Making

• Markkula Center for Applied Ethics
• Ethics Resources

This document is designed as an introduction to thinking ethically. Read more about what the framework can (and cannot) do .  

We all have an image of our better selves—of how we are when we act ethically or are “at our best.” We probably also have an image of what an ethical community, an ethical business, an ethical government, or an ethical society should be. Ethics really has to do with all these levels—acting ethically as individuals, creating ethical organizations and governments, and making our society as a whole more ethical in the way it treats everyone.

What is Ethics?

Ethics refers to standards and practices that tell us how human beings ought to act in the many situations in which they find themselves—as friends, parents, children, citizens, businesspeople, professionals, and so on. Ethics is also concerned with our character. It requires knowledge, skills, and habits. 

It is helpful to identify what ethics is NOT:

• Ethics is not the same as feelings . Feelings do provide important information for our ethical choices. However, while some people have highly developed habits that make them feel bad when they do something wrong, others feel good even though they are doing something wrong. And, often, our feelings will tell us that it is uncomfortable to do the right thing if it is difficult.
• Ethics is not the same as religion . Many people are not religious but act ethically, and some religious people act unethically. Religious traditions can, however, develop and advocate for high ethical standards, such as the Golden Rule.
• Ethics is not the same thing as following the law. A good system of law does incorporate many ethical standards, but law can deviate from what is ethical. Law can become ethically corrupt—a function of power alone and designed to serve the interests of narrow groups. Law may also have a difficult time designing or enforcing standards in some important areas and may be slow to address new problems.
• Ethics is not the same as following culturally accepted norms . Cultures can include both ethical and unethical customs, expectations, and behaviors. While assessing norms, it is important to recognize how one’s ethical views can be limited by one’s own cultural perspective or background, alongside being culturally sensitive to others.
• Ethics is not science . Social and natural science can provide important data to help us make better and more informed ethical choices. But science alone does not tell us what we ought to do. Some things may be scientifically or technologically possible and yet unethical to develop and deploy.

Six Ethical Lenses

If our ethical decision-making is not solely based on feelings, religion, law, accepted social practice, or science, then on what basis can we decide between right and wrong, good and bad? Many philosophers, ethicists, and theologians have helped us answer this critical question. They have suggested a variety of different lenses that help us perceive ethical dimensions. Here are six of them:

The Rights Lens

Some suggest that the ethical action is the one that best protects and respects the moral rights of those affected. This approach starts from the belief that humans have a dignity based on their human nature per se or on their ability to choose freely what they do with their lives. On the basis of such dignity, they have a right to be treated as ends in themselves and not merely as means to other ends. The list of moral rights—including the rights to make one's own choices about what kind of life to lead, to be told the truth, not to be injured, to a degree of privacy, and so on—is widely debated; some argue that non-humans have rights, too. Rights are also often understood as implying duties—in particular, the duty to respect others' rights and dignity.

( For further elaboration on the rights lens, please see our essay, “Rights.” )

The Justice Lens

Justice is the idea that each person should be given their due, and what people are due is often interpreted as fair or equal treatment. Equal treatment implies that people should be treated as equals   according to some defensible standard such as merit or need, but not necessarily that everyone should be treated in the exact same way in every respect. There are different types of justice that address what people are due in various contexts. These include social justice (structuring the basic institutions of society), distributive justice (distributing benefits and burdens), corrective justice (repairing past injustices), retributive justice (determining how to appropriately punish wrongdoers), and restorative or transformational justice (restoring relationships or transforming social structures as an alternative to criminal punishment).

( For further elaboration on the justice lens, please see our essay, “Justice and Fairness.” )

The Utilitarian Lens

Some ethicists begin by asking, “How will this action impact everyone affected?”—emphasizing the consequences of our actions. Utilitarianism, a results-based approach, says that the ethical action is the one that produces the greatest balance of good over harm for as many stakeholders as possible. It requires an accurate determination of the likelihood of a particular result and its impact. For example, the ethical corporate action, then, is the one that produces the greatest good and does the least harm for all who are affected—customers, employees, shareholders, the community, and the environment. Cost/benefit analysis is another consequentialist approach.

( For further elaboration on the utilitarian lens, please see our essay, “Calculating Consequences.” )

The Common Good Lens

According to the common good approach, life in community is a good in itself and our actions should contribute to that life. This approach suggests that the interlocking relationships of society are the basis of ethical reasoning and that respect and compassion for all others—especially the vulnerable—are requirements of such reasoning. This approach also calls attention to the common conditions that are important to the welfare of everyone—such as clean air and water, a system of laws, effective police and fire departments, health care, a public educational system, or even public recreational areas. Unlike the utilitarian lens, which sums up and aggregates goods for every individual, the common good lens highlights mutual concern for the shared interests of all members of a community.

( For further elaboration on the common good lens, please see our essay, “The Common Good.” )

The Virtue Lens

A very ancient approach to ethics argues that ethical actions ought to be consistent with certain ideal virtues that provide for the full development of our humanity. These virtues are dispositions and habits that enable us to act according to the highest potential of our character and on behalf of values like truth and beauty. Honesty, courage, compassion, generosity, tolerance, love, fidelity, integrity, fairness, self-control, and prudence are all examples of virtues. Virtue ethics asks of any action, “What kind of person will I become if I do this?” or “Is this action consistent with my acting at my best?”

( For further elaboration on the virtue lens, please see our essay, “Ethics and Virtue.” )

The Care Ethics Lens

Care ethics is rooted in relationships and in the need to listen and respond to individuals in their specific circumstances, rather than merely following rules or calculating utility. It privileges the flourishing of embodied individuals in their relationships and values interdependence, not just independence. It relies on empathy to gain a deep appreciation of the interest, feelings, and viewpoints of each stakeholder, employing care, kindness, compassion, generosity, and a concern for others to resolve ethical conflicts. Care ethics holds that options for resolution must account for the relationships, concerns, and feelings of all stakeholders. Focusing on connecting intimate interpersonal duties to societal duties, an ethics of care might counsel, for example, a more holistic approach to public health policy that considers food security, transportation access, fair wages, housing support, and environmental protection alongside physical health.

( For further elaboration on the care ethics lens, please see our essay, “Care Ethics.” )

Using the Lenses

Each of the lenses introduced above helps us determine what standards of behavior and character traits can be considered right and good. There are still problems to be solved, however.

The first problem is that we may not agree on the content of some of these specific lenses. For example, we may not all agree on the same set of human and civil rights. We may not agree on what constitutes the common good. We may not even agree on what is a good and what is a harm.

The second problem is that the different lenses may lead to different answers to the question “What is ethical?” Nonetheless, each one gives us important insights in the process of deciding what is ethical in a particular circumstance.

Making Decisions

Making good ethical decisions requires a trained sensitivity to ethical issues and a practiced method for exploring the ethical aspects of a decision and weighing the considerations that should impact our choice of a course of action. Having a method for ethical decision-making is essential. When practiced regularly, the method becomes so familiar that we work through it automatically without consulting the specific steps.

The more novel and difficult the ethical choice we face, the more we need to rely on discussion and dialogue with others about the dilemma. Only by careful exploration of the problem, aided by the insights and different perspectives of others, can we make good ethical choices in such situations.

The following framework for ethical decision-making is intended to serve as a practical tool for exploring ethical dilemmas and identifying ethical courses of action.

Identify the Ethical Issues

• Could this decision or situation be damaging to someone or to some group, or unevenly beneficial to people? Does this decision involve a choice between a good and bad alternative, or perhaps between two “goods” or between two “bads”?
• Is this issue about more than solely what is legal or what is most efficient? If so, how?

Get the Facts

• What are the relevant facts of the case? What facts are not known? Can I learn more about the situation? Do I know enough to make a decision?
• What individuals and groups have an important stake in the outcome? Are the concerns of some of those individuals or groups more important? Why?
• What are the options for acting? Have all the relevant persons and groups been consulted? Have I identified creative options?

Evaluate Alternative Actions

• Evaluate the options by asking the following questions:
• Which option best respects the rights of all who have a stake? (The Rights Lens)
• Which option treats people fairly, giving them each what they are due? (The Justice Lens)
• Which option will produce the most good and do the least harm for as many stakeholders as possible? (The Utilitarian Lens)
• Which option best serves the community as a whole, not just some members? (The Common Good Lens)
• Which option leads me to act as the sort of person I want to be? (The Virtue Lens)
• Which option appropriately takes into account the relationships, concerns, and feelings of all stakeholders? (The Care Ethics Lens)

Choose an Option for Action and Test It

• After an evaluation using all of these lenses, which option best addresses the situation?
• If I told someone I respect (or a public audience) which option I have chosen, what would they say?
• How can my decision be implemented with the greatest care and attention to the concerns of all stakeholders?

Implement Your Decision and Reflect on the Outcome

• How did my decision turn out, and what have I learned from this specific situation? What (if any) follow-up actions should I take?

This framework for thinking ethically is the product of dialogue and debate at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University. Primary contributors include Manuel Velasquez, Dennis Moberg, Michael J. Meyer, Thomas Shanks, Margaret R. McLean, David DeCosse, Claire André, Kirk O. Hanson, Irina Raicu, and Jonathan Kwan.  It was last revised on November 5, 2021.

Decision Making Essay

Introduction.

Decision-making is undoubtedly a fundamental practice the management of corporations. It denotes the progression of choosing and executing options, which are in tandem with an aspiration. It also connotes a string of actions commencing with a broad objective, trickling down to generating, appraising, choosing and executing favourable options.

Decisions made in organizations may have in-depth upshots on the firm and its employees. Such judgements in organizations are distinctive in terms of the risks involved, reservations managers have on them, their importance and contribution to the attainment of the firm’s broader objectives.

Some are tricky and requires insight thought, and may include setting of new policies, reorienting firm’s purposes and objectives, and large-scale ventures with a potential to impact on the economy of the firm. On the other hand, routine decisions also form part of a firm (Martin & Fellenz 2010, p. 227).

Rational model is a conventional representation of making decisions, and it leans on realistic financial hypothesis where the concerned members think of what constitutes best way of arriving at a judgement. Managements regularly use this model to make fiscally sensible decisions, which are capable of contributing to organization’s financial growth.

The model helps delineate how managers should make decisions. In addition, it presents guidelines, which enable decision maker to reach a favourable panacea for organizational development. The mould also negates the decision makers from applying their personal interests while searching for favourable outcomes.

It is highly applicable on decisions characterised by assurances and possibilities since suitable information is accessible. Furthermore, the model exposes opportunities to computations. For instance, usage of Information Technology to automate programmed decisions such as airline companies apply it is seat bookings, flight routes, and services pricing.

It is worth noting that decision-making techniques relying on quantitative information benefit processed in computers enable the model to gain usage. The model; however, has assumptions including decision makers’ ability to fulfil goals already agreed on and setbacks critically prepared and definite.

The decision makers also aim to attain certainty and collect relevant data, options and prospective outcomes computed. Procedure for evaluating options is clear and those able to optimize fiscal returns chosen. Finally, it assumes that the decision maker is logical and can use judgment to choose options, which will optimize economic gains.

The model describes the six stages of decision making as identifying a dilemma or opportunity. Daft and Marcic note that organizations face problems when they underperform and opportunities when administrators realize potentials of improving performance past existing echelon. This becomes the initial step in decision-making and warrants company’s inner and external forces surveillance (Daft & Marcic 2010, p. 188).

The managers utilize internal fiscal reports to forecast on possible threats and openings. Information gathering is another crucial stage that follows. This normally guarantees the manager an opportunity to analyze the possible causes of problems identified. This is tenable when decision makers, through creativity, develop questions reading the problem and opportunity state (Griffin, & Moorhead 2010, p. 198)

. The third stage is to develop alternatives, which seeks to generate potential optional answers to react to the requirements of the condition and give feedback on the basic reasons. It is easy to discover realistic options within the firm’s regulations since the decision-making is based on certainties and threats.

The identified options are deemed to ease the disparities regarding current state of affairs against conditions considered necessary.

Selection of desired options becomes the fourth step, which seeks to select among the options, the most realistic alternative that can best respond to the firms broad objectives. It is imperative to assert that the best attainable option must be requiring minimal resources to attain the needed outcomes. Furthermore, decision maker selects an option with the lowest quantity of uncertainties and threats.

This would aid in avoiding errors in the process. The fifth step is implementing the selected option, which requires corporation from the organization’s stakeholders. The managers, administrators and other staff work together to implement the option.

The ultimate step is to evaluate and present feedback on the status of implementation. Decision makers collect data on the effectiveness of the option in responding to the objectives. This final step is important since decision-making is an uninterrupted cycle. Therefore, the provision of feedback forms the benchmark for future decision-making.

There are factors, which influence decision-making course thus leading to a deviation from the rational form discussed above. Individuality personality and values is one of the leading parameter that affects the process. Different attributes of people manipulate decision-making choices. It is normal to discover that various individuals become nervous, worried, and agitated while in the crucial stages of decision-making.

Such attributes normally leads to fallacious interpretation in the process. It is crucial to declare that being nervous compromises reasoning; therefore, a manager may fail to arrive at the best decision. The attitudinal traits also interfere with decision in an organization. Some managers have fixed thoughts concerning what happens at the organization.

They believe that specific employees or figures must be present whenever there is a crucial matter to make decision. This implies that they have preset minds that such individuals are the best decision makers. This normally prompts the organization to believe such people contribute, regardless of the impacts they present on the organization.

Various managers possess different personalities. Some possess elevated self-esteem, which is motivational in during decision-making. Managers with strong personalities normally dominate the discussion during the process. This may flaw the process since their juniors may fear to contribute. This offers fewer options on the best way of solving organizational problems. This is incoherent with the rational model.

Preconceived fears about the consequences of the decisions would have on the organization normally send chills in the managers, and other concerned parties. This refers to emotional attributes of an individual. Griffin and Moorhead outline that perceived impacts, as well as post resolution effects may impair decision-making.

Furthermore, cognitive ideals such as outright biases have an effect on decision-making (Griffin, & Moorhead 2010, p. 202). Values that an individual embrace also influence decision making, and many counter the rational model. It is factual that managers espouse divergent principles and would attempt to maintain them in every situation. People would always propose what they like regardless of what impact it has on others.

Group relationship is another important parameter that influences decision making to a greater deal. The success of making decisions in groups is subject to the extent of understanding among members forming the team. Martin and Fellenz, posit that the group must have the right intensity of diversity thus enabling them to iron their differences.

Group decision making is highly applicable in organizations where it intricate issues, which can only be managed by a team with varied knowledge backgrounds (Martin & Fellenz 2010, p. 284). Group polarization connotes the way people react to situations of decision-making. People normally arrive at decision-making meetings with different views; however, they tone down to borrow the ideas of their fellows.

Therefore, a group that comprises of people with deep understanding of the dynamics that exists normally makes rational decision. Nonetheless, some groups might not arrive at a decision easily owing to the divergent notions members possess. This may be due to the everlasting differences that exist amongst members.

The level and kind of relationship within a group normally dictates how people make decisions. Superior relationship may prompt others to seek support from their fellows; however, this may flaw the process thus leading to irrationality. Group decision-making in organizations enable extra people to sustain influential contributions during the process than they would achieve individually.

Another issue is group thinking, which happens a when a decision making team is greatly involved in a discussion and the motivation to evaluate options is cancel out by their unanimity. This fails to support the rational model of decision-making since it thwarts other possible options that are crucial in the process.

Rational model upholds that divergent group may arrive at better conclusion than a group that has similar interest. Therefore, a divergent group, where people have good relation, but varied interest, would offer beat avenue of exploring many options.

The peak management makes tactical decisions within the organization. Varied aspects of power and its availability in any firm, coupled with inter personality conditions give rise to the relationships (Venkatachalam & Sellappan 2011, p. 97). Managers can influence decision making as they comment on what qualifies for discussions.

Power relations contribute to decision making through the engagement of organization staff on involvement in undertaking activities. Managers merely comply with the already set standards while leading other people. Whenever this takes place, the managers hold discussions with the relevant people to make decisions collectively on work aimed at meeting company goals (Venkatachalam & Sellappan 2011, p. 97).

Power leads to conflict in the organization, which needs adequate deliberation to decide on the best move. Different echelons of power requires transmitting information from pinnacle to bottom, which may cause damaged communication due to structural circumstances of those involved. Decisions making is necessary to solve the predicaments resulting from such conflicts.

Furthermore, power denotes leadership, which requires excellent qualities including superior decision-making ability. Managers must be able to identify threats and solutions to problems when options, facts, and goals are unclear. Managers ought to encourage shared decision-making. This is a way of empowering subordinates to be able to take part in an advice-giving decision making processes.

Power ought to organize the team members involved in decisions making. However, managers sometimes misuse their powers while engaging employees on making decisions about certain issues.

Decision choice less is the situation of managers seeking the opinion of the junior employees on vital organizational development agendas. The employees provide their information, which the manager discards and cannot include as one of the options for improving conditions in the organization (Shapira 2002, p. 145)

Political behaviour refers to as actions displayed by people in organizations; moreover, it depicts the requirements in such organizations. Political issues among some decision makers are an important aspect of decision-making. The politics include how managers use power to influence decision-making or the behaviour of employees while agitating for better remunerations.

It concentrates on designing and utilizing power in firm to ensure people who lack power get it to organizational level. The impact of political behaviour on managers includes the possibility of drawing up new policies for an organization upon learning the prevailing political happenings (Robbins, Judge, Odendaal & Roodt 2009, p. 358).

The managers take advantage of political unrest in an organization to destroy critical documents, which might be relevant for decision-making. People view political behaviour as a way of democratic decision-making, communicating demands for performance.

However, political behaviour in firms also presents dark side including intentionally telling lies, and intimidation. Political behaviours within an organization may thus impair decision following the divides it creates. Every political move has adverse impact in the process thus thwarting the rational model.

In conclusion, decision-making refer to a progression of choosing and executing options that are consistent with one’s inspirations. Rational model has contributed immensely to the decision-making in various organizations since it tend to eliminate all external forces that may hinder the course.

It is notable that myriads of parameters may influence the process. Personage personality and values normally may affect decision within the organization. Some managers hold particular values that they may not sacrifice in the process of decision-making. Self-esteem and other emotional attributes also affect decision. Anger, aggression and being overjoyed may compromise reasoning since they interfere with the psychology.

Making decision under such pressures may hinder the process, but soberness may lead to appropriate decision-making. Group relationship is another parameter that hinders decision since it influences individual thinking. Power relationship in an organization influences decision, as employees view high cadre to dominate during the process. This would allow them to offer options and easily convince people to consider their ideas.

The politics within corporations normally hinders decision-making, as it may lead to intergroup formations with competing attitudes. Decision-making should thus occur in a rational setting, which allows for adequate and rational consideration of every option.

List of references

Daft, R. & Marcic, D. (2010) Understanding Management , 7 th Ed. Ohio, OH. Cengage Learning.

Griffin, R. & Moorhead, G. (2010) Organizational Behavior: Managing People and Organizations, 9 th Ed. Ohio OH. Cengage Learning.

Martin, J. & Fellenz, M. (2010) Organizational Behaviour & Management . Ohio, OH. Cengage Learning.

Robbins, P. Judge, T. Odendaal, A. & Roodt, G. (2009) Organizational Behaviour: Global and Southern African Perspectives , 2 nd Ed. Cape Town.Pearson South Africa.

Shapira, Z. (2002) Organizational Decision Making . New York, NY. Cambridge University Press.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, May 7). Decision Making. https://ivypanda.com/essays/decision-making-essay/

"Decision Making." IvyPanda , 7 May 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/decision-making-essay/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'Decision Making'. 7 May.

IvyPanda . 2019. "Decision Making." May 7, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/decision-making-essay/.

1. IvyPanda . "Decision Making." May 7, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/decision-making-essay/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Decision Making." May 7, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/decision-making-essay/.

• Mid-Atlantic Ridge in Geologic Tour
• Teaching Styles: Fitness Director
• Rational Decision-Making and Emotions
• Techniques for Achieving Effective Communication
• Strategic management of Lakeland Wonders Company
• Human Resource Management & Competitive Advantage
• The Contemporary Lean Construction Problems
• Leadership in Multinational companies

About Stanford GSB

• The Leadership
• Dean’s Updates
• School News & History
• Commencement
• Business, Government & Society
• Centers & Institutes
• Center for Entrepreneurial Studies
• Center for Social Innovation
• Stanford Seed

About the Experience

• Learning at Stanford GSB
• Experiential Learning
• Guest Speakers
• Entrepreneurship
• Social Innovation
• Communication
• Life at Stanford GSB
• Collaborative Environment
• Activities & Organizations
• Student Services
• Housing Options
• International Students

Full-Time Degree Programs

• Why Stanford MBA
• Academic Experience
• Financial Aid
• Why Stanford MSx
• Research Fellows Program
• See All Programs

Non-Degree & Certificate Programs

• Executive Education
• Stanford Executive Program
• Programs for Organizations
• The Difference
• Online Programs
• Stanford LEAD
• Seed Transformation Program
• Aspire Program
• Seed Spark Program
• Faculty Profiles
• Academic Areas
• Awards & Honors
• Conferences

Faculty Research

• Publications
• Working Papers
• Case Studies

Research Hub

• Research Labs & Initiatives
• Business Library
• Data, Analytics & Research Computing
• Behavioral Lab

Research Labs

• Cities, Housing & Society Lab
• Golub Capital Social Impact Lab

Research Initiatives

• Corporate Governance Research Initiative
• Corporations and Society Initiative
• Policy and Innovation Initiative
• Rapid Decarbonization Initiative
• Stanford Latino Entrepreneurship Initiative
• Value Chain Innovation Initiative
• Venture Capital Initiative
• Career & Success
• Climate & Sustainability
• Corporate Governance
• Culture & Society
• Finance & Investing
• Government & Politics
• Leadership & Management
• Markets & Trade
• Operations & Logistics
• Opportunity & Access
• Organizational Behavior
• Political Economy
• Social Impact
• Technology & AI
• Opinion & Analysis
• Email Newsletter

Welcome, Alumni

• Communities
• Digital Communities & Tools
• Regional Chapters
• Women’s Programs
• Identity Chapters
• Find Your Reunion
• Career Resources
• Job Search Resources
• Career & Life Transitions
• Programs & Services
• Career Video Library
• Alumni Education
• Research Resources
• Volunteering
• Alumni News
• Class Notes
• Alumni Voices
• Contact Alumni Relations
• Upcoming Events

Admission Events & Information Sessions

• MBA Program
• MSx Program
• PhD Program
• Alumni Events
• All Other Events

More Than a Feeling: The Keys to Making the Right Choice

If we want to make better decisions, then we need to think more like an artist.

March 20, 2024

Rational, analytical thinking is often seen as the gold standard when it comes to decision-making. Yet according to Professor Baba Shiv, cool, level-headed intellect isn’t the only game in town. “Is a good decision based on reason?” he asks. “Or is it based on emotion?”

Shiv is the Sanwa Bank, Limited, Professor of Marketing at Stanford Graduate School of Business. Throughout his career, he’s researched how brain structures related to emotion and motivation affect the choices we make. In exploring the complex neurology that leads people to choose one course of action over another, he has uncovered insights that challenge our prevailing ideas about reason and rationality. In this episode of If/Then: Business, Leadership, Society , Shiv explores how we can use our emotions and instincts to make meaningful decisions instead of relying on our rational brains alone.

Is Rational Always Right?

Post-Enlightenment Western thought is infused with the assumption that rationality is at the core of properly functioning individuals and, by extension, properly functioning societies. “We have this embedded in our minds from childhood,” Shiv says. “If you’re making consequential decisions, be as rational as possible.” It’s an idea that Shiv traces from Aristotle to Descartes to the present, but one that “forgets that we have evolved with emotion. If emotion were irrelevant, we would have evolved very differently.”

According to Shiv, the rational brain is only responsible for about 5 to 10% of our decision-making. “Emotions… have a profound influence on our decisions and we aren’t aware of it,” he says.

Shiv demonstrated this in a study involving wine drinkers and the neural processes used to distinguish different vintages. Subjects were told that they would be trying five different cabernet sauvignons, each identified by price. In fact, only three wines were used — two were poured twice, and each was marked with a fake price ranging from $5 to $90. As the participants tasted each wine, Shiv monitored their brain activity.

“What intrigued me was that people swore that the more expensive the wine is, the better it tastes,” Shiv says. “And the question I had was: Is this just a figment of our imagination? Or is the brain extracting more pleasure when the wine is more expensive?” That is exactly what his results found: “The area of the brain that codes for pleasure shows greater activation when the brain thinks it is tasting a higher-priced wine than when it’s tasting a lower-priced wine, even though subjects tasted the same wine.”

Making the Decision Right

In addition to helping us make decisions, emotions play a critical role in helping us commit to the choices that we make. To move forward with a decision, we need what Shiv calls “decision confidence,” the conviction that our choice is the correct one.

“If you emerge from the decision with doubts, you’re more likely to give up too early and not persist in the course of action that you adopted,” he says. “You need to emerge from the decision feeling absolutely confident. It’s not making the ‘right decision’ but making the decision right.”

Much of society, especially business, places a premium on rational thinking, but Shiv encourages us to embrace our instincts and intuitions. As this episode of If/Then explores, if we want to make better decisions, then we need to think more like an artist.

Senior Editor, Stanford GSB

Listen & Subscribe

If/Then is a podcast from Stanford Graduate School of Business that examines research findings that can help us navigate the complex issues we face in business, leadership, and society. Each episode features an interview with a Stanford GSB faculty member.

Full Transcript

Note: Transcripts are generated by machine and lightly edited by humans. They may contain errors.

Kevin Cool: If we want to make better decisions, then we need to think more like an artist.

Yunfei Ren: I don’t think we should look at artists as a different species. We all have a bit of the artist genes in ourselves.

Kevin Cool: Yunfei Ren is a visual artist from Wuhan, China. He’s speaking at the launch of a photo series at a theater space in San Francisco. Yunfei has exhibited at museums like the de Young and Cantor Arts Center at Stanford, but he only recently started calling himself an artist.

Yunfei Ren: I started thinking of myself as an artist since the pandemic, actually. That was a major change. I had a whole corporate career for about 10 years in marketing. And when I turned 30, I decided to give photography a shot.

Kevin Cool: He quit his job and started pursuing an MFA. But the biggest change was in his outlook.

Yunfei Ren: When you’re an artist, you start to ask yourself from within what are the questions I want to answer, what are the things that I want to respond to, and then you create artwork for them. And it’s an attitude shift; it’s a mindset shift.

Kevin Cool: He often thinks analytically, weighing the pros and cons before he makes a decision, but he says he has been trying to approach his personal life more like he approaches his art.

Yunfei Ren: Becoming an artist has been quite freeing for me. I’ve learned to just trust my instinct more and be okay with however it turns out.

Kevin Cool: And he doesn’t think this perspective is just for people pursuing a life like his. Anyone can do it, even if they’re not making art.

Yunfei Ren: I think ultimately thinking like an artist is really thinking like people, like human beings, to trust your own instincts and start from the heart: what do you like, what do you believe in. And the data and external materials can help, but it’s a balance between the two, I think.

Kevin Cool: We rely on analytical thinking and data for so much of our life, but what would happen if we approached the world the way an artist does? Could we use our emotions, our instincts, to make meaningful decisions instead of relying on our rational brains alone?

This is If/Then , a podcast from Stanford Graduate School of Business, where we examine research findings that could help us navigate the complex issues facing us in business, leadership, and society. I’m Kevin Cool, Senior Editor at the GSB. Today we speak with Baba Shiv, the Sanwa Bank, Limited, Professor of Marketing. According to Baba, if we want to make better decisions, then we need to think more like an artist.

So, let’s start with a fact that I think drives much of your research. The rational part of the brain accounts for about 5 to 10 percent of the decisions we make.

Baba Shiv: That’s right.

Kevin Cool: In what ways then do emotions drive our decision making?

Baba Shiv: Profound influence on our decisions. And it’s all nonconscious. We’re not aware that these emotions — what I call more broadly speaking this instinctual brain/body systems that we share with other animal species — have a profound influence on our decisions, and we aren’t aware of it.

Kevin Cool: Do most people know that?

Baba Shiv: A great question. Most people intuitively know that. I mean, for example, we might think that we’re being rational. But at the end of the day, what the rational brain is good at very often is not at being rational. What the rational brain is good at is at simply rationalizing what the emotional brain has already decided to do. It constructs all these narratives, all these stories, in support of what the emotional brain has already decided to do and we are unaware of.

Kevin Cool: Convincing ourselves.

Baba Shiv: Convincing ourselves.

Kevin Cool: Right.

Baba Shiv: So, it is almost that I think people intuitively know that from their life experiences is that they’ve been taught to do something different, and therein lies the conflict. And my goal is to tell people that, no, rely on your intuition out there, rely on your gut. It’s telling you something very useful going forward.

Kevin Cool: When is emotion a good thing when we’re making a decision and when is it a bad thing?

Baba Shiv: That is the right question to ask because it’s not about whether emotion is good or bad for decision making. You come to the conclusion it’s kind of almost a professorial answer, and that is that it depends. It depends on what will be the next question. It depends on if you want to get rid of biases. Most of the biases in decision making are rooted in emotion. So, if the goal of decision making, of the decision maker, is to make decisions where they’re not falling prey to biases, you want to keep emotion out of the picture, and you want to bring an aspect of reason into the decision making as possible.

But there’s a second goal of decision making, and that is you need to emerge from the decision feeling absolutely confident about the decision and the course of action you’/re adopting. Because if you emerge from the decision with doubts, that’ll give rise to downstream effects in the sense that if you face a roadblock, which is bound to happen after you make a decision because it’s never a straight path from A to B; there are going to be some bumps along the way. If there are going to be bumps along the way and you’re not confident about the decision, you’re more likely to give up too early and not persist in the course of action that you’ve adopted.

Kevin Cool: So, if science says that the rational part of our brain has such a small influence and emotion plays this large, why does it seem like we act as if we can make rational decisions, “Just give me the facts and I’ll make a good decision”?

Baba Shiv: Yeah. I mean, that’s, I think, coming from the traditional viewpoint that has come down the ages. When you go back to Plato, go back to Aristotle, go back to Descartes, the fundamental premise at that point in time and came down the ages was what I call the traditionalist view of decision making, was that emotion is like the wild horse that needs to be reined in, right? Because emotion, as I mentioned before, will give rise to a whole host of biases.

And as decision makers making very consequential decisions — making an investment decision, an acquisition decision, making a very senior hire, et cetera — we really don’t want to fall prey to biases. That is the way that the traditionalists have viewed this, which tells us that in order to make these consequential decisions, we need to, number one, deliberate on the decision: think about the pros and cons, what are the costs, what are the benefits, what are the value you’re going to get from a course of action, what is the probability.

So, these are all reason, the scientist way of thinking about a decision. And that is the reason why I think we have this embedded in our minds right from childhood that if you’re making these consequential decisions, be as rational as possible. But what we forget to understand is that we have evolved with emotion, and there has to be a reason for that. If emotion were irrelevant, we would’ve evolved very differently.

And the conclusion that we have come to from a lot of science that has come out since, I would say, the 1980s — and the major proponent of that was Antonio Demasio who was at the University of Iowa when I was there. He and his wife and his team have amassed a lot of evidence that without emotion, we’ll simply be unable to make decisions in the sense that we’ll make a decision, but if we have to stick to the decision, stick to the course of action that we have adopted and persist on that course of action, without emotion we’ll be unable to do that. In other words, the root of what we call decision confidence, the confidence and the conviction that you emerge from the decision, is fundamentally rooted in emotion.

Kevin Cool: And we do live in an age in which data rules in lots of situations and we have much more capability. And now, of course, artificial intelligence is enhancing that capability even more. But there does seem to be a growing understanding of the importance of storytelling, which is something that you talk about. How does that allow us to influence others who are making decisions?

Baba Shiv: Part of the way we think, the way we think could be one of them is going to be — the reflective side of the brain is about the reasoning side. I mean, humans are endowed with being able to reason: get the data, evaluate the pros and cons and so on. But there is another side of the brain, and we’ve evolved for that, and that is the way humans make sense of the world around us — not just the present but the past and projecting into the future — is in the form of stories. We construct narratives.

If you have an existing job and you have a new job offer, one of the fundamental ways by which we think about that new offer is in terms of constructing a narrative for ourselves where we are the protagonist in that story. And we’re asking ourselves, okay, going though that narrative, what are the emotions that are emerging from the story, because stories are infused with emotion. Whereas if you adopt the more logical side, you’re keeping emotion out of the picture.

And therefore, in a stage of the decision-making process where you don’t want to fall prey to biases, you don’t want to engage in storytelling, right? You have to make sure that all the data have been considered. But once you have all the data — And there’s only so much that you can do. You don’t want to fall prey to data paralysis or analysis paralysis because you can only get so much of data.

I’ll often hear people saying that “We are a data driven organization.” I’ll say, “Yeah, that’s why you’re slow at making decisions, because you make the decision and move on.” But when you have to move on, that logic has to be kept aside, and now you have to construct the story and say, okay, I have two courses of action. One, I can stick to the current job, which is going to construct a narrative for me, the team, my family, et cetera.

There’s going to be another option out there; I’m going to construct another narrative out there. Which of these two narratives are resonating with me at a gut level? And that’s what I would go with because the emotion is telling me that that’s the direction I want to go. And if I make the decision in that — if I adopt that course of action, I’m bound to be more confident about the course of action adopted.

Kevin Cool: You’re listening to If/Then , a podcast from Stanford Graduate School of Business. We’ll continue our conversation after the break.

Baba, you’ve said you think we as a society should be more artistic than we are scientific. Well, you’re a scientist — not an artist — so what makes you say that?

Baba Shiv: Okay, let me take a step back and answer the following way. I’m not saying one is good, one is bad. I’m saying that leaders need to develop skills of not just being scientists. And most leaders today are trained as being scientists making very reasoned decisions out there. What we need to have is a good balance of the scientific mind and the artistic mind because artists dream, and dreams are what inspire us.

Kevin Cool: A lot of your work has been about the placebo effect, which we usually think of in terms of medicine. Does the placebo effect extend to business decisions where the belief that something is going to happen positively is more important than the objective information we have that might suggest it wouldn’t?

Baba Shiv: So, here’s the way to think about it. In the real world, there are no successes or failures. Just think about it. You make a decision, there’s only an outcome. You’re just a brain that has to interpret that outcome as a success or a failure.

Kevin Cool: I see.

Baba Shiv: And any outcome is going to be in the form of a distribution. There are going to be some positives; there are going to be some negatives.

Now if you are confident about the course of action you’re taking. You have visualized the whole thing. You believe with true conviction that, yes, there are going to be stumbling blocks along the way, of course it’s going to happen, that’s reality, but I am going to reach an endpoint I’ll be happy with. If you have that conviction out there, and there’s an outcome which has got both positives and negatives, which side of the distribution are you going to sample from? Naturally, the brain is going to sample from the positive end of the distribution, and therefore it is going to become a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Take another leader who is in doubt after having made the decision. It’s the same outcome that has happened, again with the same distribution of positives and negatives. But that person who’s in doubt is more likely to sample from the negative end of the distribution. And therefore, that will again become a self-fulfilling prophesy because the data coming in suggests that this is not the course of action I need to adopt because I sampled from the negative end, and therefore I’m more likely to give up sooner. But if I just persisted for some more time, it would’ve become the right course of action to go. That’s the way to think about the placebo effect.

Kevin Cool: And this isn’t just a theory, right?

Baba Shiv: Right.

Kevin Cool: You did a study to prove this with wine tasting. So, tell us about that study.

Baba Shiv: So, here’s a study that we did. When I came from Iowa — I was at the University of Iowa, and I came to Stanford in 2005 — one thing that struck me was how many oenophiles out here. I mean, people love wine out here, and I came from a culture that wine was not part of the conversation.

And so, what intrigued me was that I would visit all these wineries, and what intrigued me was that people swore that the more expensive the wine is, the better it tastes. And the question I had was is this just a figment of our imagination or is it truly that the brain is extracting more pleasure when the wine is more expensive than the wine is less expensive, right?

So, here’s a study that we did where imagine you’re a test subject. You come into the lab and you’re told that you’ll be tasting 5 different California cabernet sauvignons. I’m not going to tell you the brand names. All I’m going to tell you is that the market prices of these wines arrange from $5 to $90. Okay, you’re going to taste these 5 different wines. And as you’re tasting these wines, I’m going to monitor your whole brain activation.

Imagine that the first wine that shows up on the screen is a $90 wine. Now you look at that piece of information. Wine is squirted into your mouth. We get you to swirl the wine in the mouth for about 4 to 5 seconds. You swallow the wine. And then you rinse it out. Next will be $45. It’s going to be squirted into your mouth, and so on and so forth. Large number of tries. It’s all happening in real time. And what we do is we conduct what is called a test of contrast. And there’s only one factor that changes across the trials, and that is the price. Because unbeknownst to you, you’re tasting the same wine.

And the question we’re asking here is that will the brain extract more pleasure from the wine if it thinks that it’s tasting — if it expects to taste a higher priced wine. And that’s exactly what we find, that indeed that the area of the brain that codes for pleasure in real time shows greater activation when the brain thinks it is tasting a higher priced wine that is tasting a lower priced wine, even though you’re tasting the same wine. And that’s where what you expect, you manifest.

Baba Shiv: And that’s why I said that I have no successes or failures in life. There are only outcomes. It is the brain that has to interpret that outcome as a success or failure. And that’s what is being shown in this wine study as well.

Kevin Cool: And leaders who have that sort of deep conviction and belief in outcome, we’ve seen examples where it has gotten them in trouble.

Baba Shiv: Absolutely.

Kevin Cool: Let’s take an example of Sam Bankman-Fried, right?

Kevin Cool: Where he had certainly a conviction that he had sort of an idea of where he wanted to take this company, and yet somehow wasn’t able to see through the hubris or the mistakes or even the illegalities of what was going on there. So, how do we put a governor on conviction so that it doesn’t lead to hubris?

Baba Shiv: This is a great question, Kevin. It’s a classic phenomenon of bias in the decision-making literature called the escalation of commitment bias. It says that you’ve made a decision, and the information that is coming in about the outcomes seems to suggest that you need to revisit the decision; there’s something going wrong.

But if you are totally delusional and totally convinced that it’s a course of action, you start throwing good resources, good money, after what is turning out to be a bad decision. So, you don’t want to fall prey to those biases. So, you don’t want delusion to carry you away. And unfortunately — or fortunately — it is the delusional mindset that is going to give rise to conviction.

So, what you need to do is from time to time you need to keep yourself in check. So, what I tell leaders to do is that maybe every quarter, maybe every year, what you do is to conduct a premortem in the sense that you are delusional about future success. That’s what is giving rise to the conviction. That is what is causing you to ignore the information coming in seems to suggest that you need to revisit the decision.

What I say is that from time to time, you again become an artist. But this time instead of thinking about all the positives, think about all the negatives. How will this decision end up being the worst decision I ended up making? So, it allows the brain now to have a balanced view of the future — the future isn’t certain — instead of simply sampling from the positive end which is what, when you’re delusional, you do.

Rather than just focusing on the positives, from time to time force yourself to focus on the negatives so that the brain has both pieces of information out there and is wiser going forward knowing that there are negatives that I need to take care of so that the negatives will fade away and the positives will [emerge] into the future. That’s the way to think about it.

Kevin Cool: That would seem to also argue about having some diversity of points of view, values, and so on, on an executive team.

Baba Shiv: Absolutely. So, think about the following. For me, the bigger thing is not about leaders. It’s not about the delusion that leaders go through. My thing is the opposite problem, and that is leaders have a habit. Today, when I look at leaders out there, they have a habit of saying it cannot be done. “It cannot be done. It cannot be done.” We impose constraints on ourselves. For no rhyme or reason, we compose these constraints. And these constraints are inevitable because as we gain experience, experience is a double-edged sword, Kevin, right?

On one hand, experience allows the leader to make decisions out of their gut. Pattern recognition emerges and they’re able to recognize patterns and make these decisions. But the problem with experience is that you’re also going to experience certain successes along the way, you’re going to experience failures along the way. Fortunately, or unfortunately, because of the notion of loss aversion, the failures are going to loom larger than the successes over a period of time. And therefore, naturally a leader is going to become more conservative as the time goes by. So, you want to have a team of people with diversity.

And I’m not talking about diversity in terms of skin color — that’s also important — but I’m talking about diversity in terms of backgrounds, knowledge, et cetera. I would say, you know what, I have a lot of leaders who will hire summer interns, 20-year-olds. And what kind of tasks do they give them? Well, metaphorically, make the copies or get me some coffee. I mean, those are the kind of the trivial things that they’re asked to do.

Kevin Cool: Grunt work.

Baba Shiv: Grunt work. Rather than that, they have no idea of constraints. You have as a leader, but they have no idea of constraints. You give them a task that is almost impossible to solve. Who knows? They might come up with a solution. All you need is one good idea to take forward. That’s why I say, that’s why diversity is so very crucial. And part of diversity, let’s not forget, is age diversity.

Kevin Cool: So, Baba, why do you study decision making? What led you to this area of research?

Baba Shiv: I am the most irrational of decision makers out there. Most academics would say that you study your weaknesses, and one of my weaknesses is I’m very irrational as a decision maker in the sense that the rational thing to do is when you’re making these very consequential decisions, you spend a lot of time deliberating on the decision: evaluate the pros and cons, talk to people, seek opinions, and make up your mind.

Most of my consequential decisions — who I’m going to marry, for example — took me about 30 minutes to decide. My career path was going along, becoming the CEO of a multinational company. And then one of my favorite professors in my MBA program, he asked me a question, “Have you ever thought of becoming a professor?” And I said, “No, sir.” He said, “You should.” And then four-and-a-half months later, he died in an air crash. And I go to his memorial and I ask people, “Hey, did he ever ask you to be a professor?” No one said yes. And I said maybe he saw something in me.

That decision to quit my career path to becoming the CEO of a multinational company — and I was going down that path and I knew I could be successful there — to completely abandon that and adopt a completely new course of action. I mean, what’s going to happen? I didn’t even know what a [PC] was; that took me a couple of days.

So, I’m one of the most irrational of decision makers. And that’s what got me to asking this fundamental question, and that is, is a good decision really based on reason or is it based on emotion? And that’s been the hallmark of a lot of the work I do, asking these fundamental questions where people have certain assumptions about human behavior, what is the appropriate thing to do. And I question them and I say, “Why not the opposite?”

Kevin Cool: If/Then is produced by Jesse Baker and Eric Nuzum of Magnificent Noise for Stanford Graduate School of Business. Our show is produced by Jim Colgan and Julia Natt. Mixing and sound design by Kristin Mueller. From Stanford GSB, Jenny Luna, Sorel Husbands Denholtz and Elizabeth Wyleczuk-Stern.

If you enjoyed this conversation, we’d appreciate you sharing this with others who might be interested and hope you’ll try some of the other episodes in this series. For more on our professors and their research, or to discover more podcasts coming out of Stanford GSB, visit our website at gsb.stanford.edu. Find more on our YouTube channel. You can follow us on social media at StanfordGSB. I’m Kevin Cool.

For media inquiries, visit the Newsroom .

Explore More

When words aren’t enough: how to excel at nonverbal communication, navigating the nuance: the art of disagreeing without conflict, seen & heard: how to make your audience feel understood, editor’s picks.

November 20, 2020 Feelings First: How Emotion Shapes Our Communication, Decisions, and Experiences In this episode, we discuss how recognizing your audience’s emotional needs can help you achieve your communication goals.

February 07, 2024 You’re in Charge: How to Use AI as a Powerful Decision-Making Tool If we focus on the jobs rather than the emotions, then AI can be a powerful decision-making tool.

July 26, 2021 Class Takeaways — The Frinky Science of the Human Mind Five lessons in five minutes: Professor Baba Shiv shows how to build emotional connections that back up your decisions.

March 01, 2011 Baba Shiv: Why Failure Drives Innovation Research says how people approach failure can be key to their success.

• Priorities for the GSB's Future
• See the Current DEI Report
• Supporting Data
• Research & Insights
• Share Your Thoughts
• Search Fund Primer
• Teaching & Curriculum
• Affiliated Faculty
• Faculty Advisors
• Louis W. Foster Resource Center
• Defining Social Innovation
• Impact Compass
• Global Health Innovation Insights
• Faculty Affiliates
• Student Awards & Certificates
• Changemakers
• Dean Jonathan Levin
• Dean Garth Saloner
• Dean Robert Joss
• Dean Michael Spence
• Dean Robert Jaedicke
• Dean Rene McPherson
• Dean Arjay Miller
• Dean Ernest Arbuckle
• Dean Jacob Hugh Jackson
• Dean Willard Hotchkiss
• Faculty in Memoriam
• Stanford GSB Firsts
• Certificate & Award Recipients
• Teaching Approach
• Analysis and Measurement of Impact
• The Corporate Entrepreneur: Startup in a Grown-Up Enterprise
• Data-Driven Impact
• Designing Experiments for Impact
• Digital Business Transformation
• The Founder’s Right Hand
• Marketing for Measurable Change
• Product Management
• Public Policy Lab: Financial Challenges Facing US Cities
• Public Policy Lab: Homelessness in California
• Lab Features
• Curricular Integration
• View From The Top
• Formation of New Ventures
• Managing Growing Enterprises
• Startup Garage
• Explore Beyond the Classroom
• Stanford Venture Studio
• Summer Program
• Workshops & Events
• The Five Lenses of Entrepreneurship
• Leadership Labs
• Executive Challenge
• Arbuckle Leadership Fellows Program
• Selection Process
• Training Schedule
• Time Commitment
• Learning Expectations
• Post-Training Opportunities
• Who Should Apply
• Introductory T-Groups
• Leadership for Society Program
• Certificate
• 2023 Awardees
• 2022 Awardees
• 2021 Awardees
• 2020 Awardees
• 2019 Awardees
• 2018 Awardees
• Social Management Immersion Fund
• Stanford Impact Founder Fellowships and Prizes
• Stanford Impact Leader Prizes
• Social Entrepreneurship
• Stanford GSB Impact Fund
• Economic Development
• Energy & Environment
• Stanford GSB Residences
• Environmental Leadership
• Stanford GSB Artwork
• A Closer Look
• California & the Bay Area
• Voices of Stanford GSB
• Business & Beneficial Technology
• Business & Sustainability
• Business & Free Markets
• Business, Government, and Society Forum
• Get Involved
• Second Year
• Global Experiences
• JD/MBA Joint Degree
• MA Education/MBA Joint Degree
• MD/MBA Dual Degree
• MPP/MBA Joint Degree
• MS Computer Science/MBA Joint Degree
• MS Electrical Engineering/MBA Joint Degree
• MS Environment and Resources (E-IPER)/MBA Joint Degree
• Academic Calendar
• Clubs & Activities
• LGBTQ+ Students
• Military Veterans
• Minorities & People of Color
• Partners & Families
• Students with Disabilities
• Student Support
• Residential Life
• Student Voices
• MBA Alumni Voices
• A Week in the Life
• Career Support
• Employment Outcomes
• Cost of Attendance
• Knight-Hennessy Scholars Program
• Yellow Ribbon Program
• BOLD Fellows Fund
• Application Process
• Loan Forgiveness
• Contact the Financial Aid Office
• Evaluation Criteria
• GMAT & GRE
• English Language Proficiency
• Personal Information, Activities & Awards
• Professional Experience
• Letters of Recommendation
• Optional Short Answer Questions
• Application Fee
• Reapplication
• Deferred Enrollment
• Joint & Dual Degrees
• Entering Class Profile
• Event Schedule
• Ambassadors
• New & Noteworthy
• Ask a Question
• See Why Stanford MSx
• Is MSx Right for You?
• MSx Stories
• Leadership Development
• Career Advancement
• Career Change
• How You Will Learn
• Admission Events
• Personal Information
• Information for Recommenders
• GMAT, GRE & EA
• English Proficiency Tests
• After You’re Admitted
• Daycare, Schools & Camps
• U.S. Citizens and Permanent Residents
• Requirements
• Requirements: Behavioral
• Requirements: Quantitative
• Requirements: Macro
• Requirements: Micro
• Annual Evaluations
• Field Examination
• Research Activities
• Research Papers
• Dissertation
• Oral Examination
• Current Students
• Education & CV
• International Applicants
• Statement of Purpose
• Reapplicants
• Application Fee Waiver
• Deadline & Decisions
• Job Market Candidates
• Academic Placements
• Stay in Touch
• Faculty Mentors
• Current Fellows
• Standard Track
• Fellowship & Benefits
• Group Enrollment
• Program Formats
• Developing a Program
• Diversity & Inclusion
• Strategic Transformation
• Program Experience
• Contact Client Services
• Campus Experience
• Live Online Experience
• Silicon Valley & Bay Area
• Digital Credentials
• Faculty Spotlights
• Participant Spotlights
• Eligibility
• International Participants
• Stanford Ignite
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Operations, Information & Technology
• Classical Liberalism
• The Eddie Lunch
• Accounting Summer Camp
• Videos, Code & Data
• California Econometrics Conference
• California Quantitative Marketing PhD Conference
• California School Conference
• China India Insights Conference
• Homo economicus, Evolving
• Political Economics (2023–24)
• Scaling Geologic Storage of CO2 (2023–24)
• A Resilient Pacific: Building Connections, Envisioning Solutions
• Adaptation and Innovation
• Changing Climate
• Civil Society
• Climate Impact Summit
• Climate Science
• Corporate Carbon Disclosures
• Earth’s Seafloor
• Environmental Justice
• Operations and Information Technology
• Organizations
• Sustainability Reporting and Control
• Taking the Pulse of the Planet
• Urban Infrastructure
• Watershed Restoration
• Junior Faculty Workshop on Financial Regulation and Banking
• Ken Singleton Celebration
• Marketing Camp
• Quantitative Marketing PhD Alumni Conference
• Presentations
• Theory and Inference in Accounting Research
• Stanford Closer Look Series
• Quick Guides
• Core Concepts
• Journal Articles
• Glossary of Terms
• Faculty & Staff
• Researchers & Students
• Research Approach
• Charitable Giving
• Financial Health
• Government Services
• Workers & Careers
• Short Course
• Adaptive & Iterative Experimentation
• Incentive Design
• Social Sciences & Behavioral Nudges
• Bandit Experiment Application
• Conferences & Events
• Reading Materials
• Energy Entrepreneurship
• Faculty & Affiliates
• SOLE Report
• Responsible Supply Chains
• Current Study Usage
• Pre-Registration Information
• Participate in a Study
• Founding Donors
• Location Information
• Participant Profile
• Network Membership
• Program Impact
• Collaborators
• Entrepreneur Profiles
• Company Spotlights
• Seed Transformation Network
• Responsibilities
• Current Coaches
• How to Apply
• Meet the Consultants
• Meet the Interns
• Intern Profiles
• Collaborate
• Research Library
• News & Insights
• Program Contacts
• Databases & Datasets
• Research Guides
• Consultations
• Research Workshops
• Career Research
• Research Data Services
• Course Reserves
• Course Research Guides
• Material Loan Periods
• Fines & Other Charges
• Document Delivery
• Interlibrary Loan
• Equipment Checkout
• Print & Scan
• MBA & MSx Students
• PhD Students
• Other Stanford Students
• Faculty Assistants
• Research Assistants
• Stanford GSB Alumni
• Telling Our Story
• Staff Directory
• Site Registration
• Alumni Directory
• Alumni Email
• Privacy Settings & My Profile
• Success Stories
• The Story of Circles
• Support Women’s Circles
• Stanford Women on Boards Initiative
• Alumnae Spotlights
• Insights & Research
• Industry & Professional
• Entrepreneurial Commitment Group
• Recent Alumni
• Half-Century Club
• Fall Reunions
• Spring Reunions
• MBA 25th Reunion
• Half-Century Club Reunion
• Faculty Lectures
• Ernest C. Arbuckle Award
• Alison Elliott Exceptional Achievement Award
• ENCORE Award
• Excellence in Leadership Award
• John W. Gardner Volunteer Leadership Award
• Robert K. Jaedicke Faculty Award
• Jack McDonald Military Service Appreciation Award
• Jerry I. Porras Latino Leadership Award
• Tapestry Award
• Student & Alumni Events
• Executive Recruiters
• Interviewing
• Land the Perfect Job with LinkedIn
• Negotiating
• Elevator Pitch
• Email Best Practices
• Resumes & Cover Letters
• Self-Assessment
• Whitney Birdwell Ball
• Margaret Brooks
• Bryn Panee Burkhart
• Margaret Chan
• Ricki Frankel
• Peter Gandolfo
• Cindy W. Greig
• Natalie Guillen
• Carly Janson
• Sloan Klein
• Sherri Appel Lassila
• Stuart Meyer
• Tanisha Parrish
• Virginia Roberson
• Philippe Taieb
• Michael Takagawa
• Terra Winston
• Johanna Wise
• Debbie Wolter
• Rebecca Zucker
• Complimentary Coaching
• Changing Careers
• Work-Life Integration
• Career Breaks
• Flexible Work
• Encore Careers
• Join a Board
• D&B Hoovers
• Data Axle (ReferenceUSA)
• EBSCO Business Source
• Global Newsstream
• Market Share Reporter
• ProQuest One Business
• Student Clubs
• Entrepreneurial Students
• Stanford GSB Trust
• Alumni Community
• How to Volunteer
• Springboard Sessions
• Consulting Projects
• 2020 – 2029
• 2010 – 2019
• 2000 – 2009
• 1990 – 1999
• 1980 – 1989
• 1970 – 1979
• 1960 – 1969
• 1950 – 1959
• 1940 – 1949
• Service Areas
• ACT History
• ACT Awards Celebration
• ACT Governance Structure
• Building Leadership for ACT
• Individual Leadership Positions
• Leadership Role Overview
• Purpose of the ACT Management Board
• Contact ACT
• Business & Nonprofit Communities
• Reunion Volunteers
• Ways to Give
• Fiscal Year Report
• Business School Fund Leadership Council
• Planned Giving Options
• Planned Giving Benefits
• Planned Gifts and Reunions
• Legacy Partners
• Giving News & Stories
• Giving Deadlines
• Development Staff
• Submit Class Notes
• Class Secretaries
• Board of Directors
• Health Care
• Sustainability
• Class Takeaways
• All Else Equal: Making Better Decisions
• If/Then: Business, Leadership, Society
• Grit & Growth
• Think Fast, Talk Smart
• Spring 2022
• Spring 2021
• Autumn 2020
• Summer 2020
• Winter 2020
• In the Media
• For Journalists
• DCI Fellows
• Other Auditors
• Academic Calendar & Deadlines
• Course Materials
• Entrepreneurial Resources
• Campus Drive Grove
• Campus Drive Lawn
• CEMEX Auditorium
• King Community Court
• Seawell Family Boardroom
• Stanford GSB Bowl
• Stanford Investors Common
• Town Square
• Vidalakis Courtyard
• Vidalakis Dining Hall
• Catering Services
• Policies & Guidelines
• Reservations
• Contact Faculty Recruiting
• Lecturer Positions
• Postdoctoral Positions
• Accommodations
• CMC-Managed Interviews
• Recruiter-Managed Interviews
• Virtual Interviews
• Campus & Virtual
• Search for Candidates
• Think Globally
• Recruiting Calendar
• Recruiting Policies
• Full-Time Employment
• Summer Employment
• Entrepreneurial Summer Program
• Global Management Immersion Experience
• Social-Purpose Summer Internships
• Process Overview
• Project Types
• Client Eligibility Criteria
• Client Screening
• ACT Leadership
• Social Innovation & Nonprofit Management Resources
• Develop Your Organization’s Talent
• Centers & Initiatives
• Student Fellowships

• Essay Editor

Decision Making in Life

List of Essays

Personal decision making, defining our identities, charting life trajectories, embracing accountability, strategic planning, problem solving, risk management, the decision-making process.

• The Role of Emotional Intelligence in Decision Makingt

Self-Regulation

Social awareness, conflict resolution.

Life is a series of decisions, some small and seemingly inconsequential, others monumental and life-altering. Whether we're selecting a career path, choosing a life partner, or merely deciding on dinner, each choice shapes our life's trajectory. In this "decision making in life" essay, we'll delve into the importance of making informed decisions, understanding our identities, and the role of emotional intelligence in shaping our choices.

Every person stands at the crossroads of multiple decisions daily. The essence of personal decision-making lies in understanding who we are, what drives us, and what we value. When we possess this knowledge, we can align our choices with our intrinsic motivations, ensuring that our decisions are authentic and fulfilling.

Our identities are a fusion of our experiences, beliefs, values, and aspirations. Every decision we make, whether consciously or subconsciously, is rooted in these facets of our identity. Recognizing the core elements of our identity empowers us to make choices that resonate with our true selves, leading to a more fulfilled life.

The decisions we make are like waypoints on a map, guiding us on our life's journey. With each choice, we determine our direction, sometimes altering our path dramatically or subtly refining our route. By making informed, deliberate choices, we can ensure that our trajectory aligns with our goals and aspirations.

Decision-making is an act of responsibility. Recognizing the importance of decision-making in life means accepting that our choices have consequences. Embracing this accountability can empower us to make more informed, thoughtful decisions, considering not only immediate implications but long-term effects as well.

Strategic planning involves looking ahead, setting goals, and determining the best course of action to achieve those objectives. By employing strategic thinking in our personal lives, we can anticipate potential challenges, optimize opportunities, and navigate the intricate maze of life with foresight and purpose.

Every decision stems from a desire to solve a problem or seize an opportunity. Effective problem-solving skills enable us to dissect issues, identify potential solutions, and select the optimal course of action.

Life is unpredictable. While we can't foresee every outcome, we can manage potential risks. Assessing the pros and cons of a decision and anticipating potential pitfalls is essential. Risk management doesn't mean avoiding risks but making informed decisions, understanding potential outcomes, and being prepared for them.

Making a decision is a systematic process, and understanding its stages can help us make more informed choices.

• Identifying the Problem or Opportunity : Recognize the need for a decision. Is there a problem to solve or an opportunity to exploit?
• Gathering Information : Equip yourself with relevant facts, data, and insights. The better informed you are, the clearer your perspective will be.
• Evaluating Options : Weigh the pros and cons of each potential decision. Consider the implications of each choice and how they align with your values and goals.
• Making the Decision : After thorough evaluation, choose the best course of action.
• Reflecting and Learning : After a decision is made, assess the outcome. Were the results as expected? What lessons can be drawn for future decisions?

The Role of Emotional Intelligence in Decision Making

Emotional intelligence (EI) plays a pivotal role in shaping our decisions. Possessing a high EI means understanding and managing our emotions and recognizing those of others, facilitating better interpersonal interactions and informed personal decisions.

Individuals with a high EI can regulate their emotions, preventing them from making impulsive decisions. This self-regulation ensures that choices are based on logic and reason rather than fleeting emotions.

Understanding others' emotions and perspectives aids in making decisions that consider broader implications, especially when multiple parties are involved.

When faced with conflicting views or choices, those with high EI can navigate the situation, find common ground, and arrive at mutually beneficial decisions.

The "importance of decision making in life essay" cannot be understated, for it offers a window into the intricate web of choices that shape our existence. Through this essay on the importance of decision making, we comprehend the pivotal role these choices play in defining who we are and the paths we tread. The "importance of decision making in our life essay" lies not just in highlighting the weight of every choice, but in emphasizing the need for introspection, foresight, and emotional intelligence. To truly grasp the essence of this "essay on importance of decision making in life," one must reflect on one’s own life choices and their ramifications. For, as we come to understand the importance of decision making in our life essay, we learn to appreciate the delicate balance of logic, emotion, strategy, and instinct that drives each decision, large or small.

Related articles

How to write an essay in apa format.

There are a few styles of organizing and formatting material in an academic essay. To get high grades it is necessary to learn specific characteristics of each one. After reading this article students are certain to figure out how to write in APA format. What is APA format for an essay? It was the American Psychological Association who offered to use the APA style when formatting articles and academic papers. The specialists described all its aspects in a special Publication Manual, printed i ...

How to Write Informative Essays

Informative essays are one of the main types of academic writing students must complete as part of the educational process. While this is a typical assignment in any curriculum, it can be hard to distinguish between different types of essays and how to write them. In this article, we’ll delve into the genre of this essay type, learn the definition of an informative essay, and how to write an informational essay. What is an informative essay? An informative essay is a piece of academic writin ...

Master the Art of Paraphrasing with This Comprehensive Guide

In academic writing, you often need to process a large number of sources to compile a thorough and credible examination. However, you can’t simply copy and paste all information into your text document. In such instances, paraphrasing becomes essential. In this short article, we’ll define paraphrasing, talk about why it’s important, and provide guidance on how to paraphrase in an essay. What is paraphrasing? Paraphrasing is a technique that involves rewriting the source text in a way that pr ...

MLA Format Essays: A Comprehensive Guide

Finishing an essay is one thing, but formatting it is a completely different affair. There are many style guides out there, so it can be hard to understand the differences between them. Today, you will learn about MLA format writing, what it is, when it’s used, and how to write MLA format essays. What is an MLA Style Essay? An MLA format essay is a piece of writing created in accordance with the MLA Style Handbook. This guide was developed by the Modern Language Association, the leading profe ...

How To Write Reflection Essays

How often do you contemplate how the tapestry of your experiences shapes your thoughts? A reflection paper lets you explore that. It's like deep diving into your life’s precious moments, examining how stories, books, events, or even lectures have influenced your views. This type of academic essay integrates a personal perspective, allowing you to openly express your opinions. In this guide, we will delve into the specifics of reflective writing, share some tips, and show some self-reflection es ...

APA or MLA: Choosing the Right Citation Style for Your Paper

When it comes to academic writing, properly citing your sources is crucial. It not only helps you avoid plagiarism but also adds credibility to your work by showing that you've done your research. However, with various citation styles out there, it can be tricky to know which one to use. Two of the most common styles are APA (American Psychological Association) and MLA (Modern Language Association). In this article, we'll take a closer look at the APA vs MLA format to help you decide which is ri ...

Synthesis Essay Examples

A synthesis essay is another piece of academic discourse that students often find difficult to write. This assignment indeed requires a more nuanced approach to writing and performing research. It’s particularly relevant to students taking an AP English Language and Composition exam, so learning how to write a synthesis essay is crucial to getting a high score. This article will explore the definition of a synthesis essay, its functions, and objectives, and provide a tutorial on how to write a ...

What Is Chat GPT?

AI GPT chats have been getting a lot of attention over the last year. Not surprising since this new technology promises to change our future completely. The first and most well-known AI GPT chat software is ChatGPT officially released on November 30, 2022. In this article, we will answer the question “What is Chat GPT?”, explore how it works, and find out where to use the Chat GPT model. Chat GPT: definition As the name implies, ChatGPT is a chatbot that uses generative AI to process input p ...

Home — Essay Samples — Life — Impact — Making Right Decissions: How Choices Affect Our Lives

Making Right Decissions: How Choices Affect Our Lives

• Categories: Actions Choices Impact

About this sample

Words: 1440 |

Published: Apr 2, 2020

Words: 1440 | Pages: 3 | 8 min read

Works Cited

• Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit: Perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(6), 1087-1101. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1087
• Eccles, J. S., & Midgley, C. (1989). Stage-environment fit: Developmentally appropriate classrooms for young adolescents. Research on Motivation in Education, 3, 139-186.
• Lepp, A., Barkley, J. E., & Karpinski, A. C. (2014). The relationship between cell phone use, academic performance, anxiety, and satisfaction with life in college students. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 343-350. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.049
• Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370-396. doi:10.1037/h0054346
• Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.55.1.68
• Seligman, M. E., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology progress: Empirical validation of interventions. American Psychologist, 60(5), 410-421. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.60.5.410
• Shoshani, A., & Slone, M. (2013). Middle school transition from the strengths perspective: Young adolescents' character strengths, subjective well-being, and school adjustment. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14(4), 1163-1181. doi:10.1007/s10902-012-9373-7
• Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality, 72(2), 271-324. doi:10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00263.x
• Vallerand, R. J., Lalande, D. R., Ratelle, C. F., & Bisonnette, R. (2001). The Academic Motivation Scale: A measure of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation in education. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60(3), 479-495. doi:10.1177/00131640121971458
• Waters, L. (2011). A review of school-based positive psychology interventions. The Australian Educational and Developmental Psychologist, 28(2), 75-90. doi:10.1375/aedp.28.2.75

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof Ernest (PhD)

Verified writer

• Expert in: Life

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

6 pages / 2669 words

2 pages / 702 words

1 pages / 440 words

2 pages / 840 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Impact

In conclusion, my dream to be a dentist is driven by my passion for oral health, my desire to make a positive impact on people's lives, and my commitment to lifelong learning. Despite the challenges that lie ahead, I am [...]

Bill Gates is undoubtedly one of the most influential figures of the 21st century. As the co-founder of Microsoft, he has revolutionized the way we use technology and has played a significant role in shaping the digital age. In [...]

As I sat in the crowded auditorium, waiting for my name to be called, I couldn't help but reflect on the journey that had led me to this moment. The sweat, the tears, the late nights of studying, and the countless hours of hard [...]

Progressivism in education has brought about a paradigm shift in teaching and learning, moving away from traditional methods towards a more student-centered and experiential approach. By prioritizing personalized instruction, [...]

Color is helpful in communicating your message because it draws attention, sets the tone of the message, and guides the eye where it needs to go. It presents a sense of direction and recognition that people can identify and [...]

In a culture that stresses success, children are bombarded daily to grow up too quickly and in fact, Dr Gail Gross, an internationally recognized expert, author, and educator on relationships, family development, education and [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Home / Essay Samples / Business / Decision Making / Making Informed Choices: the Importance of Decision Making

Making Informed Choices: the Importance of Decision Making

• Category: Life , Business , Education
• Topic: Decision , Decision Making , Personal Statement

Pages: 1 (645 words)

• Downloads: -->

--> ⚠️ Remember: This essay was written and uploaded by an--> click here.

Found a great essay sample but want a unique one?

are ready to help you with your essay

You won’t be charged yet!

Studying Abroad Essays

Indian Education Essays

Brittany Stinson Essays

Graduation Essays

College Education Essays

Related Essays

We are glad that you like it, but you cannot copy from our website. Just insert your email and this sample will be sent to you.

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service  and  Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Your essay sample has been sent.

In fact, there is a way to get an original essay! Turn to our writers and order a plagiarism-free paper.

samplius.com uses cookies to offer you the best service possible.By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .--> -->