Judgement and Decision-Making Part 3: Achieve Better Outcomes

Today we conclude our series on Judgement and Decision-Making. In our first article we looked at the decision-making process and the biases we confront in arriving at a decision. Our second article explored analytical and intuitive thinking and the differences between individual and group decision-making.

In this article, we pull it all these insights together and present strategies for improving decision making in the professional environment.

Decision Making Approaches for Professionals and Leaders

Firstly, there is no one-size-fits-all decision-making model. The key to effective decision-making lies in self-awareness and the ability to select an approach that matches the decision’s complexity, scale, and impact.

We must also be aware that once decisions move from the technical, project level up to the increasingly complex social, organisational, strategic level then group decision making will yield far superior results.

Technical and Project Level Decisions

Professional operating in their area of expertise

(These frameworks are adapted from Parkin (1996))

First Approach – Recognition-Primed

1. Problem Recognition – Recognise the problem or challenge as being within your field of expertise.
2. Thinking – Recall previously encountered situations of a similar nature.
   1. Consider how the situation developed.
   2. What were the solutions to past problems?
   3. Note: If the problem is unfamiliar, it is an indication that you are not an expert for this issue.
3. Judgement – Identify a satisfactory solution.
   1. Assess previous solutions for suitability.
   2. Once you have found a suitable solution move to decision stage.
4. Decision – Determine whether a satisfactory solution is justifiable.
   1. Is the problem routine and/or are the consequences minimal? If so, then adopt the solution.
   2. Does the situation require decisive action, such as during an incident or crisis? If so, then adopt the solution.
   3. For complex problems and where there is ample time for consideration then taking steps to find an optimal or more compatible solution is likely required. Do not adopt your recognition primed solution and move on to holistic decision making.
5. Action – Monitor the situation. Should circumstances change or information come to light that would’ve altered your initial decision, then restart the decision-making process.

Second Approach – Holistic Decision Making

1. Problem Recognition – Reassess the problem for cues and information you may have overlooked, such as social aspects.
2. Thinking – Use a combination of reasoned choice and image theory to evaluate possible solutions for the ability to realise organisation goals and alignment with organisation values.

Recall that reasoned choice will involve an evaluation process that will appear to be largely analytical, but it will be both analytical and intuitive. Fortunately, the benefits of expertise are that our intuitions are reliable.

3. Judgement – Identify the solution that optimises achievement of goals and minimises negative consequences. Where 2 solutions appear equal use Image Theory to determine which solution best aligns with personal and organisational values and culture.
4. Decision – Adopt the solution.
5. Action – Implement and Monitor.

Professional operating outside of their area of expertise

In this scenario the professional must seek the input of experts.

First Approach – Delegate to an Expert

1. Problem Recognition – You recognise the problem or challenge is outside of your field of expertise.
2. Delegate to an Expert – If you can delegate your authority to an expert do so. The expert may then follow the decision-making process prescribed in the previous section.

If you are unable to delegate your decision making, then a Judge-Advisor group decision model may be appropriate.

Second Approach – Judge-Advisor Group Decision

1. Problem Recognition – Reassess the problem for cues and information you may have overlooked, such as social aspects.
2. Thinking – Bring in the expertise of 1 or more advisors. It is the expert advisors’ role to identify important cues, possible solutions and evaluate these using reasoned choice.

As a non-expert judge in this scenario, you will have limited input into the reasoned choice evaluation. However, as the judge you should use image theory to assess the proposed solutions for their fit with personal, organisational, and societal values and norms.

3. Judgement – Identify the solution that optimises achievement of goals, minimise negative consequences and best aligns with norms and culture.
4. Decision – Adopt the solution.
5. Action – Implement and Monitor.

Strategic and Organisational Decision Making

Decision-making at this level becomes complex. Potential courses of action lie along a continuum of possibilities, as a result a single person, no matter how brilliant, can identify all important cues, and process the required information for an effective decision. This necessitates the use of group decision making frameworks.

For a senior leadership team, the Group Consensus with Information Sharing is likely to be the preferred model. With this model the functional heads of each division work together to share and process information relating to the problem. As discussed in the previous article for this type of group decision making to be successful there needs to be a shared focus on decision accuracy over group consensus, and a commitment to the free sharing of information as it becomes available to any group member. With these principles in place this group decision model returns superior decision outcomes over simple group aggregation and individual decision-making models.

Where employee commitment is desirable the use of a company or division wide Simple Aggregation model is recommended. Recall from the previous article that with this model, group members operate as individual decision makers, and as the group size increases so too does the correction for individual errors. This phenomenon is known as the “Wisdom of Crowds”. The average group decisions determined using this model tend to bracket the optimum decision for the problem.

The Simple Aggregation model can also be used to test whether senior leadership decision falls within the decision bracket determined by the wider workforce. This would be useful in instances where the CEO or company board has concerns about dysfunction in the senior leadership team or where there is need to test the workforce’s tolerance of a strategic shift in the business.

Wrapping Up

Here at the end of our series on Judgement and Decision Making, we now understand that decision-making is a dynamic process that requires flexible thinking and a wide range of approaches.

At the technical and project level, expert professionals can make effective individual decisions with the Recognition-Primed or the Holistic Decision-Making approaches. However, non-expert professionals must confer with experts when making technical decisions. Decision making by non-expert is best achieve through decision delegation to a subject matter expert or via a Judge-Advisor Decision model.

Strategic and organizational decisions, owing to their complexities, necessitate group decision-making frameworks. The Group Consensus with Information Sharing model is an ideal choice for senior leadership teams. This model prioritises decision accuracy over consensus and advocates for free information sharing among group members, delivers superior decision outcomes compared with individual decision-making models. Alternatively, the Simple Aggregation group decision-making model capitalises on the “Wisdom of Crowds” phenomenon and can be used to increase workforce commitment.

Understanding and applying the appropriate decision-making framework is pivotal in navigating the challenging terrain of professional decision-making. The choice of framework, be it Recognition-Primed, Holistic, Judge-Advisor, or Group Consensus, will significantly influence the quality of decisions and, consequently, the overall success of the organisation.

We hope you have received great value from our blog series on “Judgement and Decision-Making” and that will be able to implement the lessons in your professional lives. If you are facing challenges on your projects and need some expert advice, TMY Advisory would like to hear about it.

References

Parkin, J (1996), Management Decisions for Engineers;

Group Decision-Making | Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Psychology.