"

Chapter 11: Decision Making in Organizations

Learning Objectives

After reading this chapter, you should be able to do the following:

  1. Describe the key components and processes involved in decision making.
  2. Differentiate between various decision-making models by comparing their strengths and limitations.
  3. Analyze the differences between individual and group decision-making approaches.
  4. Identify common decision-making traps and propose strategies to avoid them.
  5. Evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of different decision-making aids and tools.
  6. Apply ethical principles to real-world decision-making scenarios.
  7. Examine cross-cultural variations in decision-making practices and assess their implications in global contexts.

Section 11.1: Spotlight

Decision-Making Challenges During UMSL’s Campus Transformation

Figure 11.1

Wrecking ball - Nov. 2011.jpg

bradleypjohnson – Wikimedia Commons – Wrecking ball- CC BY CA2.0

In 2024–2025, the University of Missouri–St. Louis launched the Transform UMSL initiative—a $110 million campus overhaul aimed at consolidating academic buildings, modernizing infrastructure, and enhancing student experience. While the long-term goals were ambitious, the implementation raised concerns among students, faculty, and staff. The demolition of the Social Sciences and Business Building (SSB), renovation of the Thomas Jefferson and Mercantile Libraries, and construction of the Richter Family Welcome Center disrupted daily campus life. Reports of inaccessible pathways, construction noise, power outages, and dust clouds during peak class hours suggest that decision-makers may have prioritized strategic vision over stakeholder experience (UMSL, 2025a; LJC, 2025).

UMSL leadership appeared to rely on a rational decision-making model, emphasizing long-term planning and cost-benefit analysis. This model is often praised for its structured approach but criticized for overlooking emotional and ethical dimensions (UMSL Comm 2231, 2025). The Transform initiative was guided by a Campus Master Plan approved in 2021, with input from external consultants and state officials. However, the lack of visible engagement with students and faculty during implementation suggests limited use of group decision-making models, which typically enhance buy-in and surface diverse perspectives.

Several decision-making traps may have influenced the rollout. Escalation of commitment—continuing with a plan despite mounting evidence of disruption—was evident as construction persisted during peak academic hours. Confirmation bias may have led leadership to focus on positive feedback from donors and legislators while ignoring campus-level concerns. Additionally, framing bias may have shaped communications that emphasized progress and transformation while downplaying the lived experience of those affected (Quizlet, 2025).

UMSL’s use of decision-making aids—such as strategic planning tools and architectural renderings—had mixed results. These aids helped visualize long-term goals and secure funding, but they may have obscured short-term consequences. The pros of these tools include clarity, structure, and alignment with institutional goals. The cons include rigidity, overreliance on expert input, and reduced responsiveness to real-time feedback (UMSL Comm 2231, 2025).

From an ethical decision-making standpoint, the initiative raises questions about transparency, inclusion, and respect for stakeholder wellbeing. Ethical frameworks such as universalism (process ethics) would suggest that the means of implementation matter as much as the outcomes. Blocking student access for photo opportunities during a Board of Curators visit, while symbolic, reinforced perceptions of exclusion and hierarchy. The absence of clear communication about environmental exposure during demolition further undermined trust (UMSL, 2025a).

In conclusion, the Transform UMSL initiative illustrates how strategic decision-making can falter when ethical considerations and stakeholder engagement are sidelined. A more inclusive approach—incorporating group decision-making, feedback loops, and ethical reflection—could have mitigated disruption and strengthened institutional credibility. This case underscores the importance of balancing vision with empathy in organizational decision-making.

References

LJC. (2025, May 2). UMSL’s campus transformation: A vision for the future. https://slccc.net/2025/05/02/umsls-campus-transformation-a-vision-for-the-future-ljc-project-update/

Quizlet. (2025). MGMT 335 Exam 3 Flashcards. https://quizlet.com/347551132/mgmt-335-exam-3-flash-cards/

UMSL. (2025a). Transform UMSL. https://www.umsl.edu/transform/index.html

UMSL Comm 2231. (2025). Chapter 11: Making decisions – Organizational behavior. https://umsystem.pressbooks.pub/organizationalbehavior/part/chapter-11-making-decisions/

Discussion Questions

  1. How might UMSL leadership have improved their decision-making process by incorporating more group decision-making models? Reflect on how diverse perspectives could have influenced the outcomes of the Transform UMSL initiative.
  2. What decision-making traps, such as escalation of commitment or confirmation bias, do you think were most evident in this case? How can organizations identify and avoid these traps during large-scale projects?
  3. The case highlights ethical concerns, including transparency and stakeholder inclusion. How should organizations balance long-term strategic goals with the immediate needs and wellbeing of their stakeholders? Reflect on how ethical frameworks could have guided UMSL’s leadership.
  4. UMSL relied heavily on decision-making aids like strategic planning tools and architectural renderings. What are the pros and cons of using such aids in organizational decision-making? Reflect on how these tools might have helped or hindered the initiative’s success.

Section 11.2: Understanding Organizational Decision Making

Learning Objectives

After reading this chapter, you should be able to do the following:

  1. Distinguish among key decision-making models—including rational, bounded rationality, intuitive, and creative approaches—and evaluate their applicability in varied professional contexts.
  2. Analyze the cognitive and environmental factors that influence the use of intuitive decision making in high-stakes or time-sensitive scenarios.
  3. Describe the stages of creative decision making, including problem identification, immersion, incubation, illumination, and verification/application, using real-world examples.
  4. Evaluate decision-making outcomes based on criteria such as effectiveness, creativity, feasibility, and the influence of expertise versus luck.
  5. Apply the fluency, flexibility, and originality framework to assess the creativity of a decision-making process in personal or organizational settings.
  6. Examine how personality traits (e.g., openness to experience) and situational factors (e.g., pressure, support systems) contribute to individual and team-level creativity in decision making.
  7. Demonstrate techniques to foster creativity, including brainstorming, wildstorming, and idea quotas, and assess their effectiveness in generating innovative solutions.
  8. Reflect on personal decision-making habits by identifying patterns of satisficing, intuition, and creativity—and strategize ways to enhance decision-making quality in future challenges.

Decision making is a foundational process in organizational life, shaping everything from strategic direction to daily operations. Whether choices are made by individuals, teams, or entire departments, the effectiveness of these decisions directly impacts organizational performance, adaptability, and culture (McKinsey, 2023; Hodgkinson & Starbuck, 2008).

Organizations face a spectrum of decision types—programmed and nonprogrammed, each falling into strategic, tactical, or operational categories (Lumen Learning, 2023). Programmed decisions are routine and often guided by established rules, while nonprogrammed decisions require deeper analysis and creativity due to their novelty and complexity (Simon, 1947; Drucker, 2010).

To navigate this complexity, scholars have proposed several models of decision making:

  • The Rational Decision-Making Model assumes logical, step-by-step analysis to maximize outcomes, though it often fails to reflect real-world constraints (March, 2010).
  • The Bounded Rationality Model, introduced by Herbert Simon, acknowledges cognitive limitations and the tendency to “satisfice” rather than optimize (Simon, 1955).
  • The Intuitive Model emphasizes rapid, experience-based judgments, especially under time pressure or uncertainty (Sadler-Smith & Sparrow, 2008).
  • The Creative Decision-Making Process highlights flexibility, fluency, and originality—qualities essential for innovation and problem solving (George, 2000).

In practice, organizations often blend these approaches, using tools like brainstorming, idea quotas, and wildstorming to stimulate divergent thinking and generate novel solutions (Gigerenzer et al., 1999). These techniques foster inclusive participation and help overcome cognitive biases that can derail sound judgment (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979).

Understanding these models and techniques equips organizational leaders and communicators to make more informed, ethical, and culturally sensitive decisions—especially in environments marked by complexity and change.

Decision Making

Decision making refers to selecting among alternative courses of action—including, at times, the choice to take no action at all. While some argue that management is essentially decision making, research suggests that nearly half of managerial decisions within organizations ultimately fail to achieve their intended outcomes (Ireland & Miller, 2004; Nutt, 2002; Nutt, 1999). Enhancing decision-making effectiveness is therefore a critical component of improving individual and organizational performance. This chapter explores how to make decisions independently and collaboratively, while identifying and avoiding common decision-making pitfalls.

Across all levels of an organization, individuals use the information available to them to make decisions that can shape careers, influence stakeholders, and alter the trajectory of entire enterprises. For instance, Boeing’s decision to fast-track the development of the 737 MAX—prioritizing speed over safety—resulted in two fatal crashes, regulatory scrutiny, and billions in financial losses. Conversely, when Microsoft pivoted toward cloud computing under Satya Nadella’s leadership, the company revitalized its business model and became one of the most valuable firms in the world.

Similarly, Netflix’s decision to reverse its 2011 pricing and service split after customer backlash demonstrated the importance of listening to stakeholders and adapting quickly. On the other hand, Blockbuster’s refusal to embrace streaming technology—despite the opportunity to acquire Netflix—led to its eventual collapse. These examples underscore a central truth: every decision carries consequences, and the ability to make informed, ethical, and adaptive choices is essential in today’s dynamic organizational landscape.

Types of Decisions

Many discussions of decision making mistakenly assume that only senior executives make decisions or that only their decisions carry weight. As Drucker (2010) cautioned, this is a dangerous oversimplification. In reality, decision making permeates every level of an organization, and each decision—regardless of scope—can influence outcomes, culture, and performance.Not all decisions are complex or carry significant consequences. Individuals make countless routine choices each day, such as what to wear, what to eat, or which route to take to work. These habitual decisions are known as programmed decisions—repetitive choices that rely on established rules or procedures (Lumen Learning, 2023). For instance, a retail store manager may automatically reorder inventory when stock levels fall below a predefined threshold. Similarly, customer service teams often follow a decision rule when handling complaints, such as offering a discount or free item to resolve recurring issues.In contrast, nonprogrammed decisions are unique, complex, and often made under conditions of uncertainty. They demand thoughtful analysis, creativity, and judgment (Simon, 1947). Consider Boeing’s response to safety concerns surrounding the 737 MAX aircraft. The company faced a nonprogrammed decision in determining how to address regulatory scrutiny, public trust, and engineering challenges. Conversely, when Microsoft pivoted toward cloud computing under Satya Nadella’s leadership, it revitalized its business model and became one of the most valuable firms in the world (McKinsey & Company, 2023).Crisis situations often trigger nonprogrammed decisions. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Airbnb made the difficult choice to restructure its workforce and pivot its business model toward long-term stays and virtual experiences. These decisions were made under pressure, with incomplete information, and had lasting implications for the company’s brand and operations. Such moments underscore the importance of gathering reliable data, engaging diverse perspectives, and communicating decisions transparently (Garvin, 2006).Organizational decisions can also be categorized by their level of impact:

  • Strategic decisions define the long-term direction of the organization.
  • Tactical decisions translate strategy into actionable plans.
  • Operational decisions are day-to-day choices that keep the organization running (Simon, 1955).

To illustrate, imagine a coffee chain aiming to improve customer satisfaction. The CEO makes a strategic decision to prioritize customer experience. A regional manager develops a tactical plan to train baristas in personalized service. Finally, individual baristas make operational decisions each day—such as offering a complimentary drink to a dissatisfied customer—to fulfill that broader vision.Understanding the types and levels of decisions, and recognizing that decision making is distributed across the organization, empowers individuals to act with purpose, accountability, and alignment. It also reinforces the role of communication in shaping how decisions are made, shared, and implemented (Sadler-Smith & Sparrow, 2008).

Figure 11.4 Examples of Decisions Commonly Made Within Organizations
Level of Decision Examples of Decision Who Typically Makes Decisions
Strategic Decisions Should we merge with another company?
Should we pursue a new product line?
Should we downsize our organization?		 Top Management Teams, CEOs, and Boards of Directors
Tactical Decisions What should we do to help facilitate employees from the two companies working together?
How should we market the new product line?
Who should be let go when we downsize?		 Managers
Operational Decisions How often should I communicate with my new coworkers?
What should I say to customers about our new product?
How will I balance my new work demands?		 Employees throughout the organization

In this chapter, we examine four prominent decision-making models that help explain and evaluate the effectiveness of nonprogrammed decisions: the rational decision-making model, the bounded rationality model, the intuitive decision-making model, and the creative decision-making model.

Making Rational Decisions: The Rational Decision-Making Model

The rational decision-making model outlines a structured, step-by-step approach aimed at maximizing outcomes. It assumes that decision makers have access to complete information, can objectively evaluate alternatives, and seek optimal solutions (Bazerman & Moore, 2013). For instance, consider someone purchasing their first electric vehicle. They begin by identifying the need for a new car (step 1), then determine key decision criteria such as passenger capacity, battery range, safety ratings, and price (step 2). Next, they weigh the importance of each factor—perhaps prioritizing range and safety over aesthetics (step 3). They then generate a list of alternatives (step 4), evaluate each option against the criteria (step 5), select the best fit (step 6), and make the purchase (step 7). Finally, they reflect on the outcome (step 8), which informs future decisions.

Despite its logical appeal, the rational model has limitations. It assumes that individuals are fully informed and free from biases—conditions rarely met in practice. Research by Nutt (1994) revealed that in 85% of organizational decisions, no alternative generation occurred, undermining the model’s effectiveness. Successful decision makers, however, tend to define objectives early, encourage broad participation, and avoid imposing their views (Nutt, 1998).

Moreover, the rational model can be derailed by emotional bias. For example, someone browsing electric vehicles online may become enamored with a sleek design and unconsciously adjust their criteria to justify the purchase, only to later realize the car lacks sufficient cargo space. Establishing criteria before exploring alternatives can help mitigate such bias. Additionally, generating a wide range of options increases the likelihood of finding a solution that balances competing priorities.

However, the model’s assumptions often clash with reality. Nobel laureate Herbert Simon argued that individuals operate under bounded rationality, meaning they make “satisficing” decisions—ones that are good enough—due to cognitive limitations and time constraints (Simon, 1955). For example, a manager selecting a software platform may not have the time or resources to evaluate every option, so they choose one that meets basic requirements and is familiar to the team.

In practice, decision makers rarely follow all eight steps of the rational model. Time pressure, information overload, and limited cognitive bandwidth often lead to shortcuts. The phenomenon of analysis paralysis, where excessive data collection impedes action, is common in tech firms. A Hewlett-Packard executive once admitted that prolonged analysis led to inaction: “We were gathering data instead of making decisions” (Zell, Glassman, & Duron, 2007).

Furthermore, not all decisions require optimal outcomes. When renting a short-term apartment, for example, individuals may settle for the first clean, affordable option near campus rather than exhaustively comparing every listing. In such cases, efficiency and practicality outweigh perfection.

Figure 11.5 Steps in the Rational Decision-Making Model

Steps in the Rational Decision-Making Model: 1) Identify the problem, 2) Establish decision criteria, 3) Weigh decision criteria, 4) Generate alternatives, 5) Evaluate the alternatives, 6) Choose the best alternative, 7) Implement the decision, 8) Evaluate the decision

Making “Good Enough” Decisions: The Bounded Rationalist Model

The bounded rationality model of decision making acknowledges that individuals operate under cognitive, informational, and time constraints that prevent them from making perfectly rational choices. Rather than evaluating every possible alternative, people often limit their search to a manageable set and select the first option that meets their minimum criteria—a process known as satisficing, a term coined by Nobel laureate Herbert Simon (Simon, 1955). This approach reflects a pragmatic balance between effort and outcome, especially in complex or time-sensitive situations.

For instance, recent college graduates frequently narrow their job search to a specific geographic region or industry, accepting the first offer that aligns with their basic needs—such as salary, location, and job title—rather than conducting a nationwide or global search for the optimal position (Profit.co, 2023). Similarly, consumers shopping for a laptop may choose a model that satisfies their core requirements (e.g., price, battery life, and screen size) without comparing every available brand and specification, especially when overwhelmed by choices or pressed for time (Boyce, 2023).

Bounded rationality is not a failure of logic but a reflection of how real-world decision making unfolds. It helps explain why executives under pressure may rely on heuristics or past experience rather than exhaustive analysis. For example, during a product launch, a marketing manager might choose a familiar advertising channel rather than exploring every possible media outlet, simply because it meets the campaign’s budget and timeline constraints. In such cases, satisficing allows for timely decisions that are “good enough,” even if they fall short of being optimal.

Understanding bounded rationality is essential for improving decision-making processes in organizations. By recognizing the limits of human cognition and the influence of context, leaders can design systems that support better choices—such as simplifying options, reducing information overload, and encouraging collaborative input (Gigerenzer et al., 1999).

Making Intuitive Decisions: Intuitive Decision-Making Model

The intuitive decision-making model offers an alternative to analytical approaches by emphasizing rapid, experience-based judgments made without conscious reasoning. Rather than systematically evaluating multiple options, intuitive decision makers rely on pattern recognition, emotional cues, and accumulated expertise to guide their choices (Klein, 2003). This model is particularly relevant in high-pressure environments where time constraints, uncertainty, and complexity make rational analysis impractical. In fact, a majority of managers report using intuition regularly—89% at least occasionally and 59% often—when making decisions (Burke & Miller, 1999).

Intuition plays a critical role in professions where decisions must be made quickly and with limited information. For example, emergency room nurses, airline pilots, and fire chiefs often rely on instinctive judgments honed through years of experience. Rather than weighing multiple alternatives, they scan the environment for familiar cues, mentally simulate outcomes, and adjust their actions accordingly (Salas & Klein, 2001). This process aligns with Klein’s (2003) Recognition-Primed Decision (RPD) model, which suggests that experts evaluate one option at a time, discarding or refining it based on anticipated results until a viable solution emerges.

Recent examples illustrate the power of intuitive decision making in dynamic settings. During the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, public health officials had to make rapid decisions about lockdowns and resource allocation without complete data. Their choices were often guided by prior experience with outbreaks and instinctive assessments of risk. Similarly, tech leaders like Instagram’s Kevin Systrom used intuition to launch features like Stories, anticipating user behavior and market trends without exhaustive analysis (Risely, 2023). These decisions, though seemingly spontaneous, were grounded in deep contextual knowledge and pattern recognition.

Importantly, intuitive decision making is most effective among experts with extensive domain experience. Novices, lacking the necessary mental models and situational awareness, are more prone to errors when relying solely on gut feelings (Kahneman & Klein, 2009). Therefore, organizations should view intuition not as guesswork, but as a legitimate and trainable competency—especially when paired with reflective practice and feedback mechanisms.

Making Creative Decisions

Creative decision making is a vital complement to rational, bounded rationality, and intuitive models of decision making. It involves generating novel and imaginative ideas that can lead to innovative solutions. In today’s competitive and fast-paced business environment, creativity is essential for addressing challenges such as cost reduction, product development, and strategic transformation (Clark & Schofield, 2023). While creativity is the spark that ignites innovation, it is not synonymous with innovation itself. Innovation requires the additional steps of planning, testing, and implementation. For instance, Dyson’s development of the bladeless fan began with a creative insight into airflow mechanics and evolved through rigorous engineering and market testing (Indeed Editorial Team, 2025).

The creative decision-making process typically unfolds in five stages: problem identification, immersion, incubation, illumination, and verification/application. First, the decision maker must recognize a problem or opportunity—without this awareness, no solution can be pursued. Next, immersion involves gathering information and deeply engaging with the issue, often requiring domain-specific expertise. The third stage, incubation, is a period of subconscious processing where the problem is set aside, allowing the brain to unconsciously explore possibilities. This leads to illumination, the “aha” moment when a solution suddenly becomes clear—often in unexpected settings. A modern example includes the development of Post-it Notes, which emerged from a failed adhesive experiment at 3M but was later recognized as a solution for temporary note-taking (Study.com, 2023). Finally, the verification and application stage involves testing the idea’s feasibility and implementing it in practice.

Creative decision making is not limited to product design or marketing. It has been applied in crisis management, such as when a restaurant damaged by a storm pivoted to delivery and social media marketing to maintain revenue during repairs (Indeed Editorial Team, 2025). Similarly, airlines have used creative strategies like optimizing aircraft usage and renegotiating vendor contracts to increase profits without raising ticket prices. These examples highlight how creativity can lead to practical, impactful decisions across industries.

Ultimately, creative decision making thrives in environments that encourage curiosity, collaboration, and psychological safety. It is most effective when paired with analytical thinking and supported by a culture that values experimentation and learning from failure.

Figure 11.6 The Creative Decision-Making Process

The Creative Decision-Making Process. Step 1) Problem Recognition, Step 2) Immersion, Step 3) Incubation, Step 4) Illumination, Step 5) Verification & Application

How Do You Know If Your Decision-Making Process Is Creative?

Creativity in decision making can be evaluated through three key dimensions: fluency, flexibility, and originality. Fluency refers to the number of ideas generated, flexibility reflects the diversity of those ideas, and originality measures how novel or unique the ideas are (Clark & Schofield, 2023). A highly creative decision-making process will produce numerous, varied, and distinctive solutions to a given problem. For example, Elon Musk’s ventures—from electric vehicles to space exploration—demonstrate high levels of flexibility and originality, as each initiative tackles different industries with unconventional approaches.

Creativity is not solely a product of spontaneous inspiration; it emerges from the interaction of individual traits, personal attributes, and environmental factors. Researchers have found that personality traits such as openness to experience and risk tolerance, combined with attributes like expertise, imagination, and intrinsic motivation, contribute significantly to creative output (Amabile, 1988; Feist, 1998). Moreover, situational factors—such as time pressure, encouragement from peers, and access to stimulating environments—can either enhance or inhibit creativity (Amabile et al., 1996; Tierney et al., 1999).

One widely used technique to foster creativity is brainstorming, which encourages the free flow of ideas without immediate judgment. Guidelines include suspending criticism, welcoming wild suggestions, and building on others’ ideas (Scott, Leritz, & Mumford, 2004). Research shows that setting high idea quotas during brainstorming sessions leads to better outcomes, as quantity often breeds quality (Study.com, 2023). A variation known as wildstorming pushes participants to explore seemingly impossible ideas and reverse-engineer ways to make them feasible—a method that has inspired breakthroughs in fields like biotech and sustainable design.

As Nobel laureate Linus Pauling famously said, “The best way to have a good idea is to have a lot of ideas.” This philosophy underscores the importance of cultivating environments that support divergent thinking and experimentation. Whether through structured techniques like SCAMPER or informal ideation sessions, organizations that prioritize creative decision making are better equipped to navigate uncertainty and drive innovation.

Figure 11.7 Dimensions of Creativity

Dimensions of Creativity: fluency, flexibility, and originality

Final Thought

Creative decision making is not a luxury—it’s a necessity in today’s dynamic and competitive world. The ability to generate fluent, flexible, and original ideas empowers individuals and organizations to solve problems in innovative ways and adapt to rapid change. Whether it’s launching a disruptive business model, rethinking a manufacturing process, or responding to an unforeseen crisis, creativity transforms potential into performance. By understanding the traits, attributes, and environments that nurture creative thinking, decision makers can intentionally cultivate their own creative capacities and foster a culture that supports experimentation and growth. Ultimately, creativity is not just about having good ideas—it’s about having the courage and tools to turn imagination into action.

Figure 11.8
Model Use This Model When…
🔍 Rational – Alternatives can be quantified<br>- The decision is important<br>- You aim to maximize the outcome
⛓️ Bounded Rationality – Minimum criteria are clear<br>- Time/resources are limited<br>- A satisfactory outcome is acceptable
🌪️ Intuitive – Goals are unclear<br>- Time pressure makes deep analysis impractical<br>- You have experience with the issue
🎨 Creative – Solutions are not obvious<br>- New ideas must be generated<br>- You have time to explore and reflect

Workplace Strategy Pack

Enhancing Organizational Creativity

Objective: To equip managers with evidence-based strategies for fostering creativity across individual, team, and organizational levels, thereby driving innovation, engagement, and competitive advantage.

 Why It Matters

Creativity is no longer a luxury—it’s a strategic imperative. In today’s fast-paced, complex environments, organizations must continuously generate novel ideas to adapt, innovate, and thrive. Research shows that creativity contributes to:

  • Improved problem-solving and decision-making
  • Greater employee engagement and satisfaction
  • Enhanced organizational reputation and adaptability
  • Competitive differentiation in dynamic markets

Organizational creativity is shaped by leadership, communication, culture, and structural design—not just individual talent (Reiter-Palmon et al., 2019; Khalid et al., 2024).

 Strategy Toolkit: Boosting Creativity in Your Organization

1.  Cultivate Psychological Safety

  • Encourage risk-taking without fear of punishment
  • Normalize failure as part of the innovation process
  • Model vulnerability and openness as a leader

2.  Promote Symmetrical Internal Communication

  • Ensure two-way communication between leadership and employees
  • Use feedback loops to validate ideas and concerns
  • Empower employees to advocate for their creative contributions (Khalid et al., 2024)

3.  Build Diverse, Cross-Functional Teams

  • Diversity in background, expertise, and thinking styles fuels creativity
  • Rotate team members to expose them to new perspectives
  • Use structured brainstorming and design thinking sessions

4.  Set Clear Expectations for Creativity

  • Include creativity in performance goals and evaluations
  • Recognize and reward creative contributions
  • Provide autonomy in how tasks are approached

5.  Use Creative Aids and Tools

  • Implement idea management platforms (e.g., digital suggestion boxes)
  • Use visual mapping tools like mind maps or concept boards
  • Offer training in creative problem-solving techniques

6.  Foster a Creative Climate

  • Design physical spaces that inspire (e.g., flexible work zones, art, natural light)
  • Schedule “innovation hours” or “hack days”
  • Encourage informal collaboration and spontaneous idea sharing

 Empowerment Tip

Creativity isn’t confined to the “creative department.” Every employee has the potential to innovate when given the right environment, encouragement, and tools. As a manager, your role is to unlock that potential—not control it.

 

References
Khalid, J., Mi, C., Ashraf, M. U., & Islam, M. S. (2024). Leadership internal communication and employee creativity: Role of symmetrical communication, employee advocacy, and proactive personality. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication. https://doi.org/10.1108/GKMC-10-2023-0385

Reiter-Palmon, R., Mitchell, K. S., & Royston, R. (2019). Improving creativity in organizational settings: Applying research on creativity to organizations. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (2nd ed., pp. 515–545). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316979839.026

Amabile, T. M. (1997). Motivating creativity in organizations: On doing what you love and loving what you do. California Management Review, 40(1), 22–26.

Fetrati, M. A., Hansen, D., & Akhavan, P. (2022). How to manage creativity in organizations: Connecting the literature on organizational creativity through bibliometric research. Technovation, 115, Article 102473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2022.102473

Insider Edge

Thriving Under Uncreative Decision-Makers

Objective

To equip employees with strategies to navigate and influence decision-making when working under a manager or team lead who consistently demonstrates low creativity and poor judgment.

Why It Matters

Uncreative and ineffective decision-making at the leadership level can stifle innovation, reduce team morale, and hinder organizational agility. Employees who feel disempowered by poor leadership may disengage, leading to lower productivity and higher turnover. However, research shows that empowered employees can influence upward communication and foster change from within (Detert & Edmondson, 2011).

Strategy Toolkit

Tactic Description
Upward Communication Use respectful, evidence-based feedback to share ideas and concerns with leadership (Ashkanasy et al., 2014).
Boundary Spanning Collaborate across teams to bring in fresh perspectives and bypass bottlenecks (Marrone, 2010).
Shadow Leadership Informally lead initiatives by modeling creative problem-solving and decision-making (Spreitzer, 1995).
Decision Framing Reframe problems and present options in ways that highlight innovation and minimize risk aversion.
Peer Coalition Building Build alliances with colleagues to support and amplify creative solutions.

Empowerment Tip

Use the Creative Decision-Making Model yourself—even if your manager doesn’t. Immerse yourself in the problem, generate new solutions, and present them in a way that aligns with organizational goals. When leaders see initiative paired with strategic thinking, they’re more likely to adopt new approaches.

“Voice is not just about speaking up—it’s about being heard and making a difference.” — Detert & Burris (2007)

 

References
Ashkanasy, N. M., Humphrey, R. H., & Huy, Q. N. (2014). Integrating emotions and affect in theories of management. Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 366–376. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2012.0273

Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open? Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 869–884. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.26279183

Detert, J. R., & Edmondson, A. C. (2011). Impediments to speaking up about problems in healthcare. Harvard Business Review, 89(7–8), 60–65.

Marrone, J. A. (2010). Team boundary spanning: A multilevel review of past research and proposals for the future. Journal of Management, 36(4), 911–940. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309353945

Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442–1465. https://doi.org/10.5465/256865

Discussion Questions

  1. What differentiates a successful decision from an unsuccessful one in your view? Consider how factors like timing, expertise, intuition, and creativity contribute to outcomes. How much do luck and skill interact in decision-making success, and what indicators help determine success over time?
  2. Studies show that more than half of organizational decisions fail (Burke & Miller, 1999; Kahneman & Klein, 2009). Does this finding surprise you? What do you think contributes most to this high failure rate—flawed processes, limited creativity, insufficient data, or something else?
  3. Have you applied the rational decision-making model in a personal, professional, or academic context? Walk through the problem identification, information gathering, and evaluation steps. Was the outcome satisfying, and how did this method compare to more intuitive or creative styles?
  4. Describe a time you engaged in satisficing—selecting a “good enough” solution rather than the optimal one. What constraints influenced this choice (e.g., time pressure, limited options)? Were you content with the result, and when do you think satisficing is most appropriate?
  5. How is intuition perceived as a decision-making method in your environment (workplace, school, etc.)? Do you believe it deserves more respect as a valid approach, particularly among experts? What conditions make intuitive decision making more reliable?
  6. How do you assess creativity in your own decision-making process? Think about fluency, flexibility, and originality. Have you ever had an “aha” moment similar to the illumination stage? What strategies or environments best support your creative thinking?
  7. Brainstorming and wildstorming are two techniques used to enhance idea generation. Have you participated in either? Which method did you find more effective, and how did it influence the final decision outcome?

Section 11.3: Recognizing and Avoiding Faulty Decision Making

Learning Objectives

After reading this chapter, you should be able to do the following:

  1. Define overconfidence bias and assess its influence on individual judgment and organizational risk-taking, using current examples from healthcare, finance, and consumer behavior; apply tools such as decision audits and reflective questioning to prevent inflated confidence.
  2. Identify hindsight bias and evaluate its impact on post-event assessments and accountability, particularly in contexts such as performance reviews, legal evaluations, and crisis response; implement practices that encourage contextual awareness and fair retrospective analysis.
  3. Explain anchoring bias and analyze how initial information can disproportionately shape decisions, with examples from negotiations, emergency responses, and marketing; apply reframing techniques and multi-data review strategies to improve judgment accuracy.
  4. Describe framing bias and investigate how language and presentation influence decision-making, using organizational examples from healthcare communication, branding, and strategic messaging; practice crafting neutral and balanced framing to support rational choices.
  5. Assess escalation of commitment and determine its role in failed investments and long-term projects, referencing cases like the Iridium launch and St. Louis Delmar Loop Trolley; design review checkpoints, exit criteria, and collaborative evaluation methods to prevent sunk-cost traps.

Even the most experienced professionals and collaborative teams can fall prey to subtle psychological traps that derail sound judgment. Decision making is not just a matter of logic and strategy—it’s shaped by cognitive limitations, social dynamics, and contextual pressures. As organizations strive for agility and clarity, understanding how and why decision-making errors occur has become essential for leaders, communicators, and teams alike.

This section explores common biases and pitfalls that lead to faulty decisions, including overconfidence, hindsight bias, anchoring, framing effects, and escalation of commitment—all of which can distort perception and obstruct rational analysis (Bazerman & Moore, 2013). In addition, we’ll expand the conversation to include confirmation bias, availability heuristic, authority bias, and groupthink, which often operate beneath the surface of team discussions and organizational processes (Kahneman, 2011; Janis, 1982).

By recognizing these traps and learning tools to avoid them—such as decision audits, dissent-friendly communication climates, and structured reflection—individuals and organizations can protect themselves from preventable missteps. Whether you’re making a budgetary choice, hiring decision, strategic pivot, or ethical judgment, becoming aware of these biases empowers you to think critically, act intentionally, and lead more effectively.

Avoiding 8 Decision-Making Traps

No matter which model you use, it is important to know and avoid the decision-making traps that exist. Daniel Kahnemann (another Nobel Prize winner) and Amos Tversky spent decades studying how people make decisions. They found that individuals are influenced by overconfidence bias, hindsight bias, anchoring bias, framing bias, and escalation of commitment.

1. Overconfidence Bias

Overconfidence bias occurs when individuals overestimate their knowledge, skills, or ability to predict future events. This cognitive distortion is widespread and can lead to poor decision-making across personal, professional, and societal domains. For instance, despite overwhelming evidence that human error contributes to over 90% of car accidents, a majority of U.S. drivers—about 73%—still rate themselves as better-than-average behind the wheel (Scribbr, 2025). This statistical impossibility illustrates the classic “better-than-average” effect, a hallmark of overconfidence bias.

In healthcare, overconfidence can have serious consequences. A recent study found that medical practitioners overestimated the probability of disease diagnoses by two to ten times compared to scientific evidence, both before and after testing (Morgan et al., 2021). This inflated certainty can lead to misdiagnoses, unnecessary treatments, and increased patient risk.

Financial decision-making is another arena where overconfidence bias thrives. Traders often believe they can outsmart the market, leading to risky investments. A modern example includes the collapse of Archegos Capital Management in 2021, where excessive leverage and misplaced confidence in stock positions led to billions in losses across global banks (Scribbr, 2025). Similarly, the infamous case of Jérôme Kerviel at Société Générale in 2008 remains a cautionary tale—his unchecked confidence in his trading strategies resulted in over $7 billion in losses, despite no personal financial gain (The rogue rebuttal, 2008).

Even everyday behaviors reflect this bias. Sports fans who confidently predict their team’s victory despite poor performance records, or individuals who believe they can replicate complex recipes without instructions, often fall prey to overconfidence (Helpful Professor, 2023). Lottery ticket buyers may also exhibit this bias, ignoring statistical improbability in favor of misplaced optimism. As Orkin (1991) noted, a person is three times more likely to die in a car accident driving to buy a ticket than to win the jackpot.

Overconfidence also undermines negotiation outcomes. Research shows that individuals who overestimate their leverage or persuasive ability tend to achieve less favorable results (Neale & Bazerman, 1985). To mitigate this bias, it’s essential to pause and critically evaluate whether your judgments are grounded in reality or inflated by self-assurance.

2. Hindsight Bias

Hindsight bias, often described as the “I knew it all along” effect, occurs when individuals perceive past events as more predictable than they actually were. This bias leads people to believe that outcomes were foreseeable, even when they were not, and it often distorts memory and judgment (Cherry, 2024). Unlike overconfidence bias, which inflates expectations before an event, hindsight bias reshapes perceptions after the fact—making mistakes seem obvious in retrospect.

This bias becomes particularly problematic when evaluating others’ decisions. For example, consider a company driver who hears an unusual engine noise before beginning the day’s route. Familiar with the vehicle, the driver assesses the sound as non-threatening and proceeds with the routine. Later, the car breaks down miles from the office. In hindsight, it may seem clear that the driver should have taken the vehicle in for service. However, the decision was based on prior experience and available information at the time, making the judgment reasonable in context. Hindsight bias can unfairly influence how we assign blame or assess competence in such scenarios.

Modern examples of hindsight bias are abundant. In the business world, failed product launches often trigger retrospective claims that the warning signs were obvious. After the collapse of Quibi, a short-form video streaming service, critics argued that its failure was predictable due to market saturation and poor timing—despite widespread investor enthusiasm beforehand (Scribbr, 2025). Similarly, in sports, fans frequently engage in “Monday morning quarterbacking,” insisting they knew a team would lose after witnessing the outcome, even if their pre-game predictions were uncertain (Nikolopoulou, 2023).

Medical malpractice cases also illustrate hindsight bias. Jurors may judge a physician’s decision harshly based on information revealed after the fact, rather than considering the limited data available at the time of diagnosis (Scribbr, 2023). This can lead to unfair assessments and legal consequences rooted more in retrospective clarity than in real-time reasoning.

To counteract hindsight bias, decision makers should document their thought processes, consider alternative outcomes, and avoid overestimating the predictability of events. Recognizing this bias helps foster empathy, improve judgment, and support fair evaluations of others’ actions.

3. Anchoring

Anchoring bias refers to the cognitive tendency to rely too heavily on an initial piece of information—known as the “anchor”—when making decisions. This bias can distort judgment, especially when individuals fail to adequately adjust their thinking after receiving new or conflicting information (Nikolopoulou, 2025).

In job negotiations, anchoring often manifests when candidates fixate on a specific salary figure, ignoring other critical aspects of the offer such as benefits, work-life balance, and organizational culture. For example, a candidate anchored to a $70,000 salary may overlook a $65,000 offer that includes generous healthcare, remote flexibility, and professional development opportunities (Scribbr, 2025).

Anchoring bias also plays a significant role in consumer behavior. Retailers frequently use high “suggested retail prices” to anchor perceptions of value, making discounted prices appear more attractive—even if the final price remains inflated (Cornell, 2024). Similarly, subscription services often list premium packages first to make mid-tier options seem like better deals by comparison.

In high-stakes environments, anchoring can have life-threatening consequences. A tragic example occurred during the Great Bear Wilderness Disaster, where a coroner prematurely declared all passengers of a crashed plane dead within minutes of arriving at the scene. Anchored by the visual devastation and flames, the coroner halted search efforts—only for two survivors to emerge the following day (Becker, 2007). This case underscores how anchoring can override critical thinking, especially under pressure.

Legal systems are not immune to anchoring either. Research shows that judges may issue longer sentences when prosecutors suggest high penalties, even if the recommendation lacks merit. This anchoring effect persists even among experienced judges, revealing how initial figures can skew supposedly objective decisions (Englich & Mussweiler, 2001).

To counter anchoring bias, decision makers should delay judgment, seek multiple data points, and use structured decision-making frameworks. Awareness of anchoring’s influence is the first step toward more rational and equitable choices.

4. Framing Bias

Framing bias refers to the cognitive tendency for individuals to be influenced by how information is presented rather than the actual content itself. This bias can lead to irrational or suboptimal decisions, especially when the framing evokes emotional responses or distorts perceived value (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981). For example, consumers are more likely to accept a “10% discount” than a “$10 reduction,” even if both result in the same final price—because percentage framing feels more generous (Cornell, 2024).

Marketing and advertising frequently exploit framing bias. A product labeled “90% fat-free” is often perceived more positively than one labeled “10% fat,” despite the identical nutritional content (Nikolopoulou, 2025). Similarly, restaurants may describe a dish as “locally sourced and organic” rather than “expensive and small-portioned,” even if both are true. These subtle shifts in language can dramatically alter consumer behavior.

In healthcare, framing bias can influence treatment decisions. Patients are more likely to opt for a procedure described as having a “90% survival rate” than one with a “10% mortality rate,” even though both convey the same statistical outcome (Cognitive Bias Lab, 2025). This effect underscores the importance of neutral, balanced communication in medical contexts.

Investing decisions are also vulnerable. Investors may be drawn to a fund described as “beating the market by 5% last year” rather than one that “underperformed in two of the last five years,” even if both statements are factually accurate (Investopedia, 2023). The positive framing of short-term gains can overshadow long-term volatility.

To mitigate framing bias, decision makers should rephrase information in multiple formats, seek objective data, and consider both positive and negative frames before making judgments. Awareness of this bias empowers individuals to make more rational, informed choices.

5. Escalation of Commitment

Escalation of commitment occurs when individuals or organizations continue investing in a failing course of action despite mounting evidence that it is no longer viable. Often referred to as the “sunk cost fallacy,” this bias leads decision makers to justify continued investment based on prior expenditures rather than future value (Wong & Kwong, 2007).

A relatable example is the used car that constantly requires repairs. Rather than cutting losses by selling or donating the vehicle, many people continue pouring time and money into it, hoping to recover their initial investment. This behavior reflects emotional attachment and a reluctance to admit a poor decision.

A corporate illustration of this bias is Motorola’s Iridium project. Initially conceived in the 1980s to solve global communication gaps, the project involved launching 66 satellites to enable worldwide phone coverage. Although the idea was groundbreaking at the time, by the late 1990s, cell phone technology had evolved rapidly, rendering Iridium obsolete. Nevertheless, Motorola released the $3,000 Iridium phone in 1998—despite its impractical size and limited usability. The project ultimately failed, leading to bankruptcy in 1999 after $5 billion in development costs (Finkelstein & Sanford, 2000).

A more recent and local example is the St. Louis Delmar Loop Trolley. Originally envisioned as a nostalgic and tourist-friendly transit system, the trolley received over $50 million in funding, including $37 million in federal grants. Despite years of delays, low ridership, and mounting operational costs, city leaders continued to invest in the project to avoid repaying federal funds and to preserve future grant eligibility (Siemers, 2021). The trolley’s limited route, outdated vehicles, and lack of integration with broader transit systems contributed to its failure. Yet, efforts to revive it persist, illustrating how sunk costs and political pressure can fuel escalation of commitment—even when public sentiment and economic logic suggest otherwise.

Escalation of commitment often stems from two key psychological drivers: the reluctance to admit error and the belief that additional investment might reverse losses. To counter this bias, decision makers should establish clear exit criteria, assign independent evaluators, and conduct periodic reviews of long-term projects. Cultivating a culture that normalizes course correction can also reduce the stigma of changing direction and promote more rational decision-making.

6. Confirmation Bias

Confirmation bias refers to the tendency to seek, interpret, and remember information that supports one’s preexisting beliefs while disregarding contradictory evidence. In organizational settings, this bias can quietly shape decisions, reinforce flawed strategies, and stifle innovation (Healy, 2019). Leaders may selectively highlight data that supports their vision while ignoring warning signs, creating echo chambers that hinder adaptive thinking (Gebreamlak, 2025).

For example, a CEO convinced of a product’s success may direct market research to validate their assumptions rather than explore genuine consumer needs. This bias can also affect hiring decisions—HR professionals may favor candidates who align with their initial impressions, overlooking red flags or alternative talent (Japs, 2024). In performance evaluations, confirmation bias can lead managers to overemphasize positive traits in favored employees while minimizing shortcomings, resulting in skewed assessments and missed opportunities for growth (Brady, 2024).

To counter confirmation bias, organizations can appoint devil’s advocates during strategic reviews, conduct blind evaluations, and encourage dissent-friendly cultures. Regular audits and third-party assessments also help challenge internal narratives and promote balanced decision-making (Alonso, 2025).

7. Availability Heuristic

The availability heuristic is a mental shortcut where individuals judge the likelihood of events based on how easily examples come to mind—especially if those examples are vivid or emotionally charged (Hoffman, 2024). In organizational communication, this bias can distort risk perception and decision-making, particularly in high-pressure environments.

For instance, after a high-profile cybersecurity breach, executives may overestimate the likelihood of similar attacks and overinvest in security tools, while neglecting other pressing vulnerabilities. Conversely, if a risk hasn’t been recently publicized, it may be underestimated—even if statistically more probable (Lee, 2025). This bias also influences hiring and performance reviews, where recent dramatic incidents may overshadow long-term patterns.

In marketing and leadership communication, emotionally resonant stories often outweigh data-driven insights. While storytelling is powerful, it can inadvertently reinforce availability bias if not balanced with empirical evidence (Kim, 2013).

To mitigate this bias, organizations should rely on diverse data sources, encourage critical thinking, and frame risk messages with context and clarity. Decision-support systems and structured reflection can help teams evaluate risks more objectively.

8. Groupthink

Groupthink occurs when cohesive teams prioritize consensus over critical evaluation, leading to poor decisions and suppressed dissent (Janis, 1982). In organizational communication, groupthink can manifest in strategy meetings, crisis response, and hiring panels—especially when leaders discourage alternative viewpoints or when teams are insulated from external feedback (Choi & Kim, 1999).

A striking example is the St. Louis Delmar Loop Trolley project, which continued to receive funding despite low ridership and operational failures. Decision makers escalated commitment to avoid admitting error and to preserve future grant eligibility, even as public support waned (Siemers, 2021). This illustrates how groupthink can be fueled by sunk costs, political pressure, and fear of reputational damage.

Groupthink symptoms include illusions of unanimity, self-censorship, and pressure to conform. To prevent it, organizations can appoint devil’s advocates, encourage diverse perspectives, and conduct second-chance reviews before finalizing decisions (Akhmad et al., 2021). Cultivating psychological safety and dissent-friendly cultures helps teams challenge assumptions and make more resilient choices.

In the dynamic landscape of organizational decision-making, understanding cognitive biases is not just a psychological exercise—it’s a leadership imperative. From overconfidence and hindsight bias to anchoring, framing effects, and escalation of commitment, these mental shortcuts silently shape everyday choices, often at great cost. Biases such as confirmation bias, the availability heuristic, and groupthink can further distort team communication, amplify errors, and stifle innovation. Yet, by cultivating awareness, encouraging dissent, implementing structured reflection, and fostering psychologically safe environments, organizations can counteract these cognitive traps. Decision makers who learn to recognize and challenge bias not only sharpen their judgment but also strengthen their teams, empower diverse thinking, and drive more ethical, sustainable outcomes. Bias is human—but with intention and tools, better decisions are within reach.

Insider Edge

Helping Managers Avoid Decision-Making Traps

Objective: To empower managers with the awareness and tools needed to avoid cognitive and organizational decision-making traps that compromise effectiveness, creativity, and team trust.

Why It Matters

Decision-making traps—such as confirmation bias, groupthink, and overconfidence—can lead to flawed strategies, missed opportunities, and diminished team morale. Managers who fall into these traps may unintentionally suppress innovation and erode psychological safety. Research shows that transparent communication, diverse perspectives, and reflective practices significantly improve decision quality (Janis, 1982; Edmondson, 1999).

Strategy Toolkit

Trap Avoidance Strategy
Confirmation Bias Encourage dissenting views and actively seek disconfirming evidence (Nickerson, 1998).
Groupthink Promote psychological safety and assign a “devil’s advocate” role to challenge consensus (Janis, 1982).
Overconfidence Use decision audits and post-mortems to assess accuracy and recalibrate judgment (Kahneman et al., 2011).
Anchoring Delay judgment until multiple perspectives and data points are reviewed (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974).
Escalation of Commitment Set clear exit criteria and encourage team input on whether to pivot or persist (Staw, 1981).

Empowerment Tip

Use structured decision frameworks like the Rational or Creative Decision-Making Models to slow down impulsive choices and foster deliberate, inclusive thinking. Pair this with open communication channels to surface hidden risks and alternative viewpoints.

“The best decisions are not made in isolation—they emerge from dialogue, dissent, and reflection.” — Edmondson (1999)

References
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999

Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes (2nd ed.). Houghton Mifflin.

Kahneman, D., Lovallo, D., & Sibony, O. (2011). Before you make that big decision… Harvard Business Review, 89(6), 50–60.

Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175–220. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175

Staw, B. M. (1981). The escalation of commitment to a course of action. Academy of Management Review, 6(4), 577–587. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1981.4285694

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124

Discussion Questions

  1. Reflect on a time when you fell into one of the cognitive decision-making traps discussed (e.g., overconfidence, hindsight bias, anchoring, framing, escalation of commitment, confirmation bias, availability heuristic, or groupthink). How did your thinking change over time, and what eventually helped you recognize the bias? If relevant, connect your experience to one of the organizational examples mentioned (e.g., the Delmar Loop Trolley, hiring decisions, or product launches).
  2. What strategies can help individuals and organizations avoid escalation of commitment? Refer to examples like the Iridium project or the Delmar Loop Trolley to analyze what turning points or review practices might have interrupted the continued investment.
  3. Share a real-life example of anchoring bias you’ve encountered or observed. This might relate to salary negotiations, consumer pricing, courtroom decisions, or a situation where an initial impression overly shaped the final outcome.
  4. Which decision-making trap discussed in this section seems most dangerous in organizational settings—and why? Consider both individual-level traps (like overconfidence or confirmation bias) and group-level traps (like groupthink). How does this bias threaten communication, leadership, or strategic outcomes in your view?

Section 11.4: Decision Making in Groups and Teams

Learning Objectives

After reading this chapter, you should be able to do the following:

  1. Compare the advantages and limitations of individual versus group decision-making, including the role of cognitive diversity, psychological safety, and strategic context in shaping decision quality and implementation.
  2. Identify the symptoms and risks of groupthink, and evaluate its impact across hierarchical roles; apply strategies to foster dissent, reduce conformity pressure, and promote ethical decision-making in team environments.
  3. Select and apply appropriate decision-making tools and techniques such as Nominal Group Technique (NGT), Delphi, voting-based methods, consensus models, and analytical tools like decision trees, based on group size, decision complexity, and stakeholder needs.
  4. Evaluate the influence of technology-enhanced decision systems (e.g., GDSS, AI-assisted platforms) on team communication, information sharing, and decision outcomes; identify potential risks such as information overload, interface complexity, and psychological barriers to contribution.
  5. Analyze the role of conflict in decision-making and apply constructive conflict management strategies, including structured dialogue, emotional intelligence, and inclusive communication practices that support innovation and group cohesion.

When It Comes to Decision Making, Are Two Heads Better Than One?

The answer to this question depends on a variety of contextual factors. Group decision making offers distinct advantages, particularly in organizational settings where diverse perspectives, shared expertise, and collaborative problem-solving are valued. Research consistently shows that groups can outperform individuals when tasks require creativity, complex analysis, or integration of varied knowledge domains (Qudrat-Ullah, 2025). Diverse teams, especially those that encourage dissent and debate, tend to produce more comprehensive decisions and foster innovation (Keyton et al., 2022; Simons et al., 1999).

Moreover, group decision making can enhance member satisfaction and commitment. When individuals participate in the decision-making process, they are more likely to support and implement the final decision (Forsyth, 2018). This buy-in is particularly important in organizational contexts where decisions affect multiple stakeholders. Psychological safety and cognitive diversity—two increasingly emphasized constructs in contemporary research—further contribute to the effectiveness of group decisions by promoting open communication and reducing conformity pressures (Beck et al., 2022; Reimer et al., 2025).

However, group decision making is not without its drawbacks. Coordination challenges, social loafing, and decision-making biases such as groupthink can undermine the process (Gouran et al., 1986; Miner, 1984). Groups may also struggle with information sharing, especially when critical data is unevenly distributed or withheld—a phenomenon known as the hidden profile problem (Wittenbaum et al., 2004). Additionally, group decisions typically require more time and effort than individual ones, which can be a liability in time-sensitive situations.

Ultimately, the choice between individual and group decision making should be guided by the nature of the task, the urgency of the decision, and the availability of relevant expertise. Individual decision making may be preferable in emergencies or when one person possesses all necessary information. Conversely, group decision making is more effective when the task is complex, implementation requires broad support, and time allows for deliberation.

Groupthink and Decision-Making Biases

Groupthink: The Hidden Hazard in Organizational Decision Making

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs when members of a decision-making group prioritize consensus over critical thinking. This can lead to a suppression of dissent and ultimately, flawed outcomes. First identified by Irving Janis (1972), groupthink manifests through several telltale symptoms, including illusions of invulnerability, collective rationalizations, moral righteousness, stereotyping outsiders, direct pressure on dissenters, self-censorship, perceived unanimity, and the presence of self-appointed “mindguards” who shield the group from conflicting information.

The dangers of groupthink extend across all levels of an organization. Superiors who fall prey to groupthink may become strategically blind, dismissing warnings or alternatives to maintain harmony. Their unquestioned belief in the group’s inherent morality can lead to ethically questionable decisions, as evidenced in high-profile corporate failures such as Enron (Sims & Brinkmann, 2003). Additionally, dominant leadership styles may unintentionally stifle creativity, discouraging alternative viewpoints and reducing innovation (Carmeli, Brueller, & Dutton, 2009).

For subordinates, groupthink can foster a culture of silence. Employees may avoid speaking out due to fear of reprisal or concern about being labeled as disruptive (Kassing, 2000). Over time, this can erode psychological safety, trust, and team engagement (Edmondson, 2018). Subordinates may also experience moral distress when they feel complicit in poor decisions simply because they withheld opposition.

Current organizational communication research suggests several strategies for counteracting groupthink. Cultivating psychological safety—where team members feel free to express ideas and concerns without fear—is critical to breaking conformity (Carmeli et al., 2009). Designating a devil’s advocate during meetings can also help surface alternative viewpoints (Janis, 1982). Moreover, diverse teams, especially those with heterogeneous backgrounds and experiences, are more likely to challenge assumptions and engage in critical debate (Tetlock et al., 1992). Leadership style plays a pivotal role: when leaders refrain from expressing strong preferences early in the decision-making process, it fosters a more open exchange of ideas and reduces the risk of undue influence (Esser, 1998).

Ultimately, recognizing and addressing groupthink is essential to improving organizational decision making. By encouraging dissent, supporting diverse perspectives, and creating a psychologically safe environment, both leaders and team members can avoid the pitfalls of consensus-at-any-cost thinking.

Workplace Strategy Pack

Breaking Free from Groupthink

Objective

To equip managers and employees with the knowledge, tools, and communication strategies needed to identify and prevent groupthink, fostering a culture of open dialogue, critical thinking, and innovation.

Why It Matters

Groupthink occurs when teams prioritize harmony and consensus over critical evaluation, often leading to poor decisions, missed risks, and suppressed dissent. It thrives in environments lacking psychological safety, diverse perspectives, or structured decision protocols. Preventing groupthink is essential for organizational resilience, ethical decision-making, and adaptive leadership (Janis, 1982; Edmondson, 1999).

Strategy Toolkit

Strategy Application
Establish Psychological Safety Encourage open dialogue, admit mistakes, and reward constructive dissent (Edmondson, 1999).
Assign Devil’s Advocates Rotate team members to challenge assumptions and present alternative viewpoints (Nemeth, 1986).
Use Structured Decision Models Apply Rational or Creative models to slow down consensus and evaluate options systematically.
Encourage Independent Thinking Have individuals write down ideas before group discussion to reduce conformity pressure (Paulus & Nijstad, 2003).
Diverse Team Composition Include members with varied backgrounds and expertise to broaden perspectives (Williams & O’Reilly, 1998).
Anonymous Input Channels Use surveys or digital platforms to collect candid feedback without social pressure.

Empowerment Tip

Whether you’re leading or contributing, speak up early and often—especially when something feels off. Research shows that even one dissenting voice can disrupt groupthink and lead to better outcomes (Nemeth, 1986). If you’re unsure how to raise concerns, frame your input as a question or scenario: “What if we considered X?” or “How might this play out if Y happens?”

“Silence in teams is rarely a sign of agreement—it’s often a symptom of fear.” — Edmondson (1999)

 

References
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999

Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes (2nd ed.). Houghton Mifflin.

Nemeth, C. J. (1986). Differential contributions of majority and minority influence. Psychological Review, 93(1), 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.93.1.23

Paulus, P. B., & Nijstad, B. A. (2003). Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration. Oxford University Press.

Williams, K. Y., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research. Research in Organizational Behavior, 20, 77–140.

Psychological Safety: The Cornerstone of Effective Team Communication

In today’s dynamic and increasingly collaborative work environments, psychological safety has emerged as a foundational element for high-performing teams. Defined as a shared belief that individuals can express ideas, ask questions, admit mistakes, and challenge the status quo without fear of humiliation or retaliation, psychological safety fosters open communication and trust (Edmondson, 2018). It is not about being perpetually comfortable—it’s about feeling secure enough to engage in uncomfortable but necessary conversations that drive learning and innovation.

Research has consistently shown that psychological safety enhances team learning, creativity, and productivity. For example, Google’s Project Aristotle identified psychological safety as the most critical factor distinguishing successful teams from less effective ones (Williams, 2025). Teams that feel safe are more likely to report errors, share feedback, and experiment with new ideas—behaviors that are essential for continuous improvement and adaptability (Duncan, 2025).

Importantly, psychological safety is not a passive climate but an actively cultivated culture. Leaders play a pivotal role in setting the tone by modeling vulnerability, inviting participation, and responding thoughtfully to input (Lynn, 2025). Neuroscience-based strategies suggest that when leaders set clear expectations, encourage diverse perspectives, and reward candid dialogue, they activate reward pathways in the brain that reinforce open communication and collaborative behavior (Lynn, 2025).

The absence of psychological safety can have serious consequences. Teams may fall into silence, avoid risk-taking, and suppress dissenting views—conditions that stifle innovation and increase the likelihood of groupthink. Moreover, marginalized employees or those with less positional power often experience lower levels of psychological safety, which can exacerbate inequities and reduce engagement (Crossan, 2025).

To build and sustain psychological safety, organizations must go beyond surface-level interventions. This includes fostering character-based leadership, promoting inclusive dialogue, and embedding safety into everyday practices such as feedback, decision-making, and conflict resolution (Crossan, 2025). When psychological safety is present, teams are not only more effective—they are more resilient, inclusive, and capable of navigating complexity with confidence.

Cognitive Diversity: A Strategic Advantage in Team Decision Making

Cognitive diversity refers to the differences in how individuals think, process information, and approach problem solving. Unlike demographic diversity, which focuses on visible traits such as race, gender, or age, cognitive diversity encompasses variations in mental models, analytical styles, and decision-making preferences (Klein et al., 2023). These differences may arise from educational backgrounds, professional experiences, personality traits, or even cultural influences. In organizational contexts, cognitive diversity has gained recognition as a powerful driver of innovation, adaptability, and strategic insight.

Research shows that cognitively diverse teams are better equipped to challenge assumptions, identify blind spots, and generate creative solutions to complex problems (Barnhill, 2025; Reynolds & Lewis, 2022). For example, teams with varied thinking styles are more likely to avoid groupthink and engage in constructive debate, leading to more robust and well-rounded decisions. A study by Cloverpop found that inclusive teams make better decisions up to 87% of the time and deliver 60% stronger outcomes when cognitive diversity is actively leveraged (Reynolds & Lewis, 2022).

However, cognitive diversity is not without its challenges. Teams with highly divergent cognitive styles may experience communication barriers, coordination difficulties, and reduced cohesion (Aggarwal et al., 2019). These issues can be exacerbated when psychological safety is lacking, as individuals may hesitate to share unconventional ideas or question dominant viewpoints (Edmondson, 2018). In fact, research suggests that the benefits of cognitive diversity are most pronounced in environments where team members feel safe to express themselves and engage in open dialogue (Edmans, 2025).

To harness the full potential of cognitive diversity, organizations must intentionally cultivate inclusive cultures and adaptive leadership practices. This includes recruiting for diverse thinking styles, designing onboarding programs that promote mutual understanding, and training leaders to recognize and respond to varied cognitive preferences (Barnhill, 2025). When paired with psychological safety, cognitive diversity becomes a strategic asset—fueling innovation, enhancing decision quality, and equipping teams to navigate uncertainty with agility.

7 Tools and Techniques for Making Better Decisions

1. Structured Idea Generator Techniques: The Nominal Group Technique

The Nominal Group Technique (NGT) is a structured method designed to enhance group decision making by ensuring equitable participation and minimizing dominance by more vocal members. Originally developed by Delbecq, Van de Ven, and Gustafson (1975), NGT is particularly effective in settings where teams are tasked with solving complex problems or generating innovative ideas. It is not intended for routine meetings but is best employed when diverse input and consensus are critical.

NGT unfolds through a series of deliberate steps. First, participants silently and independently generate ideas in response to a clearly defined question or problem. This initial phase encourages reflection and reduces the influence of group dynamics on individual thinking. Second, in a round-robin format, each member shares one idea at a time, ensuring that all contributions are heard and recorded without immediate critique. Third, the group engages in a structured discussion to clarify, elaborate, and evaluate the ideas presented. This phase promotes deeper understanding and allows for the integration of perspectives. Finally, participants privately rank or rate the ideas, and the results are compiled to identify the most favored options.

Contemporary research highlights NGT’s value in promoting psychological safety, encouraging contributions from quieter members, and reducing the risk of groupthink (Vahedian-Shahroodi et al., 2023; Edmondson, 2018). It is especially useful in diverse teams where power dynamics or communication barriers might otherwise inhibit open dialogue. By combining individual ideation with collective evaluation, NGT fosters inclusive decision making and leads to more balanced, innovative outcomes.

2. Remote and Expert-Based Decision Making: The Delphi Technique

The Delphi Technique is a structured, iterative method for gathering expert input and building consensus without requiring face-to-face interaction. Originally developed by the RAND Corporation in the 1950s as a forecasting tool, it has evolved into a widely used decision-making strategy across disciplines including healthcare, education, public policy, and organizational planning (Khodyakov et al., 2023). The technique is particularly valuable when decisions must be made under conditions of uncertainty or when geographically dispersed experts are involved.

Unlike traditional group meetings, the Delphi process relies on written responses to a series of questionnaires distributed over multiple rounds. In the first round, participants respond to broad prompts—such as identifying key challenges, proposing solutions, or outlining objectives. Facilitators then synthesize the responses and use them to construct the next questionnaire, which is sent back to the same panel. This cycle continues until a convergence of opinion is reached or a predefined stopping criterion is met. Anonymity is often maintained throughout the process to reduce the influence of dominant personalities and encourage independent thinking (Naisola-Ruiter, 2022).

The Delphi Technique is especially effective for generating best practices, forecasting trends, and informing strategic decisions. For example, Purdue University Professor Michael Campion used the method while serving as editor of Personnel Psychology to identify the qualities that define a high-quality research article. By collecting and refining input from hundreds of top scholars worldwide, Campion was able to develop a robust checklist of evaluation criteria—without convening a single in-person meeting (Campion, 1993).

Modern applications of the Delphi Technique continue to emphasize its strengths: structured communication, expert-driven insight, and the ability to distill complex judgments into actionable outcomes. It is particularly useful in organizational contexts where diverse expertise must be synthesized and where anonymity supports more candid contributions (Khodyakov et al., 2023; Naisola-Ruiter, 2022).

3. Voting-Based Decision Strategies

Voting-based decision strategies rely on a straightforward rule: each group member casts a single vote, and the option receiving the most votes is selected. This method, often referred to as majority rule, remains widely used in organizational, political, and community settings due to its simplicity, speed, and perceived fairness (Hastie & Kameda, 2005). It offers a clear and efficient mechanism for resolving disagreements and moving forward, especially when time or resources are limited.

The appeal of voting lies in its democratic nature—each participant has an equal say, and the process is easy to understand and implement. Majority rule also tends to produce decisions that reflect the preferences of the largest segment of the group, which can enhance legitimacy and accountability (Bordone & Doktori, 2021). However, research highlights a critical limitation: individuals whose preferences are not reflected in the final decision may feel alienated or less committed to its implementation. This phenomenon, known as decision dissatisfaction, can reduce group cohesion and hinder follow-through (Johnson et al., 2022).

Recent studies have explored variations of voting methods to improve decision quality. For example, multivoting, which allows individuals to allocate multiple votes across options, has been shown to increase accuracy and engagement in group decision-making tasks compared to traditional plurality or ranked-choice voting (Johnson et al., 2022). These findings suggest that while majority rule is effective, alternative voting strategies may better capture nuanced preferences and foster deeper deliberation.

Ultimately, voting-based strategies are most effective when decisions require speed and clarity, and when the group is prepared to accept the trade-off between efficiency and consensus. Facilitators should be mindful of the potential for dissent and consider follow-up discussions or consensus-building efforts to maintain group alignment.

4. Consensus and Participatory Decision-Making

Consensus-based decision-making is a collaborative approach that emphasizes inclusivity, shared ownership, and mutual agreement. Rather than relying on majority rule or hierarchical authority, this method seeks to generate decisions that all group members can support—or at least live with. It is particularly effective when the goal is to build commitment to a plan of action, foster trust, and ensure long-term buy-in (Kwon & Kim, 2025).

The process typically unfolds in several stages:

  • Issue Discussion: Group members openly discuss the problem or decision at hand.
  • Proposal Generation: A draft solution or plan is proposed.
  • Consensus Call: Members indicate whether they support the proposal.
  • Concern Resolution: If concerns arise, the proposal is revised to address them.
  • Iteration: These steps are repeated until consensus is reached.

This iterative cycle encourages active participation, deep listening, and cooperative problem-solving. The approach is democratic and egalitarian, giving each member an equal voice in shaping the outcome (Young, 2025).

Research supports the effectiveness of consensus decision-making. It has been shown to improve decision accuracy (Roch, 2007), enhance member satisfaction (Mohammed & Ringseis, 2001), and foster cognitive flexibility, creativity, and voice behavior among participants (Kwon & Kim, 2025). However, the process can be time-consuming, and if consensus proves elusive, frustration and disengagement may result (Peterson, 1999).

Modern applications of consensus decision-making often incorporate digital tools and structured facilitation techniques to streamline the process. For example, Consensus-Oriented Decision-Making (CODM) models provide clear frameworks for navigating group dynamics and maintaining psychological safety, which is essential for open dialogue and innovation (Young, 2025).

Ultimately, consensus is most valuable when the quality of the decision and the commitment to its implementation outweigh the need for speed. It reflects a belief that the best solutions emerge not from competition, but from collaboration.

Workplace Strategy Pack

Conducting a Premortem Project Review

Objective

To empower managers and employees to collaboratively conduct a premortem review before launching a project, enabling them to anticipate potential failures, strengthen planning, and foster a culture of open communication and strategic foresight.

Why It Matters

Most teams wait until a project fails to analyze what went wrong. A premortem flips that script—asking, “What could cause this project to fail?” before it begins. This technique improves risk awareness, reduces overconfidence, and encourages psychological safety by legitimizing dissent and critical thinking (Klein, 2007; Edmondson, 1999). It also aligns with implementation science principles that emphasize contextual fit and proactive planning (Wippold et al., 2025).

Strategy Toolkit

Step Action
Frame the Premortem Begin by stating: “Imagine it’s six months from now and the project has failed. What went wrong?”
Create Psychological Safety Emphasize that all input is welcome and that the goal is to strengthen—not criticize—the project plan.
Independent Idea Generation Have participants write down failure reasons individually before group discussion to reduce conformity bias.
Facilitate Open Discussion Share and categorize risks (e.g., resource gaps, stakeholder resistance, unclear goals).
Develop Mitigation Strategies For each risk, brainstorm preventive actions or contingency plans.
Document & Share Summarize findings in a shared document and revisit them during project milestones.

Empowerment Tip

Use premortems not just for large initiatives, but also for smaller team efforts, product launches, or process changes. Encourage cross-functional participation to surface blind spots. When employees see their concerns addressed before problems arise, trust and engagement grow.

“Prospective hindsight—imagining that an event has already occurred—can help teams identify threats that are otherwise overlooked.” — Klein (2007)

 

References
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999

Klein, G. (2007). Performing a project premortem. Harvard Business Review, 85(9), 18–19. https://hbr.org/2007/09/performing-a-project-premortem

Mitchell, D. J., Russo, J. E., & Pennington, N. (1989). Back to the future: A temporal perspective on the effects of predecisional information. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 44(3), 296–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(89)90009-8

Wippold, G. M., Garcia, K. A., Domlyn, A., Wong, D., & Fernandez, M. E. (2025). Proactive planning for contextual fit: The role of the implementation premortem. Implementation Science Communications, 6, Article 84. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-025-00768-z

5. Technology-Enhanced Group Decision Making: Group Decision Support Systems (GDSS)

Group Decision Support Systems (GDSS) are interactive, computer-based platforms that integrate communication and decision technologies to help teams collaborate more effectively. These systems facilitate knowledge sharing, problem-solving, and decision-making among distributed participants, often leading to improved group outcomes (Lam & Schaubroeck, 2000).

Empirical research suggests GDSS can enhance the quality of group decisions by promoting higher levels of information exchange and balanced participation. Lam and Schaubroeck (2000) found that groups using computer-mediated communication demonstrated increased idea generation and decision accuracy compared to traditional face-to-face discussions. As early as 2002, organizations invested over $2.7 billion into developing such systems, with expectations that expenditures would double every five years as digital collaboration became central to enterprise operations (Yao et al., 2010).

However, GDSS face challenges as their popularity grows. One concern is information overload: as virtual meetings expand, the sheer volume of shared data can become overwhelming, causing valuable insights to be overlooked—the very problem GDSS were designed to solve. Another issue is interface complexity. When system usability declines, participants who are tech-savvy may dominate discussions, while others struggle to engage meaningfully (Nunamaker et al., 1991).

Further, these systems sometimes neglect important psychological factors. Users may be hesitant to contribute ideas due to limited control, delayed feedback, or fear of negative responses, commonly known as “online flaming” (Nunamaker et al., 1991). If platforms lack features that foster psychological safety, such as anonymity options or real-time validation, participant engagement may suffer.

To ensure effectiveness, modern GDSS are increasingly designed with:

  • User-friendly interfaces
  • Anonymity features
  • Structured input tools like multivoting and electronic brainstorming
  • Human-centered design that accounts for cognitive and emotional dimensions of group interaction (Carneiro, Alves, Marreiros, & Novais, 2019)

GDSS can be powerful tools, but their impact depends on thoughtful implementation and a balance between technological capability and human collaboration.

6. AI and Algorithmic Support

Artificial Intelligence (AI) and algorithmic systems are increasingly transforming how organizations make decisions, communicate, and adapt to complex environments. These technologies offer powerful tools for analyzing vast datasets, identifying patterns, and generating predictive insights that augment human judgment and streamline decision-making processes (Shrestha, Krishna, & von Krogh, 2021).

AI-driven decision support systems operate across three key stages:

  • Assisted Intelligence: AI provides data-driven insights to inform human decisions.
  • Augmented Intelligence: Machine learning algorithms continuously refine recommendations based on feedback and evolving data.
  • Autonomous Intelligence: AI systems execute decisions independently within defined parameters (Dordevic, 2022).

In organizational communication, AI enhances internal processes by automating routine tasks, improving message clarity, and enabling real-time feedback loops. For example, AI-powered sentiment analysis tools can monitor employee communications to detect morale shifts or emerging concerns, allowing leaders to intervene proactively (Florea & Croitoru, 2025). Additionally, AI systems can personalize communication strategies based on behavioral data, increasing engagement and message retention.

However, the integration of AI into decision-making raises ethical and practical challenges. Algorithmic bias, lack of transparency, and information overload are persistent concerns. If not carefully managed, AI systems may reinforce existing inequalities or obscure the rationale behind critical decisions (Anwar, 2025). To address these risks, organizations are adopting Explainable AI (XAI) frameworks that clarify how algorithms reach conclusions, fostering trust and accountability (Miller, 2019).

Moreover, effective human-AI collaboration requires a shift in managerial roles—from directive oversight to strategic partnership. Managers must understand AI capabilities, interpret algorithmic outputs, and ensure ethical alignment with organizational values (Kolbjørnsrud, 2023). This includes establishing feedback mechanisms, training programs, and governance structures that support responsible AI use.

Ultimately, AI and algorithmic support systems offer immense potential to enhance decision-making accuracy, speed, and inclusivity. When thoughtfully implemented, they can empower organizations to navigate uncertainty, foster innovation, and build more adaptive communication ecosystems.

7. Analytical Decision Tools: Decision Trees

Decision trees are structured diagrams that guide decision-makers through a series of binary (yes/no) questions, ultimately leading to a recommended course of action. Each node in the tree represents a decision point, and each branch corresponds to a possible outcome or choice. This visual and logical format helps clarify complex decisions by breaking them into manageable steps and mapping out potential consequences (Perara, 2023).

One of the key advantages of decision trees is their ability to reduce cognitive biases, such as framing bias, by standardizing the decision-making process (Wright & Goodwin, 2002). Rather than relying on intuition or subjective framing, decision trees encourage objective analysis by prompting users to consider all relevant conditions and outcomes. This consistency ensures that similar situations are treated similarly, which is especially valuable in organizational settings where fairness, transparency, and repeatability are critical.

Decision trees are also useful for:

  • Evaluating multiple alternatives and their associated risks
  • Assigning probabilities to outcomes for more informed choices
  • Improving communication among stakeholders by providing a shared visual framework
  • Training and onboarding, as they offer clear guidance for decision protocols

Modern applications of decision trees often incorporate quantitative data and expected value calculations to assess the utility of each option. For example, in project management, decision trees can help teams choose between competing initiatives by comparing projected costs, benefits, and likelihoods of success (Asana, 2025).

However, decision trees are most effective when kept simple and updated regularly. Overly complex trees can lead to confusion or overfitting, where the model becomes too tailored to past data and loses generalizability (Madrid, 2024). Best practices include involving stakeholders in tree design, using clear criteria, and revising the tree as new information becomes available.

Conflict Management in Decision-Making

Conflict is an inherent feature of organizational decision-making, arising from diverse goals, values, and perceptions among interdependent individuals and groups. Far from being a breakdown in communication, conflict can serve as a catalyst for innovation, problem-solving, and strategic alignment when managed constructively (Gaba & Joseph, 2023).

Organizational scholars have long emphasized that conflict is not merely episodic but latent, contextual, and dynamic—embedded in the very structure of decision-making processes (Cyert & March, 1963). The Carnegie perspective views organizations as shifting coalitions of actors with competing priorities, where conflict is continuously negotiated rather than resolved (Joseph & Gaba, 2020). This lens highlights the importance of process-oriented strategies such as goal sequencing, decentralization of information, and coalition-building to manage tensions productively.

Effective conflict management in decision-making involves several key practices:

  • Open Communication: Transparent dialogue helps surface hidden disagreements and fosters mutual understanding (Onasanya, 2021).
  • Structured Feedback Channels: Providing formal mechanisms for input and response reduces miscommunication and builds trust.
  • Conflict Resolution Frameworks: Techniques such as interest-based negotiation, mediation, and constructive controversy promote integrative solutions (Putnam et al., 2021).
  • Emotional Intelligence and Cultural Awareness: Recognizing the emotional and cultural dimensions of conflict enhances empathy and reduces escalation (Manata, 2021; Miller & Barbour, 2020).

Importantly, conflict can be both task-related (focused on the substance of decisions) and relational (centered on interpersonal dynamics). While task conflict may improve decision quality by encouraging diverse viewpoints, unmanaged relational conflict can undermine group cohesion and decision legitimacy (Jehn & Mannix, 2001).

Modern approaches also incorporate neurocognitive insights, recognizing that stress and emotional arousal can inhibit rational decision-making. For example, activation of the amygdala during high-conflict situations may suppress the prefrontal cortex, impairing logical reasoning and impulse control (Lamb, 2024). Training in mindfulness and conflict de-escalation can help counteract these effects.

Ultimately, conflict management is not about eliminating disagreement but about channeling it into productive dialogue that strengthens decision outcomes and organizational resilience.

Conclusion

Effective decision-making in organizations is rarely one-size-fits-all. The strategies explored—from majority rule and consensus-building to analytical tools like decision trees and AI-supported systems—highlight the rich array of methods leaders and teams can use to navigate complex choices. Each approach carries distinct strengths: majority voting offers speed and simplicity; consensus fosters buy-in and trust; decision trees and GDSS bring analytical precision; and AI tools unlock data-driven insights.

Importantly, the choice of method should reflect the decision’s stakes, context, and the diversity of perspectives involved. Leaders must also recognize that decision quality depends not only on the process itself but also on how well conflict is managed, information is shared, and participants are empowered to contribute meaningfully. As organizations grow increasingly digital and dispersed, blending human insight with technological tools—and doing so ethically and inclusively—will be key to future decision-making success.

Ultimately, the most effective teams are those that treat decision-making not as a mechanical task, but as a strategic communication process—one that harnesses collective intelligence, fosters psychological safety, and drives action through shared understanding.

Insider Edge

Navigating Leadership Misalignment with the Big Picture

Objective

To empower employees to recognize and respond constructively when managers prioritize personal interests over organizational goals, using communication strategies that protect integrity, foster transparency, and promote mission-driven decision-making.

Why It Matters

When managers make decisions based on personal gain—such as career advancement, recognition, or power—rather than organizational purpose, it can erode trust, misalign team efforts, and damage long-term outcomes. Employees may feel disillusioned or silenced. However, research shows that empowered employees who engage in voice behavior and values-based communication can influence upward accountability and restore alignment (Detert & Burris, 2007; Brown & Treviño, 2006).

Strategy Toolkit

Strategy Application
Use Values-Based Framing Anchor feedback in shared organizational values and mission (Brown & Treviño, 2006).
Engage in Constructive Voice Speak up respectfully with evidence and alternatives, not just criticism (Detert & Edmondson, 2011).
Build Peer Coalitions Collaborate with colleagues to amplify concerns and propose mission-aligned solutions (Morrison, 2011).
Document and Reflect Keep records of decisions and their impacts to support future conversations or escalation.
Seek Ethical Allies Identify mentors or leaders who model integrity and can offer guidance or advocacy.

Empowerment Tip

When addressing misaligned leadership, focus on impact, not intent. Instead of accusing, ask questions like:

“How does this decision support our long-term goals?” “What outcomes are we prioritizing for the team and organization?”

This approach keeps the conversation strategic and avoids personal confrontation, while still surfacing critical concerns.

“Voice is most powerful when it’s anchored in purpose and delivered with respect.” — Detert & Burris (2007)

 

References
Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 595–616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.004

Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open? Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 869–884. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.26279183

Detert, J. R., & Edmondson, A. C. (2011). Impediments to speaking up about problems in healthcare. Harvard Business Review, 89(7–8), 60–65.

Morrison, E. W. (2011). Employee voice behavior: Integration and directions for future research. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 373–412. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2011.574506

Discussion Questions

  1. Do you prefer making decisions independently or collaboratively? Reflect on the benefits and limitations of group decision-making strategies discussed—such as voting-based approaches, consensus, or Delphi—versus solo decision-making. How do factors like time constraints, complexity, or the need for buy-in influence your preference?
  2. Have you experienced structured group decision-making techniques like Nominal Group Technique (NGT), Delphi, multivoting, or Consensus-Oriented Decision-Making? Share examples of how these approaches were applied. What worked well, and what challenges emerged in reaching effective outcomes?
  3. Have you ever participated in a group where groupthink limited critical thinking or dissent? How did the group respond to emerging concerns, and what strategies (e.g., anonymous input, facilitation tools, or decision trees) helped counteract or prevent conformity pressure?
  4. How has technology—such as Group Decision Support Systems (GDSS) or AI-driven tools—influenced your group decision-making experiences? What advantages or drawbacks did you observe in virtual collaboration settings, and how did information overload or interface complexity affect participation?
  5. Conflict can surface during decision-making. Have you seen conflict used constructively to improve decisions or innovation? Think about how open communication, feedback mechanisms, or emotional intelligence practices contributed to conflict resolution and better outcomes.
  6. Which analytical tools (such as decision trees or AI-based algorithms) have you used in problem-solving or decision-making processes? How did these tools impact decision accuracy, bias reduction, or consistency in choosing solutions?

Section 11.5: Ethical and Cultural Influences

Learning Objectives

After reading this chapter, you should be able to do the following:

  1. Evaluate the impact of ethical frameworks and moral reasoning on managerial decision making, using guiding models such as Blanchard and Peale’s five-question approach to assess fairness, legality, and reputational consequences in organizational contexts.
  2. Analyze real-world cases of ethical dilemmas, distinguishing between legally permissible actions and ethically sound decisions, and assess the consequences of ethical failures on organizational credibility and performance.
  3. Explore how national and cultural norms shape decision-making styles, including consensus-building, hierarchy sensitivity, and time orientation, and apply Hofstede’s cultural dimensions to explain cross-cultural variations.
  4. Apply culturally responsive strategies to decision making in global or diverse teams, accounting for differences in communication, conflict resolution, and leadership expectations to promote inclusive and effective outcomes.

Ethical considerations are central to effective decision making in management. Whether acting as an employee or a leader, individuals must evaluate the moral implications of their choices. Blanchard and Peale (1988) proposed a practical framework for assessing ethical decisions by asking:

  • Is this decision fair?
  • Will I feel better or worse about myself after making it?
  • Does this decision violate organizational rules?
  • Does it break any laws?
  • How would I feel if this decision were broadcast publicly?

These questions remain relevant today, especially in light of recent corporate scandals and global challenges. For example, the 2008 financial crisis was fueled in part by legally permissible yet ethically questionable lending practices. A leaked memo from JPMorgan Chase’s automated loan system, “Zippy,” revealed tactics for manipulating loan applications to push approvals through—such as inflating income figures and concealing gift funds (Manning, 2008). Although the memo was disavowed by executives, it reflected a broader culture of ethical compromise that contributed to systemic failure.

More recently, ethical dilemmas have emerged in the tech industry. For instance, companies have faced scrutiny over the use of user data for targeted advertising and algorithmic bias in AI systems. These cases highlight the importance of ethical foresight in decision making, especially when legal compliance alone is insufficient to ensure responsible conduct (Chmielewski, 2004).

Consider a CEO who must decide whether to cancel annual bonuses to avoid bankruptcy. While the decision may be unpopular, it could be ethically justified if it preserves jobs and is applied equitably—including to the CEO. Evaluating fairness, transparency, and long-term consequences helps leaders navigate such dilemmas with integrity.

Decision Making and Cross-Communication

Culture profoundly shapes how decisions are made, communicated, and implemented. Hofstede’s cultural dimensions—such as individualism vs. collectivism and power distance—offer insight into these variations (Hofstede, 2011).

For example, Japanese managers often engage in nemawashi, a consensus-building process that involves informal discussions with stakeholders before formal decisions are made. This approach fosters harmony and buy-in but may slow down decision timelines (Bryant, 2021). In contrast, American managers tend to prioritize speed and autonomy, often making top-down decisions with limited consultation.

In collectivist cultures like China, decision making is more hierarchical and deliberate, emphasizing group welfare and long-term relationships. Confucian values encourage reflection and consensus, especially in situations involving potential conflict (Choi, 2014). Meanwhile, Scandinavian countries such as Sweden emphasize egalitarianism and transparency, with decisions often made collaboratively across organizational levels.

Even within multicultural teams, cultural norms can influence how ethical dilemmas are perceived. For instance, in-group favoritism may be more acceptable in some cultures, while others prioritize impartiality and procedural fairness (HorizonP, 2023). Understanding these differences is essential for global leaders seeking to foster inclusive and ethical workplaces.

Conclusion

Ethical and cultural influences are inseparable from effective decision making. While ethical frameworks help individuals evaluate the moral dimensions of their choices, cultural context shapes how decisions are approached and justified. Leaders must cultivate ethical awareness and cultural intelligence to navigate complex dilemmas in a globalized world. By doing so, they not only uphold organizational integrity but also build trust across diverse teams and stakeholders.

Insider Edge

Speaking Up When Ethics Are at Risk

Objective

To empower employees to recognize and respond effectively when they observe unethical decisions or behaviors by managers or colleagues, using communication strategies that protect integrity, foster accountability, and uphold organizational values.

Why It Matters

Unethical decisions—whether subtle or overt—can erode trust, damage reputations, and create toxic work environments. Employees who witness misconduct often face a dilemma: speak up and risk retaliation, or stay silent and compromise their values. Research shows that when organizations foster psychological safety and ethical climates, employees are more likely to engage in ethical voice and constructive dissent (Mayer et al., 2013; Detert & Edmondson, 2011).

Strategy Toolkit

Strategy Application
Document Observations Keep detailed, objective records of unethical actions, decisions, or patterns.
Use Values-Based Language Frame concerns around organizational mission, ethics policies, and shared values (Brown & Treviño, 2006).
Engage in Ethical Voice Speak up respectfully and constructively, focusing on impact and alternatives (Detert & Burris, 2007).
Seek Safe Channels Use anonymous reporting systems, ombudspersons, or HR pathways designed to protect whistleblowers.
Build Support Networks Connect with trusted peers, mentors, or ethics officers who can validate concerns and offer guidance.

Empowerment Tip

When confronting unethical behavior, clarity and calm matter. Avoid accusatory language. Instead, ask questions like:

“How does this align with our code of conduct?” “What are the long-term implications of this decision for our team and stakeholders?”

This approach invites reflection and accountability without escalating conflict.

 

References
Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 595–616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.004

Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open? Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 869–884. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.26279183

Detert, J. R., & Edmondson, A. C. (2011). Impediments to speaking up about problems in healthcare. Harvard Business Review, 89(7–8), 60–65.

Mayer, D. M., Nurmohamed, S., Treviño, L. K., Shapiro, D. L., & Schminke, M. (2013). Encouraging employees to report unethical conduct internally: Investigating the role of ethical leadership, supportive leadership, and organizational commitment. Journal of Business Ethics, 117(1), 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1517-9

Discussion Questions

  1. How can managers use ethical frameworks—such as Blanchard and Peale’s five-question model—to evaluate the fairness, legality, and reputational impact of their decisions? What limitations might these frameworks have in complex situations?
  2. Reflect on a situation you’ve witnessed or learned about where someone made a decision that was legal but arguably unethical. What values or pressures may have influenced their behavior, and what were the consequences?
  3. In what ways have you seen cultural norms shape decision-making processes—such as the use of consensus-building (e.g., nemawashi), hierarchy, or time sensitivity? How did these norms affect outcomes or team dynamics?
  4. Imagine you are advising a new manager who is about to lead a division in a different national culture. What culturally responsive strategies would you recommend for building trust and navigating ethical dilemmas within that team?
  5. What kinds of organizational or interpersonal conflicts might arise when cultural dimensions—like individualism, collectivism, or power distance—are misunderstood or overlooked in decision making?

Section 11.6: Spotlight

Empowered Decision-Making by Neal Richardson at SLDC

Neal Richardson’s tenure as President and CEO of the St. Louis Development Corporation (SLDC) exemplifies empowered decision-making rooted in ethical leadership and strategic autonomy. His signature initiative, the Economic Justice Action Plan, was designed to reverse decades of disinvestment in historically marginalized neighborhoods, particularly in North St. Louis. Richardson’s approach reflected a visionary decision-making model, combining data-driven strategy with community engagement to prioritize equity and long-term impact (SLDC, 2023a).

One of Richardson’s most notable decisions was the launch of the HomeSTL Homebuyer Assistance Program, which provided up to $50,000 in forgivable loans to first-time homebuyers earning below 80% of the area median income. This program empowered 27 families and generated nearly $5 million in mortgages, demonstrating how ethical decision-making can produce tangible outcomes for underserved communities (SLDC, 2024a). Richardson’s choice to prioritize homeownership as a wealth-building tool reflected a commitment to inclusive development and long-term neighborhood stabilization.

Richardson also led the creation of MobilizeSTL, a bridge loan program for minority- and women-owned contractors facing payment delays on large-scale projects. This decision addressed a critical gap in access to capital and enabled small businesses to participate in city-led development efforts. By removing financial barriers, Richardson fostered economic empowerment and expanded participation in public-private partnerships (SLDC, 2024b).

Another strategic move was the launch of ScaleUpSTL, a loan program backed by philanthropic partners like BJC HealthCare and the James S. McDonnell Foundation. With a goal of delivering $25 million to over 50 small businesses by 2026, Richardson’s decision to align SLDC with anchor institutions demonstrated a collaborative leadership style and a long-term vision for inclusive growth (SLDC, 2023b).

Richardson’s leadership avoided common decision-making traps such as overcentralization and short-termism. Instead, he emphasized transparency, stakeholder input, and ethical clarity. His decisions were guided by a belief that economic justice is a “team sport,” requiring coordination across government, philanthropy, and community sectors (St. Louis Public Radio, 2024). By embedding equity into SLDC’s operations, Richardson redefined what economic development could look like in St. Louis.

In summary, Neal Richardson’s empowered decision-making at SLDC illustrates how ethical leadership, strategic autonomy, and inclusive planning can transform public institutions. His initiatives not only delivered measurable impact but also reshaped the narrative of economic development in St. Louis.

References

SLDC. (2023a). Empower. Develop. Transform: A vision for St. Louis’ future. https://www.developstlouis.org/news-media/empower-develop-transform-a-vision-for-st-louis-future

SLDC. (2023b). Economic Justice Action Plan. https://www.economicjusticestl.org/

SLDC. (2024a). HomeSTL Homebuyer Assistance Program. https://www.developstlouis.org/homestl

SLDC. (2024b). SLDC begins recruiting mortgage lenders for HomeSTL and introduces new loan products. https://www.developstlouis.org/news-media/314-day-press-release

St. Louis Public Radio. (2024, March 14). St. Louis launches new economic justice programs on 314 Day. https://www.stlpr.org/economy-business/2024-03-14/st-louis-leaders-mark-314-day-by-launching-new-economic-justice-programs

Discussion Questions

  1. How can transparent communication enhance trust and collaboration during complex decision-making processes in organizations? Reflect on examples where communication either strengthened or weakened stakeholder relationships.
  2. What role does feedback play in improving decision-making within organizations? Reflect on how leaders can create systems that encourage constructive feedback while avoiding decision-making traps like groupthink or confirmation bias.
  3. In what ways can ethical considerations shape the communication strategies used during decision-making? Reflect on how organizations can balance transparency with the need to manage sensitive or controversial decisions.
  4. How can leaders ensure that their communication aligns with the organization’s values and mission during critical decision-making moments? Reflect on how misalignment between communication and values might impact organizational credibility and stakeholder engagement.

Section 11.7: Conclusion

Decision-making is a vital function in business, shaping outcomes at every level of an organization. While some decisions are straightforward and can be made quickly with minimal effort, others demand careful analysis of context, alternatives, and potential consequences. Fortunately, a variety of decision-making models exist to guide individuals and groups through complex choices, each suited to different environmental conditions.

Group decision-making, in particular, offers structured approaches but is not immune to pitfalls. Limited information can lead to decisions based on intuition alone, while excessive data may result in analysis paralysis—where the sheer volume of options prevents any decision from being made.

Ethical considerations and cultural norms further complicate the decision-making landscape. A choice may be legally permissible yet ethically questionable, requiring individuals to apply sound judgment and adhere to guiding principles to ensure fairness and integrity. Cultural differences also influence decision-making styles; for example, U.S. organizations often rely on majority rule, whereas Japanese firms may prioritize consensus-building.

By understanding the diverse methods of decision-making, recognizing common traps, and appreciating ethical and cultural dimensions, individuals and teams can enhance their ability to make thoughtful, effective decisions in any organizational setting.

Section 11.8: Case Study and Exercises

Ethical Dilemma Case Study

A Raise at the Top, A Struggle at the Bottom

Jordan is a work-study student employed in the Office of the University President at a mid-sized public university. As part of his clerical duties, Jordan occasionally assists with budget-related correspondence and internal memos. One afternoon, while preparing documents for a board meeting, Jordan discovers that the university president has just received a 15% salary increase, bringing her total compensation to over $575,000 annually, not including the university-provided residence and late-model vehicle for personal and professional use.

That same week, Jordan receives notice that tuition has increased by 5%, adding another financial burden to their already stretched budget. Jordan currently works two part-time jobs and now anticipates needing a third to cover the rising costs. The juxtaposition of the president’s raise and the tuition hike leaves Jordan feeling disillusioned and ethically conflicted.

The Dilemma

Jordan grapples with whether to speak up about the perceived inequity. Is it appropriate for a university leader to receive a substantial raise while students face mounting financial pressure? Should Jordan raise the issue internally, discuss it with peers, or remain silent to protect their position?

This situation raises questions about organizational transparency, ethical leadership, and voice behavior—especially in hierarchical environments where power dynamics may discourage dissent.

Why It Matters

Organizational communication research emphasizes the importance of ethical climates and psychological safety in enabling employees and stakeholders to speak up about concerns (Edmondson, 1999; Brown & Treviño, 2006). When ethical dilemmas are ignored, trust erodes, and organizational legitimacy suffers. Universities, in particular, are expected to model fairness, stewardship, and accountability.

Discussion Questions

  1. What ethical principles are at stake in this situation?
  2. How might Jordan use values-based communication to raise concerns?
  3. What organizational structures should exist to support ethical voice from lower-power stakeholders?
  4. How do transparency and distributive justice affect perceptions of leadership credibility?

Empowerment Tip

When facing ethical dilemmas, frame concerns around shared values and organizational mission. For example:

“How does our compensation strategy reflect our commitment to student success and equity?” This approach invites dialogue without direct confrontation and aligns the issue with institutional goals.

 

References
Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 595–616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.004

Detert, J. R., & Edmondson, A. C. (2011). Impediments to speaking up about problems in healthcare. Harvard Business Review, 89(7–8), 60–65.

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999

Morrison, E. W. (2011). Employee voice behavior: Integration and directions for future research. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 373–412. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2011.574506

Individual Exercise

Decision-Making in Action: A Field Reflection

Objective:

To critically observe and evaluate a real-world organizational decision-making process through the lens of organizational communication theory, identifying communication dynamics, decision models, and ethical considerations.

Instructions:

  1. Select a Real Organization: Choose an organization you have direct access to—this could be your workplace, a student organization, a volunteer group, or a department within your university.
  2. Identify a Recent Decision: Observe or inquire about a recent decision made within the organization. It could be related to budgeting, staffing, event planning, policy changes, or strategic direction.
  3. Conduct a Field Observation or Interview: Attend a meeting where the decision is discussed, or interview someone directly involved in the decision-making process. Take detailed notes on:
    • Who was involved?
    • What communication channels were used?
    • What decision-making model seemed to be followed (e.g., rational, bounded rationality, intuitive, group consensus)?
    • Were any ethical or cultural considerations evident?
  4. Analyze the Process: Write a 3–4 page reflection that includes:
    • A description of the decision and its context
    • An analysis of the communication dynamics (e.g., power, participation, listening, conflict)
    • Identification of the decision-making model used
    • Discussion of any decision-making traps or biases observed
    • Evaluation of the ethical and cultural dimensions of the decision
    • Your personal insights on how the process could be improved
  5. Apply Theory: Reference at least two organizational communication theories or models discussed in class (e.g., groupthink, psychological safety, ethical voice, rational decision-making).
  6. Submit Supporting Materials: Include your observation notes or interview transcript as an appendix.

References

Aggarwal, I., Woolley, A. W., Chabris, C. F., & Malone, T. W. (2019). The impact of cognitive style diversity on implicit learning in teams. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 112. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00112

Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 123–167.

Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154–1184. https://doi.org/10.5465/256995

Anwar, C. M. (2025). The algorithmic compass: Navigating ethical decision-making in the age of AI-driven management. California Management Review, 67(2), 44–64.

Asana. (2025). Decision tree analysis: 5 steps to better decisions. https://asana.com/resources/decision-tree-analysis

Barnhill, A. (2025, February 4). Unlocking team potential: The power of cognitive diversity and psychological safety. Forbes.

Bazerman, M. H., & Moore, D. A. (2013). Judgment in managerial decision making (8th ed.). Wiley.

Beck, S. J., Keyton, J., Poole, M. S., & Gouran, D. S. (2022). Group communication: A continued evolution. In S. J. Beck, J. Keyton, & M. S. Poole (Eds.), The Emerald handbook of group and team communication research (pp. 7–24). Emerald Publishing.

Becker, D. (2007). Great Bear Wilderness Disaster. Montana Historical Society Press.

Blanchard, K., & Peale, N. V. (1988). The power of ethical management. William Morrow.

Bordone, R. C., & Doktori, D. (2021). These strategies will help you influence how decisions get made. Harvard Business Review.

Boyce, P. (2023). Bounded rationality: Definition & examples. BoyceWire. https://boycewire.com/bounded-rationality-definition/

Brady, M. (2024). Decide Better: Decision science for leaders. Volley Solutions.

Bryant, S. (2021, May 13). Cultural influences in decision making process. Country Navigator. https://www.countrynavigator.com/blog/how-do-different-cultures-approach-decision-making

Burke, L. A., & Miller, M. K. (1999). Taking the mystery out of intuitive decision making. Academy of Management Perspectives, 13(4), 91–99. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.1999.2570554

Campion, M. A. (1993). Personnel Psychology editorial standards checklist. Personnel Psychology.

Carmeli, A., Brueller, D., & Dutton, J. E. (2009). Learning behaviours in the workplace: The role of high-quality interpersonal relationships and psychological safety. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 26(1), 81–98. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.932

Carneiro, J., Alves, P., Marreiros, G., & Novais, P. (2019). A conceptual group decision support system for dispersed decision-making. In Distributed Computing and Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 286, pp. 150–159). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22493-6_19

Cherry, K. (2024). Hindsight bias in beliefs and behaviors. Verywell Mind. https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-a-hindsight-bias-2795236

Chmielewski, C. (2004). The importance of values and culture in ethical decision making. NACADA Clearinghouse of Academic Advising Resources. https://nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Clearinghouse/View-Articles/Values-and-culture-in-ethical-decision-making.aspx

Choi, A. S. (2014, October 21). How cultures around the world make decisions. TED Ideas. https://ideas.ted.com/how-cultures-around-the-world-make-decisions

Choi, J. N., & Kim, M. U. (1999). The organizational application of groupthink and its limitations in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(2), 297–306. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.2.297

Clark, R., & Schofield, T. (2023). Creative decision-making: Definition, factors & model. Study.com

Cognitive Bias Lab. (2025). Framing effect: Definition, examples, and how to overcome it. https://www.cognitivebiaslab.com/bias/bias-framing/

Cornell, D. (2024). 15 framing bias examples. Helpful Professor. https://helpfulprofessor.com/framing-bias-examples/

Cornell, D. (2024). 16 anchoring bias examples. Helpful Professor. https://helpfulprofessor.com/anchoring-bias-examples/

Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Prentice-Hall.

Delbecq, A. L., Van de Ven, A. H., & Gustafson, D. H. (1975). Group techniques for program planning: A guide to nominal group and Delphi processes. Scott, Foresman.

Dordevic, M. (2022). How artificial intelligence can improve organizational decision making. Forbes Technology Council.

Drucker, P. F. (2010). The Essential Drucker. HarperBusiness.

Edmans, A. (2025). The power of diverse thinking: How the best teams make decisions. Diversity Project.

Edmondson, A. C. (2018). The fearless organization: Creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth. Wiley.

Englich, B., & Mussweiler, T. (2001). Sentencing under uncertainty: Anchoring effects in the courtroom. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31(7), 1535–1551.

Esser, J. K. (1998). Alive and well after 25 years: A review of groupthink research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73(2–3), 116–141. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1998.2758

Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(4), 290–309. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0204_5

Finkelstein, S., & Sanford, S. H. (2000). Learning from corporate mistakes: The rise and fall of Iridium. Organizational Dynamics, 29(2), 138–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-2616(00)00012-1

Florea, N. V., & Croitoru, G. (2025). The impact of artificial intelligence on communication dynamics and performance in organizational leadership. Administrative Sciences, 15(2), Article 33. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15020033

Forsyth, D. R. (2018). Group dynamics (7th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Gaba, V., & Joseph, J. (2023). Content and process: Organizational conflict and decision making. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, Article 1227966. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1227966

Garvin, D. A. (2006). Decision making at Nutrorim. Harvard Business School Case 306-002.

Gebreamlak, O. (2025, July 29). Breaking the cycle of confirmation bias in the workplace. SHRM. https://www.shrm.org/enterprise-solutions/insights/breaking-cycle-of-confirmation-bias-workplace

George, J. M. (2000). “Emotions and leadership: The role of emotional intelligence.” Human Relations, 53(8), 1027–1055.

Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P. M., & the ABC Research Group. (1999). Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart. Oxford University Press.

Gouran, D. S., Hirokawa, R. Y., & Martz, D. M. (1986). A critical analysis of the functional perspective on group decision making. Communication Monographs, 53(3), 267–290.

Hastie, R., & Kameda, T. (2005). The robust beauty of majority rules in group decisions. Psychological Review, 112(2), 494–508.

Healy, P. (2019). Confirmation bias: How it affects your organization and how to overcome it. Harvard Business School Online. https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/confirmation-bias-how-it-affects-your-organization-and-how-to-overcome-it

Helpful Professor. (2023). Overconfidence bias: 25 examples (and some benefits!). https://helpfulprofessor.com/overconfidence-bias-examples-benefits/

Hodgkinson, G. P., & Starbuck, W. H. (2008). “Organizational decision making: Mapping terrains of bounded rationality.” In G. P. Hodgkinson & W. H. Starbuck (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Decision Making. Oxford University Press.

Hoffman, B. (2024, April 6). Availability heuristic: What it is and how to overcome it. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/brycehoffman/2024/04/06/availability-heuristic-what-it-is-and-how-to-overcome-it/

Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014

HorizonP. (2023, November 3). The influence of culture on morality and ethical decision-making. https://www.horizonp.de/2023/11/03/the-influence-of-culture-on-morality-and-ethical-decision-making

Indeed Editorial Team. (2025). 8 benefits of creative decision-making (with examples and tips). Indeed. [5]

Investopedia. (2023). Framing effect: What it is and examples. https://www.investopedia.com/framing-effect-7371439

Ireland, R. D., & Miller, C. C. (2004). Strategy, core competence, and managerial action: Strategic thinking and the role of the manager. Journal of Management, 30(1), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jm.2002.03.001

Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. Houghton Mifflin.

Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes (2nd ed.). Houghton Mifflin.

Japs, S. (2024). How confirmation bias can affect your organization. Vistage. https://www.vistage.com/research-center/business-leadership/organizational-culture-values/20240809-confirmation-bias/

Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 238–251.

Johnson, M., Awtrey, E., & Ong, W. J. (2022). New study shows how voting methods affect group decision-making. Academy of Management Discoveries.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Kahneman, D., & Klein, G. (2009). Conditions for intuitive expertise: A failure to disagree. American Psychologist, 64(6), 515–526. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016755

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185

Kassing, J. W. (2000). Investigating the relationship between superior–subordinate relationships and employee dissent. Communication Research Reports, 17(1), 58–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824090009388751

Keyton, J. (1999). Relational communication in groups. In L. R. Frey (Ed.), The handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 192–222). Sage.

khmad, M., Chang, S., & Deguchi, H. (2021). Closed-mindedness and insulation in groupthink: Their effects and the devil’s advocacy as a preventive measure. Journal of Computational Social Science, 4(1), 455–478. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42001-020-00083-8

Khodyakov, D., Grant, S., Kroger, J., & Bauman, M. (2023). Methodological guidance for conducting and critically appraising Delphi panels. RAND Corporation.

Kim, Y. M. (2013). Heuristics. In Oxford Bibliographies: Communication. https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/abstract/document/obo-9780199756841/obo-9780199756841-0006.xml

Klein, G. (2003). Intuition at work: Why developing your gut instincts will make you better at what you do. Currency/Doubleday.

Klein, G., Newsome, E., Hoy, K., Jephson, W., & MacColl, M. (2023). Cognitive diversity: What it is and why it matters. Psychology Today.

Kolbjørnsrud, V. (2023). Designing the intelligent organization: Six principles for human-AI collaboration. California Management Review, 66(2), 44–64.

Kwon, S.-H., & Kim, J.-S. (2025). Relationship between participative decision-making and employees’ cognitive flexibility, creativity, and voice behavior. Behavioral Sciences, 15(1), Article 51. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15010051

Lam, S. S. K., & Schaubroeck, J. (2000). Improving group decisions through computer-mediated communication: An empirical study. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 157–183. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2000.2894

Lamb, J. (2024). Neurocognitive foundations of conflict and communication. Organizational Communication Review, 18(1), 45–62. Madrid, E. (2024). Root cause analysis and decision trees: Tools for problem solvers and decision makers. Texas Workforce Commission. https://tcall.tamu.edu/docs/FallInstitute2024/Day1/FI2024_Session9_RootCauseAnalysis-DecisionTree-Accessible.pdf

Lee, S. (2025). Understanding availability heuristic: A guide to risk communication. Number Analytics. https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/ultimate-guide-availability-heuristic-risk-communication

Lumen Learning. (2023). Principles of Management. Retrieved from Lumen Learning website at https://courses.lumenlearning.com

Manata, B. (2021). Investigating the impact of racial diversity in decision-making groups: The moderating role of relationship conflict. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 14(1), 40–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12173

Manning, J. (2008, March 26). Zippy Cheats & Tricks. The Oregonian.

March, J. G. (2010). Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning. Organization Science.

McKinsey & Company. (2023). The State of Decision Making in Organizations. Retrieved from McKinsey website at https://www.mckinsey.com

McKinsey & Company. (2023). The state of decision making in organizations. https://www.mckinsey.com

Miller, K., & Barbour, J. B. (2020). Organizational communication: Approaches and processes (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Miller, T. (2019). Explanation in artificial intelligence: Insights from the social sciences. Artificial Intelligence, 267, 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2018.07.007

Miner, F. C. (1984). Group versus individual decision making: An investigation of performance measures, decision strategies, and process losses/gains. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 33(1), 112–124.

Mohammed, S., & Ringseis, E. (2001). Cognitive diversity and consensus in group decision making: The role of inputs, processes, and outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85(2), 310–335.

Morgan, D. J., Pineles, L., Owczarzak, J., & Szymczak, J. E. (2021). Physician overestimation of disease probability: A systematic review. JAMA Internal Medicine, 181(6), 745–752.

Naisola-Ruiter, V. (2022). The Delphi technique: A tutorial. Research in Hospitality Management, 12(1), 91–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/22243534.2022.2080942

Neale, M. A., & Bazerman, M. H. (1985). The effects of framing and negotiator overconfidence on bargaining behaviors and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 28(1), 34–49.

Nikolopoulou, K. (2023). What is hindsight bias? Definition & examples. Scribbr. https://www.scribbr.com/research-bias/hindsight-bias/

Nikolopoulou, K. (2025). What is anchoring bias? Definition & examples. Scribbr. https://www.scribbr.com/research-bias/anchoring-bias/

Nikolopoulou, K. (2025). What is framing bias? Definition & examples. Scribbr. https://www.scribbr.com/research-bias/framing-bias/

Noorderhaven, N. G. (2007). Understanding trust: A cultural perspective. In M. J. Clegg & M. Kipping (Eds.), Trust and power in organizational relationships (pp. 23–42). Routledge.

Nunamaker, J. F., Dennis, A. R., Valacich, J. S., Vogel, D. R., & George, J. F. (1991). Electronic meeting systems to support group work. Communications of the ACM, 34(7), 40–61. https://doi.org/10.1145/105783.105787

Nutt, P. C. (1994). Types of organizational decision processes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(3), 414–450. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393039

Nutt, P. C. (1998). Framing strategic decisions. Organization Science, 9(2), 195–216. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.9.2.195

Nutt, P. C. (1999). Surprising but true: Half the decisions in organizations fail. Academy of Management Executive, 13(4), 75–90. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.1999.2570557

Nutt, P. C. (2002). Why decisions fail: Avoiding the blunders and traps that lead to debacles. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Onasanya, O. O. (2021). Communication and organizational conflict management. Research Journal of Management Practice, 1(5), 1–15. https://www.ijaar.org/articles/rjmp/v1n5/rjmp-v1n5-may21-p15526.pdf

Orkin, M. (1991). Can you win? The real odds for casino gambling, sports betting, and lotteries. W. H. Freeman.

Perara, A. (2023). Decision trees and flowcharts: Enhancing organizational decision-making. BusinessTech Weekly. https://www.businesstechweekly.com/operational-efficiency/digital-transformation/decision-making-tools/

Peterson, R. S. (1999). Can you have too much of a good thing? The limits of voice in decision-making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(1), 62–71.

Profit.co. . (2023). Bounded rationality – Limitations and examples. https://www.profit.co/blog/behavioral-economics/bounded-rationality-limitations-and-examples/

Putnam, L. L., Olekalns, M., Conlon, D. E., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2021). From the field to the laboratory: The theory‐practice research of Peter J. Carnevale. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 14(4), 343–362. https://doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12185

Qudrat-Ullah, H. (2025). Group decision-making and team collaboration. In Mastering decision-making in business and personal life (pp. 313–362). Springer.

Reimer, T., Johnson, N., & Loaiza-Ramírez, J. P. (2025). Group communication: An advanced introduction. Routledge.

Reynolds, A., & Lewis, D. (2022). The benefits of cognitive diversity in decision-making. Cloverpop Research.

Risely. (2023). The ultimate guide to intuitive decision making for managers. https://www.risely.me/intuitive-decision-making-pros-and-cons-and-4-models/

Roch, S. G. (2007). Why convene groups? A review of the literature on group decision-making accuracy. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 11(2), 101–115.

Sadler-Smith, E., & Sparrow, P. R. (2008). Intuition in organizational decision making. Academy of Management Perspectives, 22(1), 76–91. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2008.27805522

Salas, E., & Klein, G. (2001). Expertise and naturalistic decision making: Implications for training and simulation. In E. Salas & G. Klein (Eds.), Linking expertise and naturalistic decision making (pp. 3–17). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Scott, G., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2004). The effectiveness of creativity training: A quantitative review. Creativity Research Journal, 16(4), 361–388. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400410409534549

Scribbr. (2025). Anchoring bias: Why it matters in decision-making. https://www.scribbr.com/research-bias/anchoring-bias/

Scribbr. (2025). Hindsight bias: Why it matters in decision-making. https://www.scribbr.com/research-bias/hindsight-bias/

Scribbr. (2025). What is overconfidence bias? | Definition & examples. https://www.scribbr.com/research-bias/overconfidence-bias/

Shrestha, Y. R., Krishna, V., & von Krogh, G. (2021). Augmenting organizational decision-making with deep learning algorithms: Principles, promises, and challenges. Journal of Business Research, 123, 588–603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.09.068

Siemers, E. (2021, December 27). Federal agency threatens to pull back $37M in funds if Loop Trolley isn’t in operation by June. KSDK. https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/local/business-journal/federal-transit-administration-money-takeback-loop-trolley-delmar/63-08d66c63-fa4f-471d-9164-b46d1c52eb1b

Simon, H. A. (1947). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organizations. Free Press.

Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–118. https://doi.org/10.2307/1884852

Simons, T., Pelled, L. H., & Smith, K. A. (1999). Making use of difference: Diversity, debate, and decision comprehensiveness in top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 42(6), 662–673.

Sims, R. R., & Brinkmann, J. (2003). Enron ethics (or: Culture matters more than codes). Journal of Business Ethics, 45(3), 243–256. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024194519380

Study.com. . (2023). Creative decision-making model example. [2] Retrieved from https://Study.com

Tetlock, P. E., Peterson, R. S., McGuire, C., Chang, S., & Feld, P. (1992). Assessing political group dynamics: A test of the groupthink model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(3), 403–425. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.3.403

The rogue rebuttal. (2008, February 2). The Economist. https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2008/02/02/the-rogue-rebuttal

Tierney, P., Farmer, S. M., & Graen, G. B. (1999). An examination of leadership and employee creativity: The relevance of traits and relationships. Personnel Psychology, 52(3), 591–620. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1999.tb00173.x

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683

Vahedian-Shahroodi, M., Mansourzadeh, A., Shariat Moghani, S., & Saeidi, M. (2023). Using the nominal group technique in group decision-making: A review. Medical Education Bulletin, 4(4), 837–845. https://doi.org/10.22034/MEB.2024.434656.1090

Wittenbaum, G., Hollingshead, A. B., & Botero, I. C. (2004). From cooperative to motivated information sharing in groups: Moving beyond the hidden profile paradigm. Communication Monographs, 71(3), 286–310.

Wong, K. F. E., & Kwong, J. Y. Y. (2007). The role of anticipated regret in escalation of commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 545–554. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.545

Wright, G., & Goodwin, P. (2002). Eliminating framing bias in multiple criteria decision analysis by using decision trees. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 11(5–6), 251–256. https://doi.org/10.1002/mcda.343

Yao, J., Wang, J., Xing, R., & Lu, J. (2010). Group support systems: Tools for HR decision making. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 570, 400–409. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-570/

Young, K. (2025). Collaborative decision-making theory. Communication Theory.

Zell, D., Glassman, A. M., & Duron, S. (2007). Strategic management in turbulent times: The impact of organizational culture. Journal of Business Strategy, 28(1), 19–26. https://doi.org/10.1108/02756660710732622

License

Icon for the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

THRIVE 2025: Teamwork, Harmony, Resilience, Innovation, Vision, & Empathy: Organizational Communication Open Text Copyright © 2025 / 2023 / 2017 / 2010 by [Author removed at request of original publisher] is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book