tuation according to its characteristics.
There are three central questions we need to ask ourselves whenever we are about to make a managerial decision:

• Is it vital to make a decision, and if so - how urgent is it?
• What information is required in order to make a calculated choice, and when is it necessary to go ahead even with partial information?
• Who need to be a part of the decision-making process, and to what extent?

Let us demonstrate the use of the above questions through several examples:
Example A: The organization has grown and needs to be moved to a new office building. The Operations Manager is required to choose the location for the new building. His decision will probably have a direct influence on all departments, and it is desirable to make them a part of the process. This will often contribute to the quality of the decision (providing a more holistic view of the implicat

• What are the obstacles that hamper successful decision-making?
• What are the downsides of group decision-making?
• How does our management style affect the process of decision-making?
• And why is rational thinking overrated?

The following article discusses tools for the management of decision-making processes under changing conditions.

Decision-Making with Style

Try to recall an important decision which you were a part of in the past 6 months. Think of the most significant choice you had to make in your organization. How was this decision taken? Did the senior manger make the call after consulting with several assistants? Was it a majority rule? Was it a consensus decision? Were objective facts and information the driving force behind it, or intuitions and feelings? How long did it take to make the final decision?
Some of us tend to make our major decisions on our own, while others prefer to do it after hearing the opinions and exploring the options with others. We also differ in the time we take to make a decision, and in our need to base it on factual analysis or on intuition. In other words, each of us has a characteristic personal decision-making style.
The managerial decision-making style may be mapped using three axes:

• Decision-making speed: on the one end you have the impulsive decision-makers, who do no stop to consider the results of their choices, while on the other extreme you'll find those who postpone and avoid making any decision in fear of taking responsibility for it.
• Collection of information: to what extent does the manager base their decisions on an analysis of data as opposed to intuition and an internal compass.
• Sharing: the extent and manner by which managers involve and include others in the collection of information and in the making of the decision itself.

Usually, when we think of the first axis - decision-making speed - the common view about postponing a decision is negative ("How long must we wait for his decision?"). Indeed, some situations call for an early resolution before things get out of hand and a greater problem is faced. However, on other situations a hasty decision may very costly. In other cases things may be resolved by themselves (one may say that it is better "to decide not to decide" then).

The second and third axes (collection of information and sharing) provide a framework for describing five typical managerial decision makers:

• The Lone Wolf: this manager never consults with anyone and decides on everything by himself.
• The Surveyor: this type of manager does not hold a discussion before the decision, but rather samples the views of people involved (in a kind of referendum), and decides according to the majority view.
• The Authoritarian: this manager consults and listens to others to draw ideas and directions, but makes the final decision by himself.
• Semi-Democratic: this manager holds a discussion and strives for a collective decision, yet keeps the right of veto on certain decisions.
• Harmonic: this manager consults and reaches a common agreement, usually through a consensus (e.g. where others have the right of veto as well).

Flexible decision-making - according to the situation
In order to improve the quality of decision-making, we should begin by recognizing our typical decision-making style and that of our co-workers. In addition, as managers, we must understand that different situations call for different decision-making strategies and techniques. Therefore, we have to acquire new mechanisms for making decisions, so that we may choose the way we tackle a situation according to its characteristics.
There are three central questions we need to ask ourselves whenever we are about to make a managerial decision:

• Is it vital to make a decision, and if so - how urgent is it?
• What information is required in order to make a calculated choice, and when is it necessary to go ahead even with partial information?
• Who need to be a part of the decision-making process, and to what extent?

Let us demonstrate the use of the above questions through several examples:
Example A: The organization has grown and needs to be moved to a new office building. The Operations Manager is required to choose the location for the new building. His decision will probably have a direct influence on all departments, and it is desirable to make them a part of the process. This will often contribute to the quality of the decision (providing a more holistic view of the implicat

s prefer to do it after hearing the opinions and exploring the options with others. We also differ in the time we take to make a decision, and in our need to base it on factual analysis or on intuition. In other words, each of us has a characteristic personal decision-making style.
The managerial decision-making style may be mapped using three axes:

• Decision-making speed: on the one end you have the impulsive decision-makers, who do no stop to consider the results of their choices, while on the other extreme you'll find those who postpone and avoid making any decision in fear of taking responsibility for it.
• Collection of information: to what extent does the manager base their decisions on an analysis of data as opposed to intuition and an internal compass.
• Sharing: the extent and manner by which managers involve and include others in the collection of information and in the making of the decision itself.

Usually, when we think of the first axis - decision-making speed - the common view about postponing a decision is negative ("How long must we wait for his decision?"). Indeed, some situations call for an early resolution before things get out of hand and a greater problem is faced. However, on other situations a hasty decision may very costly. In other cases things may be resolved by themselves (one may say that it is better "to decide not to decide" then).

The second and third axes (collection of information and sharing) provide a framework for describing five typical managerial decision makers:

• The Lone Wolf: this manager never consults with anyone and decides on everything by himself.
• The Surveyor: this type of manager does not hold a discussion before the decision, but rather samples the views of people involved (in a kind of referendum), and decides according to the majority view.
• The Authoritarian: this manager consults and listens to others to draw ideas and directions, but makes the final decision by himself.
• Semi-Democratic: this manager holds a discussion and strives for a collective decision, yet keeps the right of veto on certain decisions.
• Harmonic: this manager consults and reaches a common agreement, usually through a consensus (e.g. where others have the right of veto as well).

Flexible decision-making - according to the situation
In order to improve the quality of decision-making, we should begin by recognizing our typical decision-making style and that of our co-workers. In addition, as managers, we must understand that different situations call for different decision-making strategies and techniques. Therefore, we have to acquire new mechanisms for making decisions, so that we may choose the way we tackle a situation according to its characteristics.
There are three central questions we need to ask ourselves whenever we are about to make a managerial decision:

• Is it vital to make a decision, and if so - how urgent is it?
• What information is required in order to make a calculated choice, and when is it necessary to go ahead even with partial information?
• Who need to be a part of the decision-making process, and to what extent?

Let us demonstrate the use of the above questions through several examples:
Example A: The organization has grown and needs to be moved to a new office building. The Operations Manager is required to choose the location for the new building. His decision will probably have a direct influence on all departments, and it is desirable to make them a part of the process. This will often contribute to the quality of the decision (providing a more holistic view of the implicat

sion itself.

Usually, when we think of the first axis - decision-making speed - the common view about postponing a decision is negative ("How long must we wait for his decision?"). Indeed, some situations call for an early resolution before things get out of hand and a greater problem is faced. However, on other situations a hasty decision may very costly. In other cases things may be resolved by themselves (one may say that it is better "to decide not to decide" then).

The second and third axes (collection of information and sharing) provide a framework for describing five typical managerial decision makers:

• The Lone Wolf: this manager never consults with anyone and decides on everything by himself.
• The Surveyor: this type of manager does not hold a discussion before the decision, but rather samples the views of people involved (in a kind of referendum), and decides according to the majority view.
• The Authoritarian: this manager consults and listens to others to draw ideas and directions, but makes the final decision by himself.
• Semi-Democratic: this manager holds a discussion and strives for a collective decision, yet keeps the right of veto on certain decisions.
• Harmonic: this manager consults and reaches a common agreement, usually through a consensus (e.g. where others have the right of veto as well).

Flexible decision-making - according to the situation
In order to improve the quality of decision-making, we should begin by recognizing our typical decision-making style and that of our co-workers. In addition, as managers, we must understand that different situations call for different decision-making strategies and techniques. Therefore, we have to acquire new mechanisms for making decisions, so that we may choose the way we tackle a situation according to its characteristics.
There are three central questions we need to ask ourselves whenever we are about to make a managerial decision:

• Is it vital to make a decision, and if so - how urgent is it?
• What information is required in order to make a calculated choice, and when is it necessary to go ahead even with partial information?
• Who need to be a part of the decision-making process, and to what extent?

Let us demonstrate the use of the above questions through several examples:
Example A: The organization has grown and needs to be moved to a new office building. The Operations Manager is required to choose the location for the new building. His decision will probably have a direct influence on all departments, and it is desirable to make them a part of the process. This will often contribute to the quality of the decision (providing a more holistic view of the implicat

view.

The Authoritarian: this manager consults and listens to others to draw ideas and directions, but makes the final decision by himself.

Semi-Democratic: this manager holds a discussion and strives for a collective decision, yet keeps the right of veto on certain decisions.

Harmonic: this manager consults and reaches a common agreement, usually through a consensus (e.g. where others have the right of veto as well).

Flexible decision-making - according to the situation
In order to improve the quality of decision-making, we should begin by recognizing our typical decision-making style and that of our co-workers. In addition, as managers, we must understand that different situations call for different decision-making strategies and techniques. Therefore, we have to acquire new mechanisms for making decisions, so that we may choose the way we tackle a situation according to its characteristics.
There are three central questions we need to ask ourselves whenever we are about to make a managerial decision:

• Is it vital to make a decision, and if so - how urgent is it?
• What information is required in order to make a calculated choice, and when is it necessary to go ahead even with partial information?
• Who need to be a part of the decision-making process, and to what extent?

Let us demonstrate the use of the above questions through several examples:
Example A: The organization has grown and needs to be moved to a new office building. The Operations Manager is required to choose the location for the new building. His decision will probably have a direct influence on all departments, and it is desirable to make them a part of the process. This will often contribute to the quality of the decision (providing a more holistic view of the implicat

tuation according to its characteristics.
There are three central questions we need to ask ourselves whenever we are about to make a managerial decision:

• Is it vital to make a decision, and if so - how urgent is it?
• What information is required in order to make a calculated choice, and when is it necessary to go ahead even with partial information?
• Who need to be a part of the decision-making process, and to what extent?

Let us demonstrate the use of the above questions through several examples:
Example A: The organization has grown and needs to be moved to a new office building. The Operations Manager is required to choose the location for the new building. His decision will probably have a direct influence on all departments, and it is desirable to make them a part of the process. This will often contribute to the quality of the decision (providing a more holistic view of the implications of the decision), and will also lower levels of resistance once the decision is made (as everyone had a chance to express their concerns and suggestions and where involved early in the process).
The decision does not seem to be an urgent one, as well. In such a scenario the Operations Manager may prepare initial information on available choices, costs, and considerations. Later - others may be made part of the decision buy presenting three or four acceptable options, to be decided by the majority. The Surveyor style is most appropriate.

Example B: One of your employees was caught stealing company equipment. Your decision will not directly affect other employees (they might learn from the way you handle the case). The best tactics in this case would be a thorough investigation of the facts, and if in fact the employee has committed the theft, it should be handled without delay and in an authoritarian manner - discharging the employee. It is advisable to consult with the HR department and the legal department, to make sure the dismissal adheres to all legal procedures.

Example C: You come across a significant business opportunity for your organization, but a quick response and action is needed in order to grab it. It is obvious that others will be influenced by the decision, and must therefore be a part of it. In order not to lose time you may call an urgent interdisciplinary meeting, collecting vital information from all participants before making a common and more balanced decision, taking into consideration the various risks and benefits. A group decision will also allow other the chance to agree and support the new business direction.

The Age of Rationality and its dangers

If we seek to improve the way we make decisions, understanding the situation and adopting the appropriate decision-making style is hardly enough. The crossroads in which we choose the directions to our future carry with them quite a few traps and obstacles that may fail us. Following is a discussion of some well-known pitfalls of decision-making processes, along with relevant tools and measures to face those dangers.
The modern age has seen the rise of rational thinking to a position of supremacy. This has gone so far as to lead to the illusion that human can and should try to be perfect decision-makers. The unequivocal belief in the rationality of man is based on the modern view of man, on western philosophy and on the rise and achievements of science in the past two centuries. However, there is still a lot of evidence of the limits of human rationality. We know of the limited ability to collect and process decision-related information, the subjective interpretation of facts, and the effects of personality and culture on decisions.
Consider, for instance, a meeting in which the participants have to make a certain decision. In most cases, they would voice arguments supporting different views, using logical explanations to support their point of view. The underlying meaning of making a decision in such a setting is that one explanation is logically correct while other arguments are logically false. This process fails to face the truth of limited information that participants have. It completely ignores the emotions and egos affecting the course of discussion.
One of the tools that are used in organizations to broaden the scope of thinking and decision-making is Edward De Bono's method of Six Thinking Hats. We used it in numerous organizational settings and training sessions as a tool for an effective and thorough discussion of complex issues. It helps map different aspects of the subject towards making a decision.
The principle of this method is to direct the thinking and the debate of all group members to six different thinking directions. Thus, the entire group moves forward in the same direction, ins