Factors That Shape Decisions and Three Approaches

A decision is rarely made on the merits alone. Several forces shape it: the decider’s past, her biases, her differences from others, what she cares about, and even the resources she has already invested. Once a decision needs to be made, three broad approaches are available: deciding alone, deciding as the leader for the team, or deciding as a group. Each has its place.

Five factors that shape decisions

The handout names five factors. Each one operates regardless of whether the decider is aware of it.

Past experiences

A person’s past experiences can affect future decisions. If the past decision was beneficial and positive, the individual is likely to make similar decisions in a similar situation. Contrarily, failures are unlikely to be repeated.

Past experience is the most influential factor for most decision makers. It is also the most invisible. A school head who hired the wrong deputy three years ago will be cautious in her next deputy hire. The caution is appropriate but can also tip into over-caution: she may pass over a strong candidate because of fears tied to the previous mistake.

A useful self-check: when deciding, ask which past experience is shaping the current decision. Sometimes the past is highly relevant. Sometimes it is not, and the past is interfering. Naming it lets the decider decide whether to use it.

Cognitive biases

Cognitive biases are systematic patterns of mistaken thinking. Decades of psychology research have catalogued them. The handout names four that matter most for decision makers.

Belief bias

Making decisions based on routine knowledge.

A school head accepts an argument because it sounds like what she already believes. The argument may be wrong; she does not check because it confirms her existing view.

Hindsight bias

To see an event as inevitable once it occurs.

After a programme fails, the school head thinks “I always knew that would fail”. This is hindsight bias. She did not know at the time; she would not have launched the programme if she had. Hindsight bias makes past mistakes feel obvious, which makes the decider over-confident about future predictions.

Omission bias

Risky information is excluded.

When weighing options, the decider unconsciously skips over the information that suggests her preferred option might fail. The decision proceeds as if the risks did not exist.

Confirmation bias

Examining what is expected from observations.

The decider seeks evidence that supports the option she already favours. Information against the favoured option is dismissed or not noticed.

Bias is the most uncomfortable of the factors because it operates without awareness. The standard mitigation is to invite disagreement. A school head who surrounds herself with people who agree with her will see her biases confirmed. A school head who includes a disagreement-friendly voice in major decisions catches more of her own biases.

Individual differences

Some of these individual differences that affect a decision are: age, socioeconomic status, educational background, cognitive abilities.

Different people decide differently. A younger principal may be more open to risk than an older one. A principal from a wealthy background may be less anxious about financial decisions than one from a modest background. A principal with a science background may quantify more than one with an arts background.

These differences are not flaws; they are perspectives. A team of similar people produces similar decisions. A team with different perspectives produces decisions that account for more angles.

Belief in personal relevance

People make decisions on something that they strongly believe in.

A school head is more likely to decide in favour of a programme she cares about. This is natural but can produce blind spots. A principal who is passionate about reading will champion reading programmes; she may overlook the school’s mathematics gap.

The mitigation is to deliberately make decisions outside one’s preferences sometimes. A reading-focused principal should still take seriously the case for investing in mathematics.

Escalation of commitment

Decision is influenced by allotting a huge amount of time, money and effort into the decision where people feel committed to.

This is the sunk-cost fallacy in another name. A school that has invested heavily in a programme is reluctant to cancel it, even when the programme is failing. The investment becomes a reason to keep going, even though the investment is gone regardless of what happens next.

A useful mental tool: when reviewing an ongoing programme, ask “if I were starting today, with what I know now, would I launch this programme?” If the answer is no, the right move may be to stop, regardless of how much has been spent.

Three approaches to deciding

Once a decision is needed, who decides? The handout names three approaches.

Individual decision making

Individual decision is based on personal values and preferences. Conflict of values and preferences may put decision making as challenging. Also difficult, if too dependent on others for a sound decision.

The decider decides alone. She consults internally with her own values and judgement.

Where individual decision making fits:

1. Decisions only she can make. Personal career choices. Confidential matters.
2. Small low-stakes decisions. Speed matters more than perfection.
3. Decisions in her own area of expertise. The team would not add value.

Where it fails:

1. Big decisions affecting many. The team should have a voice.
2. Decisions outside her expertise. Specialists would add value.
3. Decisions where buy-in matters. Solo decisions get compliance, not commitment.

Authoritarian decision making

The leader is the sole decision maker. The leader must ensure gathering sufficient knowledge to make the decision beneficial to the team, group, or organisation. The leader must explain the chosen alternative to the group in order to gain acceptance.

The leader decides but uses information from others. The decision is hers, but she has done the work to inform it.

Where authoritarian fits:

1. Time-pressured situations. No time for group process.
2. The leader has to own the outcome. Accountability sits with her regardless.
3. The team would not converge. Differences of opinion would produce paralysis.

The handout’s important point: the leader must explain the decision. Authoritarian decision making is not the same as no consultation. Information is gathered. Reasoning is explained. The team understands the decision even if they did not make it.

Without the explanation, authoritarian decisions feel arbitrary. The team complies but resents. With the explanation, the team can accept the decision even when they disagree.

Group decision making

Also known as consensus. Members brainstorm and share ideas, talk over the matters, make and then implement the agreed decision. Usually more effective as everyone takes accountability for the outcome.

The group decides together. The leader is part of the group, not above it.

Where group fits:

1. The team has relevant expertise. Their input improves the decision.
2. Implementation needs buy-in. A decision the team helped make is one they will work to implement.
3. The decision is complex. Multiple perspectives help.

Where it fails:

1. Crisis. No time for group process.
2. Strong disagreement. Group decisions can become a vote that splits the team.
3. Low team capability. A weak team can produce a poor consensus.

How to choose the approach

A school head can ask, for each decision:

1. How urgent is this? Tight time pushes toward individual or authoritarian.
2. How important is buy-in? High buy-in needs pushes toward group.
3. Do others have relevant expertise? Yes pushes toward group or authoritarian with consultation.
4. What is the stake of being wrong? High stakes deserve careful process, which usually means group.

A useful default: most major decisions in a school benefit from at least some group process. Most minor ones do not need it. A school head who treats every decision as if it needs group consensus exhausts her staff. A school head who treats every decision as individual misses important input.

Flashcard

What are the three approaches to decision making and when does each fit?

Tap to reveal

Answer

Individual, Authoritarian, Group.

1. Individual. The leader decides alone. Fits small or personal decisions in her expertise.

2. Authoritarian. The leader decides after gathering information and explains the reasoning. Fits time-pressured situations where she carries accountability.

3. Group. The team decides together by consensus. Fits complex decisions where expertise and buy-in matter.

A school head should match the approach to the decision. Urgent decisions tend toward individual or authoritarian. Important decisions affecting many people tend toward group. The skill is choosing the approach deliberately rather than defaulting to whichever feels natural.