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

Five factors can shape a decision. Each one operates regardless of whether the decider is aware of it.

Past experiences

Past experiences shape future decisions. If a past decision worked, the decider is likely to repeat it in a similar situation. If it failed, the decider tends to avoid it.

For many decision makers, past experience is the most powerful of these factors. 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. Four matter most for decision makers.

Belief bias

Belief bias is judging an argument by how believable its conclusion sounds, rather than by whether the logic is valid.

A teacher argues: “All top students use the library, Sarah uses the library, so Sarah must be a top student.” The logic is weak, but a principal might accept it because the conclusion sounds plausible. The plausible conclusion masks the broken reasoning.

Hindsight bias

Hindsight bias is seeing an event as inevitable once it has occurred.

After a programme fails, the school head thinks “I always knew that would fail”. 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

Omission bias is judging harmful actions as worse than equally harmful inactions.

A principal might see actively transferring a struggling student as worse than failing to enrol that student in a needed support programme, even when both lead to the same outcome. The bias prefers harm through inaction over harm through action.

Confirmation bias

Confirmation bias is seeking evidence that fits what you already expect.

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

Age, socioeconomic status, educational background, and cognitive abilities all shape how a person decides.

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 are more likely to decide for the things 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

When a lot of time, money, or effort has gone into a decision, people feel committed to continue it, even when the evidence says stop.

Escalation of commitment is driven by the sunk-cost fallacy: the tendency to weigh what has already been spent rather than what will happen next. 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? Three broad approaches are available.

Individual decision making

Individual decision making is one person deciding based on personal values and preferences. Conflicting values can make this hard, and too much dependence on others to make the call also breaks it down.

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

In authoritarian decision making the leader is the sole decision maker. She gathers enough information to make the decision useful to the team and then explains the chosen alternative to the group to gain their 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 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

Group decision making has several forms; consensus, where members discuss until they reach shared agreement, is the most common in school settings. Members brainstorm and share ideas, talk through the matter, agree on a decision, and implement it together. It can be more effective when the team has relevant expertise and when buy-in matters for implementation.

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?

Tap to reveal

Answer

Individual, Authoritarian, Group.

• Individual: the leader decides alone.
• Authoritarian: the leader decides after gathering information and explains the reasoning.
• Group: the team decides together by consensus.

The second card pins down when the group approach is the right pick.

Flashcard

When should a school head use group decision making instead of deciding alone?

Tap to reveal

Answer

When team expertise is relevant and buy-in matters for implementation.

Group decision making fits complex decisions, decisions outside the leader’s expertise, and decisions the team will need to carry out. It is a poor fit for crisis decisions or when strong disagreement would split the team.