conclusion for problem solving and decision making

Problem Solving And Decision Making: 10 Hacks That Managers Love

Understanding problem solving & decision making, why are problem solving and decision making skills essential in the workplace, five techniques for effective problem solving, five techniques for effective decision making, frequently asked questions.

Other Related Blogs

• Improved efficiency and productivity: Employees with strong problem solving and decision making skills are better equipped to identify and solve issues that may arise in their work. This leads to improved efficiency and productivity as they can complete their work more timely and effectively.
• Improved customer satisfaction: Problem solving and decision making skills also help employees address any concerns or issues customers may have. This leads to enhanced customer satisfaction as customers feel their needs are being addressed and their problems are resolved.
• Effective teamwork: When working in teams, problem solving and decision making skills are essential for effective collaboration . Groups that can effectively identify and solve problems together are more likely to successfully achieve their goals.
• Innovation: Effective problem-solving and decision-making skills are also crucial for driving innovation in the workplace. Employees who think creatively and develop new solutions to problems are more likely to develop innovative ideas to move the business forward.
• Risk management: Problem solving and decision making skills are also crucial for managing risk in the workplace. By identifying potential risks and developing strategies to mitigate them, employees can help minimize the negative impact of risks on the business.

• Brainstorming: Brainstorming is a technique for generating creative ideas and solutions to problems. In a brainstorming session, a group of people share their thoughts and build on each other’s suggestions. The goal is to generate a large number of ideas in a short amount of time. For example, a team of engineers could use brainstorming to develop new ideas for improving the efficiency of a manufacturing process.
• Root Cause Analysis: Root cause analysis is a technique for identifying the underlying cause of a problem. It involves asking “why” questions to uncover the root cause of the problem. Once the root cause is identified, steps can be taken to address it. For example, a hospital could use root cause analysis to investigate why patient falls occur and identify the root cause, such as inadequate staffing or poor lighting.
• SWOT Analysis: SWOT analysis is a technique for evaluating the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats related to a problem or situation. It involves assessing internal and external factors that could impact the problem and identifying ways to leverage strengths and opportunities while minimizing weaknesses and threats. For example, a small business could use SWOT analysis to evaluate its market position and identify opportunities to expand its product line or improve its marketing.
• Pareto Analysis: Pareto analysis is a technique for identifying the most critical problems to address. It involves ranking problems by impact and frequency and first focusing on the most significant issues. For example, a software development team could use Pareto analysis to prioritize bugs and issues to fix based on their impact on the user experience.
• Decision Matrix Analysis: Decision matrix analysis evaluates alternatives and selects the best course of action. It involves creating a matrix to compare options based on criteria and weighting factors and selecting the option with the highest score. For example, a manager could use decision matrix analysis to evaluate different software vendors based on criteria such as price, features, and support and select the vendor with the best overall score.

• Cost-Benefit Analysis: Cost-benefit analysis is a technique for evaluating the costs and benefits of different options. It involves comparing each option’s expected costs and benefits and selecting the one with the highest net benefit. For example, a company could use cost-benefit analysis to evaluate a new product line’s potential return on investment.
• Decision Trees: Decision trees are a visual representation of the decision-making process. They involve mapping out different options and their potential outcomes and probabilities. This helps to identify the best course of action based on the likelihood of different outcomes. For example, a farmer could use a decision tree to choose crops to plant based on the expected weather patterns.
• SWOT Analysis: SWOT analysis can also be used for decision making. By identifying the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of different options, a decision maker can evaluate each option’s potential risks and benefits. For example, a business owner could use SWOT analysis to assess the potential risks and benefits of expanding into a new market.
• Pros and Cons Analysis: Pros and cons analysis lists the advantages and disadvantages of different options. It involves weighing the pros and cons of each option to determine the best course of action. For example, an individual could use a pros and cons analysis to decide whether to take a job offer.
• Six Thinking Hats: The six thinking hats technique is a way to think about a problem from different perspectives. It involves using six different “hats” to consider various aspects of the decision. The hats include white (facts and figures), red (emotions and feelings), black (risks and drawbacks), yellow (benefits and opportunities), green (creativity and new ideas), and blue (overview and control). For example, a team could use the six thinking hats technique to evaluate different options for a marketing campaign.

Aastha Bensla

Aastha, a passionate industrial psychologist, writer, and counselor, brings her unique expertise to Risely. With specialized knowledge in industrial psychology, Aastha offers a fresh perspective on personal and professional development. Her broad experience as an industrial psychologist enables her to accurately understand and solve problems for managers and leaders with an empathetic approach.

How strong are your decision making skills?

Find out now with the help of Risely’s free assessment for leaders and team managers.

How are problem solving and decision making related?

What is a good example of decision-making, what are the steps in problem-solving and decision-making.

Best Decision Coaches To Guide You Toward Great Choices

Top 10 games for negotiation skills to make you a better leader, 9 tips to master the art of delegation for managers, how to develop the 8 conceptual skills every manager needs.

• Get started with computers
• Learn Microsoft Office
• Apply for a job
• Improve my work skills
• Design nice-looking docs
• Getting Started
• Smartphones & Tablets
• Typing Tutorial
• Online Learning
• Basic Internet Skills
• Online Safety
• Social Media
• Zoom Basics
• Google Docs
• Google Sheets
• Career Planning
• Resume Writing
• Cover Letters
• Job Search and Networking
• Business Communication
• Entrepreneurship 101
• Careers without College
• Job Hunt for Today
• 3D Printing
• Freelancing 101
• Personal Finance
• Sharing Economy
• Decision-Making
• Graphic Design
• Photography
• Image Editing
• Learning WordPress
• Language Learning
• Critical Thinking
• For Educators
• Translations
• Staff Picks
• English expand_more expand_less

Critical Thinking and Decision-Making  - What is Critical Thinking?

Critical thinking and decision-making  -, what is critical thinking, critical thinking and decision-making what is critical thinking.

Critical Thinking and Decision-Making: What is Critical Thinking?

Lesson 1: what is critical thinking, what is critical thinking.

Critical thinking is a term that gets thrown around a lot. You've probably heard it used often throughout the years whether it was in school, at work, or in everyday conversation. But when you stop to think about it, what exactly is critical thinking and how do you do it ?

Watch the video below to learn more about critical thinking.

Simply put, critical thinking is the act of deliberately analyzing information so that you can make better judgements and decisions . It involves using things like logic, reasoning, and creativity, to draw conclusions and generally understand things better.

This may sound like a pretty broad definition, and that's because critical thinking is a broad skill that can be applied to so many different situations. You can use it to prepare for a job interview, manage your time better, make decisions about purchasing things, and so much more.

The process

As humans, we are constantly thinking . It's something we can't turn off. But not all of it is critical thinking. No one thinks critically 100% of the time... that would be pretty exhausting! Instead, it's an intentional process , something that we consciously use when we're presented with difficult problems or important decisions.

Improving your critical thinking

In order to become a better critical thinker, it's important to ask questions when you're presented with a problem or decision, before jumping to any conclusions. You can start with simple ones like What do I currently know? and How do I know this? These can help to give you a better idea of what you're working with and, in some cases, simplify more complex issues.  

Real-world applications

Let's take a look at how we can use critical thinking to evaluate online information . Say a friend of yours posts a news article on social media and you're drawn to its headline. If you were to use your everyday automatic thinking, you might accept it as fact and move on. But if you were thinking critically, you would first analyze the available information and ask some questions :

• What's the source of this article?
• Is the headline potentially misleading?
• What are my friend's general beliefs?
• Do their beliefs inform why they might have shared this?

After analyzing all of this information, you can draw a conclusion about whether or not you think the article is trustworthy.

Critical thinking has a wide range of real-world applications . It can help you to make better decisions, become more hireable, and generally better understand the world around you.

/en/problem-solving-and-decision-making/why-is-it-so-hard-to-make-decisions/content/

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

14.3 Problem Solving and Decision Making in Groups

Learning objectives.

• Discuss the common components and characteristics of problems.
• Explain the five steps of the group problem-solving process.
• Describe the brainstorming and discussion that should take place before the group makes a decision.
• Compare and contrast the different decision-making techniques.
• Discuss the various influences on decision making.

Although the steps of problem solving and decision making that we will discuss next may seem obvious, we often don’t think to or choose not to use them. Instead, we start working on a problem and later realize we are lost and have to backtrack. I’m sure we’ve all reached a point in a project or task and had the “OK, now what?” moment. I’ve recently taken up some carpentry projects as a functional hobby, and I have developed a great respect for the importance of advanced planning. It’s frustrating to get to a crucial point in building or fixing something only to realize that you have to unscrew a support board that you already screwed in, have to drive back to the hardware store to get something that you didn’t think to get earlier, or have to completely start over. In this section, we will discuss the group problem-solving process, methods of decision making, and influences on these processes.

Group Problem Solving

The problem-solving process involves thoughts, discussions, actions, and decisions that occur from the first consideration of a problematic situation to the goal. The problems that groups face are varied, but some common problems include budgeting funds, raising funds, planning events, addressing customer or citizen complaints, creating or adapting products or services to fit needs, supporting members, and raising awareness about issues or causes.

Problems of all sorts have three common components (Adams & Galanes, 2009):

• An undesirable situation. When conditions are desirable, there isn’t a problem.
• A desired situation. Even though it may only be a vague idea, there is a drive to better the undesirable situation. The vague idea may develop into a more precise goal that can be achieved, although solutions are not yet generated.
• Obstacles between undesirable and desirable situation. These are things that stand in the way between the current situation and the group’s goal of addressing it. This component of a problem requires the most work, and it is the part where decision making occurs. Some examples of obstacles include limited funding, resources, personnel, time, or information. Obstacles can also take the form of people who are working against the group, including people resistant to change or people who disagree.

Discussion of these three elements of a problem helps the group tailor its problem-solving process, as each problem will vary. While these three general elements are present in each problem, the group should also address specific characteristics of the problem. Five common and important characteristics to consider are task difficulty, number of possible solutions, group member interest in problem, group member familiarity with problem, and the need for solution acceptance (Adams & Galanes, 2009).

• Task difficulty. Difficult tasks are also typically more complex. Groups should be prepared to spend time researching and discussing a difficult and complex task in order to develop a shared foundational knowledge. This typically requires individual work outside of the group and frequent group meetings to share information.
• Number of possible solutions. There are usually multiple ways to solve a problem or complete a task, but some problems have more potential solutions than others. Figuring out how to prepare a beach house for an approaching hurricane is fairly complex and difficult, but there are still a limited number of things to do—for example, taping and boarding up windows; turning off water, electricity, and gas; trimming trees; and securing loose outside objects. Other problems may be more creatively based. For example, designing a new restaurant may entail using some standard solutions but could also entail many different types of innovation with layout and design.
• Group member interest in problem. When group members are interested in the problem, they will be more engaged with the problem-solving process and invested in finding a quality solution. Groups with high interest in and knowledge about the problem may want more freedom to develop and implement solutions, while groups with low interest may prefer a leader who provides structure and direction.
• Group familiarity with problem. Some groups encounter a problem regularly, while other problems are more unique or unexpected. A family who has lived in hurricane alley for decades probably has a better idea of how to prepare its house for a hurricane than does a family that just recently moved from the Midwest. Many groups that rely on funding have to revisit a budget every year, and in recent years, groups have had to get more creative with budgets as funding has been cut in nearly every sector. When group members aren’t familiar with a problem, they will need to do background research on what similar groups have done and may also need to bring in outside experts.
• Need for solution acceptance. In this step, groups must consider how many people the decision will affect and how much “buy-in” from others the group needs in order for their solution to be successfully implemented. Some small groups have many stakeholders on whom the success of a solution depends. Other groups are answerable only to themselves. When a small group is planning on building a new park in a crowded neighborhood or implementing a new policy in a large business, it can be very difficult to develop solutions that will be accepted by all. In such cases, groups will want to poll those who will be affected by the solution and may want to do a pilot implementation to see how people react. Imposing an excellent solution that doesn’t have buy-in from stakeholders can still lead to failure.

Group problem solving can be a confusing puzzle unless it is approached systematically.

Muness Castle – Problem Solving – CC BY-SA 2.0.

Group Problem-Solving Process

There are several variations of similar problem-solving models based on US American scholar John Dewey’s reflective thinking process (Bormann & Bormann, 1988). As you read through the steps in the process, think about how you can apply what we learned regarding the general and specific elements of problems. Some of the following steps are straightforward, and they are things we would logically do when faced with a problem. However, taking a deliberate and systematic approach to problem solving has been shown to benefit group functioning and performance. A deliberate approach is especially beneficial for groups that do not have an established history of working together and will only be able to meet occasionally. Although a group should attend to each step of the process, group leaders or other group members who facilitate problem solving should be cautious not to dogmatically follow each element of the process or force a group along. Such a lack of flexibility could limit group member input and negatively affect the group’s cohesion and climate.

Step 1: Define the Problem

Define the problem by considering the three elements shared by every problem: the current undesirable situation, the goal or more desirable situation, and obstacles in the way (Adams & Galanes, 2009). At this stage, group members share what they know about the current situation, without proposing solutions or evaluating the information. Here are some good questions to ask during this stage: What is the current difficulty? How did we come to know that the difficulty exists? Who/what is involved? Why is it meaningful/urgent/important? What have the effects been so far? What, if any, elements of the difficulty require clarification? At the end of this stage, the group should be able to compose a single sentence that summarizes the problem called a problem statement . Avoid wording in the problem statement or question that hints at potential solutions. A small group formed to investigate ethical violations of city officials could use the following problem statement: “Our state does not currently have a mechanism for citizens to report suspected ethical violations by city officials.”

Step 2: Analyze the Problem

During this step a group should analyze the problem and the group’s relationship to the problem. Whereas the first step involved exploring the “what” related to the problem, this step focuses on the “why.” At this stage, group members can discuss the potential causes of the difficulty. Group members may also want to begin setting out an agenda or timeline for the group’s problem-solving process, looking forward to the other steps. To fully analyze the problem, the group can discuss the five common problem variables discussed before. Here are two examples of questions that the group formed to address ethics violations might ask: Why doesn’t our city have an ethics reporting mechanism? Do cities of similar size have such a mechanism? Once the problem has been analyzed, the group can pose a problem question that will guide the group as it generates possible solutions. “How can citizens report suspected ethical violations of city officials and how will such reports be processed and addressed?” As you can see, the problem question is more complex than the problem statement, since the group has moved on to more in-depth discussion of the problem during step 2.

Step 3: Generate Possible Solutions

During this step, group members generate possible solutions to the problem. Again, solutions should not be evaluated at this point, only proposed and clarified. The question should be what could we do to address this problem, not what should we do to address it. It is perfectly OK for a group member to question another person’s idea by asking something like “What do you mean?” or “Could you explain your reasoning more?” Discussions at this stage may reveal a need to return to previous steps to better define or more fully analyze a problem. Since many problems are multifaceted, it is necessary for group members to generate solutions for each part of the problem separately, making sure to have multiple solutions for each part. Stopping the solution-generating process prematurely can lead to groupthink. For the problem question previously posed, the group would need to generate solutions for all three parts of the problem included in the question. Possible solutions for the first part of the problem (How can citizens report ethical violations?) may include “online reporting system, e-mail, in-person, anonymously, on-the-record,” and so on. Possible solutions for the second part of the problem (How will reports be processed?) may include “daily by a newly appointed ethics officer, weekly by a nonpartisan nongovernment employee,” and so on. Possible solutions for the third part of the problem (How will reports be addressed?) may include “by a newly appointed ethics commission, by the accused’s supervisor, by the city manager,” and so on.

Step 4: Evaluate Solutions

During this step, solutions can be critically evaluated based on their credibility, completeness, and worth. Once the potential solutions have been narrowed based on more obvious differences in relevance and/or merit, the group should analyze each solution based on its potential effects—especially negative effects. Groups that are required to report the rationale for their decision or whose decisions may be subject to public scrutiny would be wise to make a set list of criteria for evaluating each solution. Additionally, solutions can be evaluated based on how well they fit with the group’s charge and the abilities of the group. To do this, group members may ask, “Does this solution live up to the original purpose or mission of the group?” and “Can the solution actually be implemented with our current resources and connections?” and “How will this solution be supported, funded, enforced, and assessed?” Secondary tensions and substantive conflict, two concepts discussed earlier, emerge during this step of problem solving, and group members will need to employ effective critical thinking and listening skills.

Decision making is part of the larger process of problem solving and it plays a prominent role in this step. While there are several fairly similar models for problem solving, there are many varied decision-making techniques that groups can use. For example, to narrow the list of proposed solutions, group members may decide by majority vote, by weighing the pros and cons, or by discussing them until a consensus is reached. There are also more complex decision-making models like the “six hats method,” which we will discuss later. Once the final decision is reached, the group leader or facilitator should confirm that the group is in agreement. It may be beneficial to let the group break for a while or even to delay the final decision until a later meeting to allow people time to evaluate it outside of the group context.

Step 5: Implement and Assess the Solution

Implementing the solution requires some advanced planning, and it should not be rushed unless the group is operating under strict time restraints or delay may lead to some kind of harm. Although some solutions can be implemented immediately, others may take days, months, or years. As was noted earlier, it may be beneficial for groups to poll those who will be affected by the solution as to their opinion of it or even to do a pilot test to observe the effectiveness of the solution and how people react to it. Before implementation, groups should also determine how and when they would assess the effectiveness of the solution by asking, “How will we know if the solution is working or not?” Since solution assessment will vary based on whether or not the group is disbanded, groups should also consider the following questions: If the group disbands after implementation, who will be responsible for assessing the solution? If the solution fails, will the same group reconvene or will a new group be formed?

Once a solution has been reached and the group has the “green light” to implement it, it should proceed deliberately and cautiously, making sure to consider possible consequences and address them as needed.

Jocko Benoit – Prodigal Light – CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

Certain elements of the solution may need to be delegated out to various people inside and outside the group. Group members may also be assigned to implement a particular part of the solution based on their role in the decision making or because it connects to their area of expertise. Likewise, group members may be tasked with publicizing the solution or “selling” it to a particular group of stakeholders. Last, the group should consider its future. In some cases, the group will get to decide if it will stay together and continue working on other tasks or if it will disband. In other cases, outside forces determine the group’s fate.

“Getting Competent”

Problem Solving and Group Presentations

Giving a group presentation requires that individual group members and the group as a whole solve many problems and make many decisions. Although having more people involved in a presentation increases logistical difficulties and has the potential to create more conflict, a well-prepared and well-delivered group presentation can be more engaging and effective than a typical presentation. The main problems facing a group giving a presentation are (1) dividing responsibilities, (2) coordinating schedules and time management, and (3) working out the logistics of the presentation delivery.

In terms of dividing responsibilities, assigning individual work at the first meeting and then trying to fit it all together before the presentation (which is what many college students do when faced with a group project) is not the recommended method. Integrating content and visual aids created by several different people into a seamless final product takes time and effort, and the person “stuck” with this job at the end usually ends up developing some resentment toward his or her group members. While it’s OK for group members to do work independently outside of group meetings, spend time working together to help set up some standards for content and formatting expectations that will help make later integration of work easier. Taking the time to complete one part of the presentation together can help set those standards for later individual work. Discuss the roles that various group members will play openly so there isn’t role confusion. There could be one point person for keeping track of the group’s progress and schedule, one point person for communication, one point person for content integration, one point person for visual aids, and so on. Each person shouldn’t do all that work on his or her own but help focus the group’s attention on his or her specific area during group meetings (Stanton, 2009).

Scheduling group meetings is one of the most challenging problems groups face, given people’s busy lives. From the beginning, it should be clearly communicated that the group needs to spend considerable time in face-to-face meetings, and group members should know that they may have to make an occasional sacrifice to attend. Especially important is the commitment to scheduling time to rehearse the presentation. Consider creating a contract of group guidelines that includes expectations for meeting attendance to increase group members’ commitment.

Group presentations require members to navigate many logistics of their presentation. While it may be easier for a group to assign each member to create a five-minute segment and then transition from one person to the next, this is definitely not the most engaging method. Creating a master presentation and then assigning individual speakers creates a more fluid and dynamic presentation and allows everyone to become familiar with the content, which can help if a person doesn’t show up to present and during the question-and-answer section. Once the content of the presentation is complete, figure out introductions, transitions, visual aids, and the use of time and space (Stanton, 2012). In terms of introductions, figure out if one person will introduce all the speakers at the beginning, if speakers will introduce themselves at the beginning, or if introductions will occur as the presentation progresses. In terms of transitions, make sure each person has included in his or her speaking notes when presentation duties switch from one person to the next. Visual aids have the potential to cause hiccups in a group presentation if they aren’t fluidly integrated. Practicing with visual aids and having one person control them may help prevent this. Know how long your presentation is and know how you’re going to use the space. Presenters should know how long the whole presentation should be and how long each of their segments should be so that everyone can share the responsibility of keeping time. Also consider the size and layout of the presentation space. You don’t want presenters huddled in a corner until it’s their turn to speak or trapped behind furniture when their turn comes around.

• Of the three main problems facing group presenters, which do you think is the most challenging and why?
• Why do you think people tasked with a group presentation (especially students) prefer to divide the parts up and have members work on them independently before coming back together and integrating each part? What problems emerge from this method? In what ways might developing a master presentation and then assigning parts to different speakers be better than the more divided method? What are the drawbacks to the master presentation method?

Decision Making in Groups

We all engage in personal decision making daily, and we all know that some decisions are more difficult than others. When we make decisions in groups, we face some challenges that we do not face in our personal decision making, but we also stand to benefit from some advantages of group decision making (Napier & Gershenfeld, 2004). Group decision making can appear fair and democratic but really only be a gesture that covers up the fact that certain group members or the group leader have already decided. Group decision making also takes more time than individual decisions and can be burdensome if some group members do not do their assigned work, divert the group with self-centered or unproductive role behaviors, or miss meetings. Conversely, though, group decisions are often more informed, since all group members develop a shared understanding of a problem through discussion and debate. The shared understanding may also be more complex and deep than what an individual would develop, because the group members are exposed to a variety of viewpoints that can broaden their own perspectives. Group decisions also benefit from synergy, one of the key advantages of group communication that we discussed earlier. Most groups do not use a specific method of decision making, perhaps thinking that they’ll work things out as they go. This can lead to unequal participation, social loafing, premature decisions, prolonged discussion, and a host of other negative consequences. So in this section we will learn some practices that will prepare us for good decision making and some specific techniques we can use to help us reach a final decision.

Brainstorming before Decision Making

Before groups can make a decision, they need to generate possible solutions to their problem. The most commonly used method is brainstorming, although most people don’t follow the recommended steps of brainstorming. As you’ll recall, brainstorming refers to the quick generation of ideas free of evaluation. The originator of the term brainstorming said the following four rules must be followed for the technique to be effective (Osborn, 1959):

• Evaluation of ideas is forbidden.
• Wild and crazy ideas are encouraged.
• Quantity of ideas, not quality, is the goal.
• New combinations of ideas presented are encouraged.

To make brainstorming more of a decision-making method rather than an idea-generating method, group communication scholars have suggested additional steps that precede and follow brainstorming (Cragan & Wright, 1991).

• Do a warm-up brainstorming session. Some people are more apprehensive about publicly communicating their ideas than others are, and a warm-up session can help ease apprehension and prime group members for task-related idea generation. The warm-up can be initiated by anyone in the group and should only go on for a few minutes. To get things started, a person could ask, “If our group formed a band, what would we be called?” or “What other purposes could a mailbox serve?” In the previous examples, the first warm up gets the group’s more abstract creative juices flowing, while the second focuses more on practical and concrete ideas.
• Do the actual brainstorming session. This session shouldn’t last more than thirty minutes and should follow the four rules of brainstorming mentioned previously. To ensure that the fourth rule is realized, the facilitator could encourage people to piggyback off each other’s ideas.
• Eliminate duplicate ideas. After the brainstorming session is over, group members can eliminate (without evaluating) ideas that are the same or very similar.
• Clarify, organize, and evaluate ideas. Before evaluation, see if any ideas need clarification. Then try to theme or group ideas together in some orderly fashion. Since “wild and crazy” ideas are encouraged, some suggestions may need clarification. If it becomes clear that there isn’t really a foundation to an idea and that it is too vague or abstract and can’t be clarified, it may be eliminated. As a caution though, it may be wise to not throw out off-the-wall ideas that are hard to categorize and to instead put them in a miscellaneous or “wild and crazy” category.

Discussion before Decision Making

The nominal group technique guides decision making through a four-step process that includes idea generation and evaluation and seeks to elicit equal contributions from all group members (Delbecq & Ven de Ven, 1971). This method is useful because the procedure involves all group members systematically, which fixes the problem of uneven participation during discussions. Since everyone contributes to the discussion, this method can also help reduce instances of social loafing. To use the nominal group technique, do the following:

• Silently and individually list ideas.
• Create a master list of ideas.
• Clarify ideas as needed.
• Take a secret vote to rank group members’ acceptance of ideas.

During the first step, have group members work quietly, in the same space, to write down every idea they have to address the task or problem they face. This shouldn’t take more than twenty minutes. Whoever is facilitating the discussion should remind group members to use brainstorming techniques, which means they shouldn’t evaluate ideas as they are generated. Ask group members to remain silent once they’ve finished their list so they do not distract others.

During the second step, the facilitator goes around the group in a consistent order asking each person to share one idea at a time. As the idea is shared, the facilitator records it on a master list that everyone can see. Keep track of how many times each idea comes up, as that could be an idea that warrants more discussion. Continue this process until all the ideas have been shared. As a note to facilitators, some group members may begin to edit their list or self-censor when asked to provide one of their ideas. To limit a person’s apprehension with sharing his or her ideas and to ensure that each idea is shared, I have asked group members to exchange lists with someone else so they can share ideas from the list they receive without fear of being personally judged.

During step three, the facilitator should note that group members can now ask for clarification on ideas on the master list. Do not let this discussion stray into evaluation of ideas. To help avoid an unnecessarily long discussion, it may be useful to go from one person to the next to ask which ideas need clarifying and then go to the originator(s) of the idea in question for clarification.

During the fourth step, members use a voting ballot to rank the acceptability of the ideas on the master list. If the list is long, you may ask group members to rank only their top five or so choices. The facilitator then takes up the secret ballots and reviews them in a random order, noting the rankings of each idea. Ideally, the highest ranked idea can then be discussed and decided on. The nominal group technique does not carry a group all the way through to the point of decision; rather, it sets the group up for a roundtable discussion or use of some other method to evaluate the merits of the top ideas.

Specific Decision-Making Techniques

Some decision-making techniques involve determining a course of action based on the level of agreement among the group members. These methods include majority, expert, authority, and consensus rule. Table 14.1 “Pros and Cons of Agreement-Based Decision-Making Techniques” reviews the pros and cons of each of these methods.

Majority rule is a simple method of decision making based on voting. In most cases a majority is considered half plus one.

Becky McCray – Voting – CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

Majority rule is a commonly used decision-making technique in which a majority (one-half plus one) must agree before a decision is made. A show-of-hands vote, a paper ballot, or an electronic voting system can determine the majority choice. Many decision-making bodies, including the US House of Representatives, Senate, and Supreme Court, use majority rule to make decisions, which shows that it is often associated with democratic decision making, since each person gets one vote and each vote counts equally. Of course, other individuals and mediated messages can influence a person’s vote, but since the voting power is spread out over all group members, it is not easy for one person or party to take control of the decision-making process. In some cases—for example, to override a presidential veto or to amend the constitution—a super majority of two-thirds may be required to make a decision.

Minority rule is a decision-making technique in which a designated authority or expert has final say over a decision and may or may not consider the input of other group members. When a designated expert makes a decision by minority rule, there may be buy-in from others in the group, especially if the members of the group didn’t have relevant knowledge or expertise. When a designated authority makes decisions, buy-in will vary based on group members’ level of respect for the authority. For example, decisions made by an elected authority may be more accepted by those who elected him or her than by those who didn’t. As with majority rule, this technique can be time saving. Unlike majority rule, one person or party can have control over the decision-making process. This type of decision making is more similar to that used by monarchs and dictators. An obvious negative consequence of this method is that the needs or wants of one person can override the needs and wants of the majority. A minority deciding for the majority has led to negative consequences throughout history. The white Afrikaner minority that ruled South Africa for decades instituted apartheid, which was a system of racial segregation that disenfranchised and oppressed the majority population. The quality of the decision and its fairness really depends on the designated expert or authority.

Consensus rule is a decision-making technique in which all members of the group must agree on the same decision. On rare occasions, a decision may be ideal for all group members, which can lead to unanimous agreement without further debate and discussion. Although this can be positive, be cautious that this isn’t a sign of groupthink. More typically, consensus is reached only after lengthy discussion. On the plus side, consensus often leads to high-quality decisions due to the time and effort it takes to get everyone in agreement. Group members are also more likely to be committed to the decision because of their investment in reaching it. On the negative side, the ultimate decision is often one that all group members can live with but not one that’s ideal for all members. Additionally, the process of arriving at consensus also includes conflict, as people debate ideas and negotiate the interpersonal tensions that may result.

Table 14.1 Pros and Cons of Agreement-Based Decision-Making Techniques

“Getting Critical”

Six Hats Method of Decision Making

Edward de Bono developed the Six Hats method of thinking in the late 1980s, and it has since become a regular feature in decision-making training in business and professional contexts (de Bono, 1985). The method’s popularity lies in its ability to help people get out of habitual ways of thinking and to allow group members to play different roles and see a problem or decision from multiple points of view. The basic idea is that each of the six hats represents a different way of thinking, and when we figuratively switch hats, we switch the way we think. The hats and their style of thinking are as follows:

• White hat. Objective—focuses on seeking information such as data and facts and then processes that information in a neutral way.
• Red hat. Emotional—uses intuition, gut reactions, and feelings to judge information and suggestions.
• Black hat. Negative—focuses on potential risks, points out possibilities for failure, and evaluates information cautiously and defensively.
• Yellow hat. Positive—is optimistic about suggestions and future outcomes, gives constructive and positive feedback, points out benefits and advantages.
• Green hat. Creative—tries to generate new ideas and solutions, thinks “outside the box.”
• Blue hat. Philosophical—uses metacommunication to organize and reflect on the thinking and communication taking place in the group, facilitates who wears what hat and when group members change hats.

Specific sequences or combinations of hats can be used to encourage strategic thinking. For example, the group leader may start off wearing the Blue Hat and suggest that the group start their decision-making process with some “White Hat thinking” in order to process through facts and other available information. During this stage, the group could also process through what other groups have done when faced with a similar problem. Then the leader could begin an evaluation sequence starting with two minutes of “Yellow Hat thinking” to identify potential positive outcomes, then “Black Hat thinking” to allow group members to express reservations about ideas and point out potential problems, then “Red Hat thinking” to get people’s gut reactions to the previous discussion, then “Green Hat thinking” to identify other possible solutions that are more tailored to the group’s situation or completely new approaches. At the end of a sequence, the Blue Hat would want to summarize what was said and begin a new sequence. To successfully use this method, the person wearing the Blue Hat should be familiar with different sequences and plan some of the thinking patterns ahead of time based on the problem and the group members. Each round of thinking should be limited to a certain time frame (two to five minutes) to keep the discussion moving.

• This decision-making method has been praised because it allows group members to “switch gears” in their thinking and allows for role playing, which lets people express ideas more freely. How can this help enhance critical thinking? Which combination of hats do you think would be best for a critical thinking sequence?
• What combinations of hats might be useful if the leader wanted to break the larger group up into pairs and why? For example, what kind of thinking would result from putting Yellow and Red together, Black and White together, or Red and White together, and so on?
• Based on your preferred ways of thinking and your personality, which hat would be the best fit for you? Which would be the most challenging? Why?

Influences on Decision Making

Many factors influence the decision-making process. For example, how might a group’s independence or access to resources affect the decisions they make? What potential advantages and disadvantages come with decisions made by groups that are more or less similar in terms of personality and cultural identities? In this section, we will explore how situational, personality, and cultural influences affect decision making in groups.

Situational Influences on Decision Making

A group’s situational context affects decision making. One key situational element is the degree of freedom that the group has to make its own decisions, secure its own resources, and initiate its own actions. Some groups have to go through multiple approval processes before they can do anything, while others are self-directed, self-governing, and self-sustaining. Another situational influence is uncertainty. In general, groups deal with more uncertainty in decision making than do individuals because of the increased number of variables that comes with adding more people to a situation. Individual group members can’t know what other group members are thinking, whether or not they are doing their work, and how committed they are to the group. So the size of a group is a powerful situational influence, as it adds to uncertainty and complicates communication.

Access to information also influences a group. First, the nature of the group’s task or problem affects its ability to get information. Group members can more easily make decisions about a problem when other groups have similarly experienced it. Even if the problem is complex and serious, the group can learn from other situations and apply what it learns. Second, the group must have access to flows of information. Access to archives, electronic databases, and individuals with relevant experience is necessary to obtain any relevant information about similar problems or to do research on a new or unique problem. In this regard, group members’ formal and information network connections also become important situational influences.

The urgency of a decision can have a major influence on the decision-making process. As a situation becomes more urgent, it requires more specific decision-making methods and types of communication.

Judith E. Bell – Urgent – CC BY-SA 2.0.

The origin and urgency of a problem are also situational factors that influence decision making. In terms of origin, problems usually occur in one of four ways:

• Something goes wrong. Group members must decide how to fix or stop something. Example—a firehouse crew finds out that half of the building is contaminated with mold and must be closed down.
• Expectations change or increase. Group members must innovate more efficient or effective ways of doing something. Example—a firehouse crew finds out that the district they are responsible for is being expanded.
• Something goes wrong and expectations change or increase. Group members must fix/stop and become more efficient/effective. Example—the firehouse crew has to close half the building and must start responding to more calls due to the expanding district.
• The problem existed from the beginning. Group members must go back to the origins of the situation and walk through and analyze the steps again to decide what can be done differently. Example—a firehouse crew has consistently had to work with minimal resources in terms of building space and firefighting tools.

In each of the cases, the need for a decision may be more or less urgent depending on how badly something is going wrong, how high the expectations have been raised, or the degree to which people are fed up with a broken system. Decisions must be made in situations ranging from crisis level to mundane.

Personality Influences on Decision Making

A long-studied typology of value orientations that affect decision making consists of the following types of decision maker: the economic, the aesthetic, the theoretical, the social, the political, and the religious (Spranger, 1928).

• The economic decision maker makes decisions based on what is practical and useful.
• The aesthetic decision maker makes decisions based on form and harmony, desiring a solution that is elegant and in sync with the surroundings.
• The theoretical decision maker wants to discover the truth through rationality.
• The social decision maker emphasizes the personal impact of a decision and sympathizes with those who may be affected by it.
• The political decision maker is interested in power and influence and views people and/or property as divided into groups that have different value.
• The religious decision maker seeks to identify with a larger purpose, works to unify others under that goal, and commits to a viewpoint, often denying one side and being dedicated to the other.

In the United States, economic, political, and theoretical decision making tend to be more prevalent decision-making orientations, which likely corresponds to the individualistic cultural orientation with its emphasis on competition and efficiency. But situational context, as we discussed before, can also influence our decision making.

Personality affects decision making. For example, “economic” decision makers decide based on what is practical and useful.

One Way Stock – Tough Decisions Ahead – CC BY-ND 2.0.

The personalities of group members, especially leaders and other active members, affect the climate of the group. Group member personalities can be categorized based on where they fall on a continuum anchored by the following descriptors: dominant/submissive, friendly/unfriendly, and instrumental/emotional (Cragan & Wright, 1999). The more group members there are in any extreme of these categories, the more likely that the group climate will also shift to resemble those characteristics.

• Dominant versus submissive. Group members that are more dominant act more independently and directly, initiate conversations, take up more space, make more direct eye contact, seek leadership positions, and take control over decision-making processes. More submissive members are reserved, contribute to the group only when asked to, avoid eye contact, and leave their personal needs and thoughts unvoiced or give into the suggestions of others.
• Friendly versus unfriendly. Group members on the friendly side of the continuum find a balance between talking and listening, don’t try to win at the expense of other group members, are flexible but not weak, and value democratic decision making. Unfriendly group members are disagreeable, indifferent, withdrawn, and selfish, which leads them to either not invest in decision making or direct it in their own interest rather than in the interest of the group.
• Instrumental versus emotional. Instrumental group members are emotionally neutral, objective, analytical, task-oriented, and committed followers, which leads them to work hard and contribute to the group’s decision making as long as it is orderly and follows agreed-on rules. Emotional group members are creative, playful, independent, unpredictable, and expressive, which leads them to make rash decisions, resist group norms or decision-making structures, and switch often from relational to task focus.

Cultural Context and Decision Making

Just like neighborhoods, schools, and countries, small groups vary in terms of their degree of similarity and difference. Demographic changes in the United States and increases in technology that can bring different people together make it more likely that we will be interacting in more and more heterogeneous groups (Allen, 2011). Some small groups are more homogenous, meaning the members are more similar, and some are more heterogeneous, meaning the members are more different. Diversity and difference within groups has advantages and disadvantages. In terms of advantages, research finds that, in general, groups that are culturally heterogeneous have better overall performance than more homogenous groups (Haslett & Ruebush, 1999). Additionally, when group members have time to get to know each other and competently communicate across their differences, the advantages of diversity include better decision making due to different perspectives (Thomas, 1999). Unfortunately, groups often operate under time constraints and other pressures that make the possibility for intercultural dialogue and understanding difficult. The main disadvantage of heterogeneous groups is the possibility for conflict, but given that all groups experience conflict, this isn’t solely due to the presence of diversity. We will now look more specifically at how some of the cultural value orientations we’ve learned about already in this book can play out in groups with international diversity and how domestic diversity in terms of demographics can also influence group decision making.

International Diversity in Group Interactions

Cultural value orientations such as individualism/collectivism, power distance, and high-/low-context communication styles all manifest on a continuum of communication behaviors and can influence group decision making. Group members from individualistic cultures are more likely to value task-oriented, efficient, and direct communication. This could manifest in behaviors such as dividing up tasks into individual projects before collaboration begins and then openly debating ideas during discussion and decision making. Additionally, people from cultures that value individualism are more likely to openly express dissent from a decision, essentially expressing their disagreement with the group. Group members from collectivistic cultures are more likely to value relationships over the task at hand. Because of this, they also tend to value conformity and face-saving (often indirect) communication. This could manifest in behaviors such as establishing norms that include periods of socializing to build relationships before task-oriented communication like negotiations begin or norms that limit public disagreement in favor of more indirect communication that doesn’t challenge the face of other group members or the group’s leader. In a group composed of people from a collectivistic culture, each member would likely play harmonizing roles, looking for signs of conflict and resolving them before they become public.

Power distance can also affect group interactions. Some cultures rank higher on power-distance scales, meaning they value hierarchy, make decisions based on status, and believe that people have a set place in society that is fairly unchangeable. Group members from high-power-distance cultures would likely appreciate a strong designated leader who exhibits a more directive leadership style and prefer groups in which members have clear and assigned roles. In a group that is homogenous in terms of having a high-power-distance orientation, members with higher status would be able to openly provide information, and those with lower status may not provide information unless a higher status member explicitly seeks it from them. Low-power-distance cultures do not place as much value and meaning on status and believe that all group members can participate in decision making. Group members from low-power-distance cultures would likely freely speak their mind during a group meeting and prefer a participative leadership style.

How much meaning is conveyed through the context surrounding verbal communication can also affect group communication. Some cultures have a high-context communication style in which much of the meaning in an interaction is conveyed through context such as nonverbal cues and silence. Group members from high-context cultures may avoid saying something directly, assuming that other group members will understand the intended meaning even if the message is indirect. So if someone disagrees with a proposed course of action, he or she may say, “Let’s discuss this tomorrow,” and mean, “I don’t think we should do this.” Such indirect communication is also a face-saving strategy that is common in collectivistic cultures. Other cultures have a low-context communication style that places more importance on the meaning conveyed through words than through context or nonverbal cues. Group members from low-context cultures often say what they mean and mean what they say. For example, if someone doesn’t like an idea, they might say, “I think we should consider more options. This one doesn’t seem like the best we can do.”

In any of these cases, an individual from one culture operating in a group with people of a different cultural orientation could adapt to the expectations of the host culture, especially if that person possesses a high degree of intercultural communication competence (ICC). Additionally, people with high ICC can also adapt to a group member with a different cultural orientation than the host culture. Even though these cultural orientations connect to values that affect our communication in fairly consistent ways, individuals may exhibit different communication behaviors depending on their own individual communication style and the situation.

Domestic Diversity and Group Communication

While it is becoming more likely that we will interact in small groups with international diversity, we are guaranteed to interact in groups that are diverse in terms of the cultural identities found within a single country or the subcultures found within a larger cultural group.

Gender stereotypes sometimes influence the roles that people play within a group. For example, the stereotype that women are more nurturing than men may lead group members (both male and female) to expect that women will play the role of supporters or harmonizers within the group. Since women have primarily performed secretarial work since the 1900s, it may also be expected that women will play the role of recorder. In both of these cases, stereotypical notions of gender place women in roles that are typically not as valued in group communication. The opposite is true for men. In terms of leadership, despite notable exceptions, research shows that men fill an overwhelmingly disproportionate amount of leadership positions. We are socialized to see certain behaviors by men as indicative of leadership abilities, even though they may not be. For example, men are often perceived to contribute more to a group because they tend to speak first when asked a question or to fill a silence and are perceived to talk more about task-related matters than relationally oriented matters. Both of these tendencies create a perception that men are more engaged with the task. Men are also socialized to be more competitive and self-congratulatory, meaning that their communication may be seen as dedicated and their behaviors seen as powerful, and that when their work isn’t noticed they will be more likely to make it known to the group rather than take silent credit. Even though we know that the relational elements of a group are crucial for success, even in high-performance teams, that work is not as valued in our society as the task-related work.

Despite the fact that some communication patterns and behaviors related to our typical (and stereotypical) gender socialization affect how we interact in and form perceptions of others in groups, the differences in group communication that used to be attributed to gender in early group communication research seem to be diminishing. This is likely due to the changing organizational cultures from which much group work emerges, which have now had more than sixty years to adjust to women in the workplace. It is also due to a more nuanced understanding of gender-based research, which doesn’t take a stereotypical view from the beginning as many of the early male researchers did. Now, instead of biological sex being assumed as a factor that creates inherent communication differences, group communication scholars see that men and women both exhibit a range of behaviors that are more or less feminine or masculine. It is these gendered behaviors, and not a person’s gender, that seem to have more of an influence on perceptions of group communication. Interestingly, group interactions are still masculinist in that male and female group members prefer a more masculine communication style for task leaders and that both males and females in this role are more likely to adapt to a more masculine communication style. Conversely, men who take on social-emotional leadership behaviors adopt a more feminine communication style. In short, it seems that although masculine communication traits are more often associated with high status positions in groups, both men and women adapt to this expectation and are evaluated similarly (Haslett & Ruebush, 1999).

Other demographic categories are also influential in group communication and decision making. In general, group members have an easier time communicating when they are more similar than different in terms of race and age. This ease of communication can make group work more efficient, but the homogeneity may sacrifice some creativity. As we learned earlier, groups that are diverse (e.g., they have members of different races and generations) benefit from the diversity of perspectives in terms of the quality of decision making and creativity of output.

In terms of age, for the first time since industrialization began, it is common to have three generations of people (and sometimes four) working side by side in an organizational setting. Although four generations often worked together in early factories, they were segregated based on their age group, and a hierarchy existed with older workers at the top and younger workers at the bottom. Today, however, generations interact regularly, and it is not uncommon for an older person to have a leader or supervisor who is younger than him or her (Allen, 2011). The current generations in the US workplace and consequently in work-based groups include the following:

• The Silent Generation. Born between 1925 and 1942, currently in their midsixties to mideighties, this is the smallest generation in the workforce right now, as many have retired or left for other reasons. This generation includes people who were born during the Great Depression or the early part of World War II, many of whom later fought in the Korean War (Clarke, 1970).
• The Baby Boomers. Born between 1946 and 1964, currently in their late forties to midsixties, this is the largest generation in the workforce right now. Baby boomers are the most populous generation born in US history, and they are working longer than previous generations, which means they will remain the predominant force in organizations for ten to twenty more years.
• Generation X. Born between 1965 and 1981, currently in their early thirties to midforties, this generation was the first to see technology like cell phones and the Internet make its way into classrooms and our daily lives. Compared to previous generations, “Gen-Xers” are more diverse in terms of race, religious beliefs, and sexual orientation and also have a greater appreciation for and understanding of diversity.
• Generation Y. Born between 1982 and 2000, “Millennials” as they are also called are currently in their late teens up to about thirty years old. This generation is not as likely to remember a time without technology such as computers and cell phones. They are just starting to enter into the workforce and have been greatly affected by the economic crisis of the late 2000s, experiencing significantly high unemployment rates.

The benefits and challenges that come with diversity of group members are important to consider. Since we will all work in diverse groups, we should be prepared to address potential challenges in order to reap the benefits. Diverse groups may be wise to coordinate social interactions outside of group time in order to find common ground that can help facilitate interaction and increase group cohesion. We should be sensitive but not let sensitivity create fear of “doing something wrong” that then prevents us from having meaningful interactions. Reviewing Chapter 8 “Culture and Communication” will give you useful knowledge to help you navigate both international and domestic diversity and increase your communication competence in small groups and elsewhere.

Key Takeaways

• Every problem has common components: an undesirable situation, a desired situation, and obstacles between the undesirable and desirable situations. Every problem also has a set of characteristics that vary among problems, including task difficulty, number of possible solutions, group member interest in the problem, group familiarity with the problem, and the need for solution acceptance.

The group problem-solving process has five steps:

• Define the problem by creating a problem statement that summarizes it.
• Analyze the problem and create a problem question that can guide solution generation.
• Generate possible solutions. Possible solutions should be offered and listed without stopping to evaluate each one.
• Evaluate the solutions based on their credibility, completeness, and worth. Groups should also assess the potential effects of the narrowed list of solutions.
• Implement and assess the solution. Aside from enacting the solution, groups should determine how they will know the solution is working or not.
• Before a group makes a decision, it should brainstorm possible solutions. Group communication scholars suggest that groups (1) do a warm-up brainstorming session; (2) do an actual brainstorming session in which ideas are not evaluated, wild ideas are encouraged, quantity not quality of ideas is the goal, and new combinations of ideas are encouraged; (3) eliminate duplicate ideas; and (4) clarify, organize, and evaluate ideas. In order to guide the idea-generation process and invite equal participation from group members, the group may also elect to use the nominal group technique.
• Common decision-making techniques include majority rule, minority rule, and consensus rule. With majority rule, only a majority, usually one-half plus one, must agree before a decision is made. With minority rule, a designated authority or expert has final say over a decision, and the input of group members may or may not be invited or considered. With consensus rule, all members of the group must agree on the same decision.

Several factors influence the decision-making process:

• Situational factors include the degree of freedom a group has to make its own decisions, the level of uncertainty facing the group and its task, the size of the group, the group’s access to information, and the origin and urgency of the problem.
• Personality influences on decision making include a person’s value orientation (economic, aesthetic, theoretical, political, or religious), and personality traits (dominant/submissive, friendly/unfriendly, and instrumental/emotional).
• Cultural influences on decision making include the heterogeneity or homogeneity of the group makeup; cultural values and characteristics such as individualism/collectivism, power distance, and high-/low-context communication styles; and gender and age differences.
• Scenario 1. Task difficulty is high, number of possible solutions is high, group interest in problem is high, group familiarity with problem is low, and need for solution acceptance is high.
• Scenario 2. Task difficulty is low, number of possible solutions is low, group interest in problem is low, group familiarity with problem is high, and need for solution acceptance is low.
• Scenario 1: Academic. A professor asks his or her class to decide whether the final exam should be an in-class or take-home exam.
• Scenario 2: Professional. A group of coworkers must decide which person from their department to nominate for a company-wide award.
• Scenario 3: Personal. A family needs to decide how to divide the belongings and estate of a deceased family member who did not leave a will.
• Scenario 4: Civic. A local branch of a political party needs to decide what five key issues it wants to include in the national party’s platform.
• Group communication researchers have found that heterogeneous groups (composed of diverse members) have advantages over homogenous (more similar) groups. Discuss a group situation you have been in where diversity enhanced your and/or the group’s experience.

Adams, K., and Gloria G. Galanes, Communicating in Groups: Applications and Skills , 7th ed. (Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill, 2009), 220–21.

Allen, B. J., Difference Matters: Communicating Social Identity , 2nd ed. (Long Grove, IL: Waveland, 2011), 5.

Bormann, E. G., and Nancy C. Bormann, Effective Small Group Communication , 4th ed. (Santa Rosa, CA: Burgess CA, 1988), 112–13.

Clarke, G., “The Silent Generation Revisited,” Time, June 29, 1970, 46.

Cragan, J. F., and David W. Wright, Communication in Small Group Discussions: An Integrated Approach , 3rd ed. (St. Paul, MN: West Publishing, 1991), 77–78.

de Bono, E., Six Thinking Hats (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, 1985).

Delbecq, A. L., and Andrew H. Ven de Ven, “A Group Process Model for Problem Identification and Program Planning,” The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 7, no. 4 (1971): 466–92.

Haslett, B. B., and Jenn Ruebush, “What Differences Do Individual Differences in Groups Make?: The Effects of Individuals, Culture, and Group Composition,” in The Handbook of Group Communication Theory and Research , ed. Lawrence R. Frey (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1999), 133.

Napier, R. W., and Matti K. Gershenfeld, Groups: Theory and Experience , 7th ed. (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 2004), 292.

Osborn, A. F., Applied Imagination (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1959).

Spranger, E., Types of Men (New York: Steckert, 1928).

Stanton, C., “How to Deliver Group Presentations: The Unified Team Approach,” Six Minutes Speaking and Presentation Skills , November 3, 2009, accessed August 28, 2012, http://sixminutes.dlugan.com/group-presentations-unified-team-approach .

Thomas, D. C., “Cultural Diversity and Work Group Effectiveness: An Experimental Study,” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 30, no. 2 (1999): 242–63.

Communication in the Real World Copyright © 2016 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Decision Making vs. Problem Solving

What's the difference.

Decision making and problem solving are two closely related concepts that are essential in both personal and professional settings. While decision making refers to the process of selecting the best course of action among various alternatives, problem solving involves identifying and resolving issues or obstacles that hinder progress towards a desired outcome. Decision making often involves evaluating different options based on their potential outcomes and consequences, while problem solving requires analyzing the root causes of a problem and developing effective strategies to overcome it. Both skills require critical thinking, creativity, and the ability to weigh pros and cons. Ultimately, decision making and problem solving are interconnected and complementary processes that enable individuals to navigate complex situations and achieve desired goals.

Further Detail

Introduction.

Decision making and problem solving are two essential cognitive processes that individuals and organizations engage in to navigate through various challenges and achieve desired outcomes. While they are distinct processes, decision making and problem solving share several attributes and are often interconnected. In this article, we will explore the similarities and differences between decision making and problem solving, highlighting their key attributes and how they contribute to effective problem-solving and decision-making processes.

Definition and Purpose

Decision making involves selecting a course of action from multiple alternatives based on available information, preferences, and goals. It is a cognitive process that individuals use to make choices and reach conclusions. On the other hand, problem solving refers to the process of finding solutions to specific issues or challenges. It involves identifying, analyzing, and resolving problems to achieve desired outcomes.

Both decision making and problem solving share the purpose of achieving a desired outcome or resolving a particular situation. They require individuals to think critically, evaluate options, and consider potential consequences. While decision making focuses on choosing the best course of action, problem solving emphasizes finding effective solutions to specific problems or challenges.

Attributes of Decision Making

Decision making involves several key attributes that contribute to its effectiveness:

• Rationality: Decision making is often based on rational thinking, where individuals evaluate available information, weigh pros and cons, and make logical choices.
• Subjectivity: Decision making is influenced by personal preferences, values, and biases. Individuals may prioritize certain factors or options based on their subjective judgment.
• Uncertainty: Many decisions are made under conditions of uncertainty, where individuals lack complete information or face unpredictable outcomes. Decision makers must assess risks and make informed judgments.
• Time Constraints: Decision making often occurs within time constraints, requiring individuals to make choices efficiently and effectively.
• Trade-offs: Decision making involves considering trade-offs between different options, as individuals must prioritize certain factors or outcomes over others.

Attributes of Problem Solving

Problem solving also encompasses several key attributes that contribute to its effectiveness:

• Analytical Thinking: Problem solving requires individuals to analyze and break down complex problems into smaller components, facilitating a deeper understanding of the issue at hand.
• Creativity: Effective problem solving often involves thinking outside the box and generating innovative solutions. It requires individuals to explore alternative perspectives and consider unconventional approaches.
• Collaboration: Problem solving can benefit from collaboration and teamwork, as diverse perspectives and expertise can contribute to more comprehensive and effective solutions.
• Iterative Process: Problem solving is often an iterative process, where individuals continuously evaluate and refine their solutions based on feedback and new information.
• Implementation: Problem solving is not complete without implementing the chosen solution. Individuals must take action and monitor the outcomes to ensure the problem is effectively resolved.

Interconnection and Overlap

While decision making and problem solving are distinct processes, they are interconnected and often overlap. Decision making is frequently a part of the problem-solving process, as individuals must make choices and select the most appropriate solution to address a specific problem. Similarly, problem solving is inherent in decision making, as individuals must identify and analyze problems or challenges before making informed choices.

Moreover, both decision making and problem solving require critical thinking skills, the ability to evaluate information, and the consideration of potential consequences. They both involve a systematic approach to gather and analyze relevant data, explore alternatives, and assess the potential risks and benefits of different options.

Decision making and problem solving are fundamental cognitive processes that individuals and organizations engage in to navigate through challenges and achieve desired outcomes. While decision making focuses on selecting the best course of action, problem solving emphasizes finding effective solutions to specific problems or challenges. Both processes share attributes such as rationality, subjectivity, uncertainty, time constraints, and trade-offs (in decision making), as well as analytical thinking, creativity, collaboration, iterative process, and implementation (in problem solving).

Understanding the similarities and differences between decision making and problem solving can enhance our ability to approach complex situations effectively. By leveraging the attributes of both processes, individuals and organizations can make informed choices, address challenges, and achieve desired outcomes.

Comparisons may contain inaccurate information about people, places, or facts. Please report any issues.

SLO campus power restored at 8:13am

• Cuesta College Home
• Current Students
• Student Success Centers

Study Guides

• Critical Thinking

Decision-making and Problem-solving

Appreciate the complexities involved in decision-making & problem solving.

Develop evidence to support views

Analyze situations carefully

Discuss subjects in an organized way

Predict the consequences of actions

Weigh alternatives

Generate and organize ideas

Form and apply concepts

Design systematic plans of action

A 5-Step Problem-Solving Strategy

Specify the problem – a first step to solving a problem is to identify it as specifically as possible.  It involves evaluating the present state and determining how it differs from the goal state.

Analyze the problem – analyzing the problem involves learning as much as you can about it.  It may be necessary to look beyond the obvious, surface situation, to stretch your imagination and reach for more creative options.

seek other perspectives

be flexible in your analysis

consider various strands of impact

brainstorm about all possibilities and implications

research problems for which you lack complete information. Get help.

Formulate possible solutions – identify a wide range of possible solutions.

try to think of all possible solutions

be creative

consider similar problems and how you have solved them

Evaluate possible solutions – weigh the advantages and disadvantages of each solution.  Think through each solution and consider how, when, and where you could accomplish each.  Consider both immediate and long-term results.  Mapping your solutions can be helpful at this stage.

Choose a solution – consider 3 factors:

compatibility with your priorities

amount of risk

practicality

Keys to Problem Solving

Think aloud – problem solving is a cognitive, mental process.  Thinking aloud or talking yourself through the steps of problem solving is useful.  Hearing yourself think can facilitate the process.

Allow time for ideas to "gel" or consolidate.  If time permits, give yourself time for solutions to develop.  Distance from a problem can allow you to clear your mind and get a new perspective.

Talk about the problem – describing the problem to someone else and talking about it can often make a problem become more clear and defined so that a new solution will surface.

Decision Making Strategies

Decision making is a process of identifying and evaluating choices.  We make numerous decisions every day and our decisions may range from routine, every-day types of decisions to those decisions which will have far reaching impacts.  The types of decisions we make are routine, impulsive, and reasoned.  Deciding what to eat for breakfast is a routine decision; deciding to do or buy something at the last minute is considered an impulsive decision; and choosing your college major is, hopefully, a reasoned decision.  College coursework often requires you to make the latter, or reasoned decisions.

Decision making has much in common with problem solving.  In problem solving you identify and evaluate solution paths; in decision making you make a similar discovery and evaluation of alternatives.  The crux of decision making, then, is the careful identification and evaluation of alternatives.  As you weigh alternatives, use the following suggestions:

Consider the outcome each is likely to produce, in both the short term and the long term.

Compare alternatives based on how easily you can accomplish each.

Evaluate possible negative side effects each may produce.

Consider the risk involved in each.

Be creative, original; don't eliminate alternatives because you have not heard or used them before.

An important part of decision making is to predict both short-term and long-term outcomes for each alternative.  You may find that while an alternative seems most desirable at the present, it may pose problems or complications over a longer time period.

• Uses of Critical Thinking
• Critically Evaluating the Logic and Validity of Information
• Recognizing Propaganda Techniques and Errors of Faulty Logic
• Developing the Ability to Analyze Historical and Contemporary Information
• Recognize and Value Various Viewpoints
• Appreciating the Complexities Involved in Decision-Making and Problem-Solving
• Being a Responsible Critical Thinker & Collaborating with Others
• Suggestions
• Read the Textbook
• When to Take Notes
• 10 Steps to Tests
• Studying for Exams
• Test-Taking Errors
• Test Anxiety
• Objective Tests
• Essay Tests
• The Reading Process
• Levels of Comprehension
• Strengthen Your Reading Comprehension
• Reading Rate
• How to Read a Textbook
• Organizational Patterns of a Paragraph
• Topics, Main Ideas, and Support
• Inferences and Conclusions
• Interpreting What You Read
• Concentrating and Remembering
• Converting Words into Pictures
• Spelling and the Dictionary
• Eight Essential Spelling Rules
• Exceptions to the Rules
• Motivation and Goal Setting
• Effective Studying
• Time Management
• Listening and Note-Taking
• Memory and Learning Styles
• Textbook Reading Strategies
• Memory Tips
• Test-Taking Strategies
• The First Step
• Study System
• Maximize Comprehension
• Different Reading Modes
• Paragraph Patterns
• An Effective Strategy
• Finding the Main Idea
• Read a Medical Text
• Read in the Sciences
• Read University Level
• Textbook Study Strategies
• The Origin of Words
• Using a Dictionary
• Interpreting a Dictionary Entry
• Structure Analysis
• Common Roots
• Word Relationships
• Using Word Relationships
• Context Clues
• The Importance of Reading
• Vocabulary Analogies
• Guide to Talking with Instructors
• Writing Help

Miossi Art Gallery Presents Annual Student Art Showcase

Cuesta college's book of the year presents acclaimed author myriam gurba, cuesta college nursing students host senior wellness fair.

The priority deadlines for the 2024-2025 FAFSA  and CADAA have moved to May 2nd, 2024

Visit the Financial Aid website for more information

How it works

For Business

Join Mind Tools

Article • 4 min read

Critical Decision-Making Techniques

An overview of some decision making tools.

By the Mind Tools Content Team

Critical thinking is the mental process that individuals go through to reach an answer or a conclusion. The critical thinking process can be a valuable tool in problem-solving and decision-making. Here we look at some of the techniques involved.

Critical thinking is essentially the process of taking information gathered through day-to-day activities such as observation, reflection and reasoning, and, using personal experience and beliefs, analyzing and applying that information to a given situation. Critical thinking tends to be used in conjunction with creative thinking, where the ideas and processes themselves are generated. Critical thinking can then be used to interpret, assess and evaluate these ideas and processes.

Critical Decision-Making Characteristics

When faced with a difficult or complicated decision, there are a number of characteristics found in those who approach the process critically.

• Truth seeking. The process of critical decision-making requires a desire for the best possible knowledge or outcome, even if, as a result, personal preconceptions, beliefs or self-interests are undermined.
• Open-minded. Successful critical decision-makers are tolerant to divergent views, and are aware of possible bias in their thought process.
• Analytical. The decision-making process is necessarily analytical. The application of reason and evidence, remaining alert to problematic situations and being able to anticipate potential consequences are all important.
• Systematic. Organization, focus and diligence when approaching decisions of all levels of complexity are beneficial to the critical decision-maker.
• Self-Confidence. When using critical thinking as a decision-making tool, the user must have a high level of trust in their personal reasoning.
• Inquisitive. A natural curiosity and eagerness to acquire knowledge and seek explanations will help to ensure the decision is made using as much relevant information as can be found.

In addition to these characteristics, critical decision-making requires a certain level of cognitive maturity. The user will be aware of the importance of prudence in making, suspending, or revising their original judgment, and will have an awareness that multiple solutions can be acceptable.

As well as developing the characteristics above, there are a number of techniques which will aid in critical decision-making.

Argument Mapping

Argument mapping is, roughly, making a picture of reasoning. Typically, argument maps are box and arrow diagrams, a bit like flowcharts. Belonging to the same family as mind mapping, argument mapping focuses specifically on the structure of a reason or argument, Argument mapping helps the user to come to a decision by weighing up the evidence for and against specifics, as well as providing a visual picture of where an argument or decision may fail due to an assumption being made.

Positive and negative arguments for potential alternative decisions can then be identified.

A simple decision-making example might look like this.

Should we build more roads in order to reduce traffic congestion in the city?

More information on the uses of argument maps and how to create them can be found using these links.

http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/arg/complex.php https://www.rationaleonline.com/docs/en/tutorials#tvy5fw

Critical Decision-Making Model

The critical decision-making model is a quick and easy tool that can be used by anyone who needs to make a decision. First briefly state the problem or decision to be made. Then identify at least three possible options or courses of action. As a simple example: Decision to be made: Should we employ more staff to answer the phones? Possible courses of action/options:

• Employ more staff.
• Install an automated system.
• Accept that some people may have to be kept on hold until the existing staff can answer the phone.
• Add a frequently asked questions section to the website to reduce the volume of similar calls.

Each course or action/option can then be evaluated to determine the best possible outcome. An argument map or a simple pros and cons list will help here.

Fact or Fiction

Simply write down a list of reasons supporting each possible option for the decision that needs to be made. Then write beside each one whether it is fact or fiction. Only determine something to be fact if the information can be backed up by accepted evidence such as statistics or case studies. For example:

The available options and the accompanying reasons might include:

Build more roads

• more roads will reduce the amount of congestions
• more roads will keep traffic moving faster
• road users are less stressed when more roads are built

Develop public transport instead

• improved public transport will reduce congestion
• improved public transport is better for the environment
• more people will use public transport if the service is more frequent

Some or all of these options may well be fact, however it should be checked that there is available evidence before stating this categorically. The purpose of this exercise is to show where assumptions have been made which may result in making the wrong decision.

Join Mind Tools and get access to exclusive content.

This resource is only available to Mind Tools members.

Already a member? Please Login here

Try Mind Tools for FREE

Get unlimited access to all our career-boosting content and member benefits with our 7-day free trial.

Sign-up to our newsletter

Subscribing to the Mind Tools newsletter will keep you up-to-date with our latest updates and newest resources.

Subscribe now

Business Skills

Personal Development

Leadership and Management

Member Extras

Most Popular

Newest Releases

Building Good Work Relationships

Defeat Procrastination for Good

Mind Tools Store

About Mind Tools Content

Discover something new today

Pain points podcast - perfectionism.

Why Am I Such a Perfectionist?

NEW! Pain Points - Managing New Hires

Getting onboarding right

How Emotionally Intelligent Are You?

Boosting Your People Skills

Self-Assessment

What's Your Leadership Style?

Learn About the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Way You Like to Lead

Recommended for you

Defining benefits.

Choosing the Right Development Activities

Business Operations and Process Management

Strategy Tools

Customer Service

Business Ethics and Values

Handling Information and Data

Project Management

Knowledge Management

Self-Development and Goal Setting

Time Management

Presentation Skills

Learning Skills

Career Skills

Communication Skills

Negotiation, Persuasion and Influence

Working With Others

Difficult Conversations

Creativity Tools

Self-Management

Work-Life Balance

Stress Management and Wellbeing

Coaching and Mentoring

Change Management

Team Management

Managing Conflict

Delegation and Empowerment

Performance Management

Leadership Skills

Developing Your Team

Talent Management

Problem Solving

Decision Making

Member Podcast

• INTERPERSONAL SKILLS
• Problem Solving and Decision Making

Towards Solving the Problem

Search SkillsYouNeed:

Interpersonal Skills:

• A - Z List of Interpersonal Skills
• Interpersonal Skills Self-Assessment
• Communication Skills
• Emotional Intelligence
• Conflict Resolution and Mediation Skills
• Customer Service Skills
• Team-Working, Groups and Meetings
• Decision-Making and Problem-Solving
• Effective Decision Making
• Decision-Making Framework
• Introduction to Problem Solving
• Identifying and Structuring Problems
• Investigating Ideas and Solutions
• Implementing a Solution and Feedback
• Creative Problem-Solving
• Social Problem-Solving
• Negotiation and Persuasion Skills
• Personal and Romantic Relationship Skills

Subscribe to our FREE newsletter and start improving your life in just 5 minutes a day.

You'll get our 5 free 'One Minute Life Skills' and our weekly newsletter.

We'll never share your email address and you can unsubscribe at any time.

This pages continues working through the stages of problem solving as laid out in: Problem Solving - An Introduction .

This page concludes our problem solving series with a brief overview of the final stages of the problem solving framework.

Stage Four: Making a Decision

Once a number of possible solutions have been arrived at, they should be taken forward through the decision making process.

Decision Making is a an important skill in itself and you may want to read our Decision Making articles for more information.

For example, information on each suggestion needs to be sought, the risks assessed, each option evaluated through a pros and cons analysis and, finally, a decision made on the best possible option.

Stage Five: Implementation

Making a decision and taking a decision are two different things.

Implementation Involves:

• Being committed to a solution.
• Accepting responsibility for the decision.
• Identifying who will implement the solution.
• Resolving to carry out the chosen solution.
• Exploring the best possible means of implementing the solution.

Stage Six: Feedback

The only way for an individual or group to improve their problem solving, is to look at how they have solved problems in the past. To do this, feedback is needed and, therefore, it is important to keep a record of problem solving, the solutions arrived at and the outcomes. Ways of obtaining feedback include:

• Questionnaires
• Follow-up phone calls
• Asking others who may have been affected by your decisions.

It is important to encourage people to be honest when seeking feedback, regardless whether it is positive or negative.

Conclusions to Problem Solving

Problem solving involves seeking to achieve goals and overcoming barriers. The stages of problem solving include identification of the problem, structuring the problem through the use of some forms of representation, and looking for possible solutions often through techniques of divergent thinking. Once possible solutions have been arrived at, one of them will be chosen through the decision making process.

The final stages of problem solving involve implementing your solution and seeking feedback as to the outcome, feedback can be recorded for help with future problem solving scenarios.

Continue to: Social Problem Solving Strategic Thinking

See also: Project Management What is Communication? Improving Communication

Making the Difference: Problem Solving vs Decision Making

This blog is reader-supported. When you purchase something through an affiliate link on this site, I may earn some coffee money. Thanks! Learn more .

Do you ever find yourself stuck between a rock and hard place, unable to decide what the best course of action is?

I have. Whether it’s what desk to put in our new conservatory space (and I’ll tell you what we ended up deciding later), or who to invite to meetings, or managing to order everyone else’s food and then getting so overwhelmed with having made decisions all day for all the people that I couldn’t choose anything for myself.

I left the café with nothing for me and ended up with a couple of slices of peanut butter toast at home.

Making decisions can be difficult for even the most experienced project managers. But before making any decision, it’s important to understand the difference between problem solving and decision making.

Ready to get into it?

Problem solving involves diagnosing issues that arise during projects while decision making requires taking appropriate steps based on those diagnoses. While they may appear similar at first glance, there are key differences in how each process should be approached – understanding these differences will help you make more informed decisions!

Let’s explore both processes as well as their similarities and differences.

What is problem solving?

You’ve been solving problems since you were a baby: how to stand up, how to get your socks off, how to get your parents to bring you your favorite sippy cup.

As an adult, we solve problems every day at work and at home.

So it probably sounds a bit odd to want to define problem solving before we go any further. Surely we all know what we are talking about as we do it all the time?

Humor me. Problem solving is the process of identifying and analyzing a problem, generating potential solutions, and selecting the best solution to address the issue. It involves breaking down complex problems into smaller components and then finding ways to solve them.

The problem solving process

If you think that description sounds linear, then you’d be right. Problem solving fits neatly into a process, one that we don’t even know we’re following most of the time.

The problem solving process typically consists of four steps:

• Identify the problem
• Generate possible solutions
• Evaluate each option
• Select an appropriate course of action.

That does make it sound easy. Wicked problems need a slightly different approach (PMI has a problem solving training course that is brilliant and will help with that).

But for now, let’s stick with a high-level approach that works for most problems.

1. Identify the problem

First, it’s important to understand what caused the issue in order to determine how best to resolve it.

You’d be surprised at how many managers don’t bother to find the root cause of the problem to truly understand it. Use techniques like the 5 Whys or an Ishikawa diagram to dig down into what the problem actually is.

2. Generate possible solutions

Brainstorming is one way to come up with different ideas for potential solutions. You could also interview experts, review lessons learned or innovative solutions from previous projects, research what the rest of your industry is doing or consult customers on what they’d like to see. There are no silly ideas at this point!

Choose the creative approach that gets you a range of options to review.

Read next: How to improve problem solving with lessons learned.

3. Evaluate each option

Once you have several options to consider, you can evaluate each one based on its effectiveness and cost before deciding which one is most suitable for your situation.

Use pairwise prioritisation, multi-criteria decision making or analytical hierarchy process (AHP) to help with the evaluation.

4. Select an appropriate course of action

Now you’ve got all the options for solving your problem, you can actually solve it by choosing a course of action that will sort it out. This is where decision making comes in. in this step you make the decision.

Finally, implement your chosen solution and monitor its progress over time so that any necessary adjustments can be made as needed.

Benefits of problem solving skills

There are many benefits associated with having effective problem solving skills.

These include improved decision making abilities (more on that in a minute), increased creativity, better communication skills, greater confidence when faced with challenging situations, enhanced ability to think critically, more efficient use of resources, improved relationships between colleagues or team members due to shared understanding of goals and increased productivity levels due to fewer mistakes being made during projects or tasks.

(Breathe. That was a long sentence, sorry.)

All these advantages make problem solving an invaluable skill in both personal life and professional life scenarios.

What is decision making?

Basically, decision making is the process of selecting a course of action from a number of alternatives. It involves gathering information, weighing options, and choosing the best option for achieving a desired outcome.

But how is that different to problem solving?

Decision making is the process of doing Step 4 of the problem solving process. It’s the choice making, option selection, conclusion of the analysis and thinking.

It’s decisive (duh), purposeful, specific. It removes the ambiguity of the ‘what do we do?’ and helps the team move towards the ‘OK, how do we do that?’

It brings action to a situation.

The decision making process

There is a simple method for decision making too, although the actual decision itself might be tough to make.

• Identify that a decision is required
• Ensure you have the data to make the decision
• Make the decision
• Tell whoever needs to implement the decision

1. Identify that a decision is required

The decision-making process typically begins with identifying what decision needs to be made. Are you making the right decision, or is there something else, deeper, different that is really what’s required?

In this step you also want to identify who is making the decision. That could be your project sponsor, a panel, you by yourself, a committee or whoever. Getting this step clear saves headaches later.

2. Ensure you have the data to make the decision

Do you have all the info you need to make the decision? If not, get it.

When decisions are made quickly but thoughtfully, they can save time and resources while still producing quality results.

Major decisions need more time spent on this step to make sure you understand all the variables.

3. Make the decision

After considering all potential solutions, it’s time to make a choice based on what will yield the best results for everyone involved.

This is the hard part: make the decision! The person or people responsible for this should weigh up the data and use their professional judgement to choose the right course of action. Decision trees can be useful here to avoid unconscious bias (or conscious bias!).

Obviously this is harder for complex decisions. What vendor to choose for a 3-year outsourcing arrangement is harder to decide than what venue to book for a team away day.

4. Tell whoever needs to implement the decision

Great – you’ve made the call and know what to do, but does the rest of the team? Don’t keep the decision to yourself!

Make sure whoever needs to know the next steps is aware that the decision has been made so they can implement it and take the right action.

Having confidence in decisions leads to greater trust between team members and better collaboration overall, which can lead to improved project outcomes over time. Well-made decisions often create opportunities for growth within teams by allowing them to learn from their mistakes as well as their successes along the way.

Similarities between problem solving and decision making

Problem solving and decision making sound very similar, right?

Well, that is true. Both processes involve gathering information, analyzing it, and coming up with solutions or courses of action. They both require critical thinking skills to identify potential solutions or options that are most likely to be successful.

The processes use a similar flow

Both processes involve identifying a problem or issue, researching possible solutions, evaluating those solutions based on criteria such as cost-effectiveness or feasibility, selecting an option from among the available choices, implementing the chosen solution, and you’d also want to monitor its effectiveness over time.

The process can be iterative if necessary; if one solution does not work out as expected then another may need to be tried until a satisfactory outcome is achieved.

They both produce a satisfactory solution

Problem solving and decision making usually lead to some kind of action being taken in order to address a given issue or situation. Problem solving often involves finding creative solutions for complex problems, while decision making typically entails selecting a course of action from several possibilities after carefully evaluating each option’s advantages and disadvantages.

But ultimately, the goal is for something positive (or at least neutral) to come out of the helpful process so that whatever challenge was initially presented can be effectively addressed.

Despite being so similar you could pretty much interchange them in some circumstances, there are some differences.

Differences between problem solving and decision making

Although they have similarities in terms of the process used to come up with a solution, their goals differ significantly.

Process goals are different

The goal of problem solving is to find a solution to an existing issue. It involves identifying the cause of a problem and then finding ways to address it. Problem solving often requires input from multiple stakeholders who can provide different perspectives on how best to solve the issue at hand.

On the other hand, decision making focuses on choosing the best option from multiple alternatives. This could include selecting between competing products or services or deciding which strategy will be most effective for achieving certain objectives.

In other words: decision making doesn’t necessarily mean there is a problem. We make decisions every day about small things and big things, but they aren’t all problems that need the creative step of solutioning.

Sometimes a decision just needs to be taken and the options are clearly known.

They require different stakeholders

Another key difference between problem solving and decision making is that while problem solving typically requires input from multiple stakeholders, decision making is usually done by one individual or group who has access to all relevant information needed for the decision-making process.

To give you an example. Let’s say on a technical project the development team hit a problem. They have to bring in various subject matter experts to research and identify the parameters involved. They consult, brainstorm and debate. It’s a group effort, and it’s likely to end in a solution.

However, if I need my project sponsor to choose between two risk treatments, I’ll take him my recommendation and a summary of options and he’ll simply choose. Done.

Decisions are made based on what is known about a situation rather than relying on external opinions or advice when trying to make an informed choice about what course of action should be taken next.

They produce different results

The nature of both processes also differs in terms of the types of solutions they produce. Problem solving typically results in creative solutions that can be implemented over time, while decision making produces immediate choices from among existing alternatives without necessarily creating something new or unique.

Both processes involve the identification of a problem or issue, the collection of information to evaluate possible solutions, and an analysis of potential outcomes. The main difference between them is in their goals: problem solving seeks to identify the root cause of an issue and develop a solution that will address it; decision making focuses on selecting from among available options.

Both processes require careful consideration of facts and opinions before any action is taken. Problem solving often involves more people than decision making as it requires collaboration to identify underlying causes and brainstorm potential solutions. Decision makers may consult with others for input but ultimately make decisions independently based on their own judgment.

Still got a question?

What is the difference between decision and decision making.

A decision is the act of making a choice between two or more alternatives. Decision making is the process by which decisions are made. It involves gathering information, analyzing data, evaluating alternatives and choosing a course of action based on this analysis. The outcome of the process is the decision. The decision-making process also includes monitoring progress to ensure that goals are being met and taking corrective action if needed.

What is the importance of problem-solving and decision making?

Problem-solving and decision making are essential skills for project managers and managers in general. The processes keep work moving by making sure problems get solved and decisions get made so team members are not blocked from finishing their tasks.

What are the steps in problem-solving and decision making?

Problem-solving and decision making involve a series of steps that can help ensure the best possible outcome. The first step is to identify the problem or opportunity, then analyze it by gathering relevant information and evaluating potential solutions. After considering all options, select an appropriate solution and develop an action plan for implementation. Finally, monitor progress to ensure success and make necessary adjustments along the way. By following these steps, project managers can effectively manage projects while minimizing risks and maximizing results.

Before you go…

Sometimes there isn’t a right decision – it’s simply important to make a decision. As for the desk, in the end, we used a piece of furniture we already had upstairs and didn’t buy one at all.

I spent a morning measuring and researching options, and I’ll never get that time back, but that’s OK.

As a leader, you should be skilled at solving problems and making decisions, and the processes that support them. However, you don’t have to be doing all the solving and making all the calls yourself. As long as you facilitate the process and get the right people in the room, you can step back and let the experts do their thing.

Let the right people do the work and create an environment where your projects move forward because everyone’s got what they need to keep things moving.

Project manager, author, mentor

Elizabeth Harrin is a Fellow of the Association for Project Management in the UK. She holds degrees from the University of York and Roehampton University, and several project management certifications including APM PMQ. She first took her PRINCE2 Practitioner exam in 2004 and has worked extensively in project delivery for over 20 years. Elizabeth is also the founder of the Project Management Rebels community, a mentoring group for professionals. She's written several books for project managers including Managing Multiple Projects .

Work Life is Atlassian’s flagship publication dedicated to unleashing the potential of every team through real-life advice, inspiring stories, and thoughtful perspectives from leaders around the world.

Contributing Writer

Work Futurist

Senior Quantitative Researcher, People Insights

Principal Writer

This is how effective teams navigate the decision-making process

Zero Magic 8 Balls required.

Get stories like this in your inbox

Flipping a coin. Throwing a dart at a board. Pulling a slip of paper out of a hat.

Sure, they’re all ways to make a choice. But they all hinge on random chance rather than analysis, reflection, and strategy — you know, the things you actually need to make the big, meaty decisions that have major impacts.

So, set down that Magic 8 Ball and back away slowly. Let’s walk through the standard framework for decision-making that will help you and your team pinpoint the problem, consider your options, and make your most informed selection. Here’s a closer look at each of the seven steps of the decision-making process, and how to approach each one. 

Step 1: Identify the decision

Most of us are eager to tie on our superhero capes and jump into problem-solving mode — especially if our team is depending on a solution. But you can’t solve a problem until you have a full grasp on what it actually is .

This first step focuses on getting the lay of the land when it comes to your decision. What specific problem are you trying to solve? What goal are you trying to achieve? 

How to do it: 

• Use the 5 whys analysis to go beyond surface-level symptoms and understand the root cause of a problem.
• Try problem framing to dig deep on the ins and outs of whatever problem your team is fixing. The point is to define the problem, not solve it. 

⚠️ Watch out for: Decision fatigue , which is the tendency to make worse decisions as a result of needing to make too many of them. Making choices is mentally taxing , which is why it’s helpful to pinpoint one decision at a time. 

2. Gather information

Your team probably has a few hunches and best guesses, but those can lead to knee-jerk reactions. Take care to invest adequate time and research into your decision.

This step is when you build your case, so to speak. Collect relevant information — that could be data, customer stories, information about past projects, feedback, or whatever else seems pertinent. You’ll use that to make decisions that are informed, rather than impulsive.

• Host a team mindmapping session to freely explore ideas and make connections between them. It can help you identify what information will best support the process.
• Create a project poster to define your goals and also determine what information you already know and what you still need to find out. 

⚠️ Watch out for: Information bias , or the tendency to seek out information even if it won’t impact your action. We have the tendency to think more information is always better, but pulling together a bunch of facts and insights that aren’t applicable may cloud your judgment rather than offer clarity. 

3. Identify alternatives

Use divergent thinking to generate fresh ideas in your next brainstorm

Blame the popularity of the coin toss, but making a decision often feels like choosing between only two options. Do you want heads or tails? Door number one or door number two? In reality, your options aren’t usually so cut and dried. Take advantage of this opportunity to get creative and brainstorm all sorts of routes or solutions. There’s no need to box yourselves in. 

• Use the Six Thinking Hats technique to explore the problem or goal from all sides: information, emotions and instinct, risks, benefits, and creativity. It can help you and your team break away from your typical roles or mindsets and think more freely.
• Try brainwriting so team members can write down their ideas independently before sharing with the group. Research shows that this quiet, lone thinking time can boost psychological safety and generate more creative suggestions .

⚠️ Watch out for: Groupthink , which is the tendency of a group to make non-optimal decisions in the interest of conformity. People don’t want to rock the boat, so they don’t speak up. 

4. Consider the evidence

Armed with your list of alternatives, it’s time to take a closer look and determine which ones could be worth pursuing. You and your team should ask questions like “How will this solution address the problem or achieve the goal?” and “What are the pros and cons of this option?” 

Be honest with your answers (and back them up with the information you already collected when you can). Remind the team that this isn’t about advocating for their own suggestions to “win” — it’s about whittling your options down to the best decision. 

How to do it:

• Use a SWOT analysis to dig into the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of the options you’re seriously considering.
• Run a project trade-off analysis to understand what constraints (such as time, scope, or cost) the team is most willing to compromise on if needed. 

⚠️ Watch out for: Extinction by instinct , which is the urge to make a decision just to get it over with. You didn’t come this far to settle for a “good enough” option! 

5. Choose among the alternatives

This is it — it’s the big moment when you and the team actually make the decision. You’ve identified all possible options, considered the supporting evidence, and are ready to choose how you’ll move forward.

However, bear in mind that there’s still a surprising amount of room for flexibility here. Maybe you’ll modify an alternative or combine a few suggested solutions together to land on the best fit for your problem and your team. 

• Use the DACI framework (that stands for “driver, approver, contributor, informed”) to understand who ultimately has the final say in decisions. The decision-making process can be collaborative, but eventually someone needs to be empowered to make the final call.
• Try a simple voting method for decisions that are more democratized. You’ll simply tally your team’s votes and go with the majority. 

⚠️ Watch out for: Analysis paralysis , which is when you overthink something to such a great degree that you feel overwhelmed and freeze when it’s time to actually make a choice. 

6. Take action

Making a big decision takes a hefty amount of work, but it’s only the first part of the process — now you need to actually implement it. 

It’s tempting to think that decisions will work themselves out once they’re made. But particularly in a team setting, it’s crucial to invest just as much thought and planning into communicating the decision and successfully rolling it out. 

• Create a stakeholder communications plan to determine how you’ll keep various people — direct team members, company leaders, customers, or whoever else has an active interest in your decision — in the loop on your progress.
• Define the goals, signals, and measures of your decision so you’ll have an easier time aligning the team around the next steps and determining whether or not they’re successful. 

⚠️Watch out for: Self-doubt, or the tendency to question whether or not you’re making the right move. While we’re hardwired for doubt , now isn’t the time to be a skeptic about your decision. You and the team have done the work, so trust the process. 

7. Review your decision

9 retrospective techniques that won’t bore your team to tears.

As the decision itself starts to shake out, it’s time to take a look in the rearview mirror and reflect on how things went.

Did your decision work out the way you and the team hoped? What happened? Examine both the good and the bad. What should you keep in mind if and when you need to make this sort of decision again? 

• Do a 4 L’s retrospective to talk through what you and the team loved, loathed, learned, and longed for as a result of that decision.
• Celebrate any wins (yes, even the small ones ) related to that decision. It gives morale a good kick in the pants and can also help make future decisions feel a little less intimidating.

⚠️ Watch out for: Hindsight bias , or the tendency to look back on events with the knowledge you have now and beat yourself up for not knowing better at the time. Even with careful thought and planning, some decisions don’t work out — but you can only operate with the information you have at the time. 

Making smart decisions about the decision-making process

You’re probably picking up on the fact that the decision-making process is fairly comprehensive. And the truth is that the model is likely overkill for the small and inconsequential decisions you or your team members need to make.

Deciding whether you should order tacos or sandwiches for your team offsite doesn’t warrant this much discussion and elbow grease. But figuring out which major project to prioritize next? That requires some careful and collaborative thought. 

It all comes back to the concept of satisficing versus maximizing , which are two different perspectives on decision making. Here’s the gist:

• Maximizers aim to get the very best out of every single decision.
• Satisficers are willing to settle for “good enough” rather than obsessing over achieving the best outcome.

One of those isn’t necessarily better than the other — and, in fact, they both have their time and place.

A major decision with far-reaching impacts deserves some fixation and perfectionism. However, hemming and hawing over trivial choices ( “Should we start our team meeting with casual small talk or a structured icebreaker?” ) will only cause added stress, frustration, and slowdowns. 

As with anything else, it’s worth thinking about the potential impacts to determine just how much deliberation and precision a decision actually requires. 

Decision-making is one of those things that’s part art and part science. You’ll likely have some gut feelings and instincts that are worth taking into account. But those should also be complemented with plenty of evidence, evaluation, and collaboration.

The decision-making process is a framework that helps you strike that balance. Follow the seven steps and you and your team can feel confident in the decisions you make — while leaving the darts and coins where they belong.

Advice, stories, and expertise about work life today.

Decision Making: a Theoretical Review

• Regular Article
• Published: 15 November 2021
• Volume 56 , pages 609–629, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

• Matteo Morelli 1 ,
• Maria Casagrande   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4430-3367 2 &
• Giuseppe Forte 1 , 3  

6075 Accesses

14 Citations

Explore all metrics

Decision-making is a crucial skill that has a central role in everyday life and is necessary for adaptation to the environment and autonomy. It is the ability to choose between two or more options, and it has been studied through several theoretical approaches and by different disciplines. In this overview article, we contend a theoretical review regarding most theorizing and research on decision-making. Specifically, we focused on different levels of analyses, including different theoretical approaches and neuropsychological aspects. Moreover, common methodological measures adopted to study decision-making were reported. This theoretical review emphasizes multiple levels of analysis and aims to summarize evidence regarding this fundamental human process. Although several aspects of the field are reported, more features of decision-making process remain uncertain and need to be clarified. Further experimental studies are necessary for understanding this process better and for integrating and refining the existing theories.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Ethical decision-making theory: an integrated approach, small is beautiful: in defense of the small-n design.

In AI we trust? Perceptions about automated decision-making by artificial intelligence

André, M., Borgquist, L., Foldevi, M., & Mölstad, S. (2002). Asking for ‘rules of thumb’: a way to discover tacit knowledge in general practice. Family Practice, 19 (6), 617–22. https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/19.6.617

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bechara, A., Damasio, A. R., Damasio, H., & Anderson, S. W. (1994). Insensitivity to future consequences following damage to human prefrontal cortex. Cognition, 50 (1–3), 7–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(94)90018-3

Bechara, A., Damasio, H., Tranel, D., & Damasio, A. R. (1997). Deciding advantageously before knowing the advantageous strategy. Science, 275 (5304), 1293–5. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.275.5304.1293

Bechara, A., Damasio, H., & Damasio, A. R. (2000a). Emotion, decision making and the orbitofrontal cortex. Cerebral cortex, 10 (3), 295–307.

Bechara, A., Tranel, D., & Damasio, H. (2000b). Characterization of the decision-making deficit of patients with ventromedial prefrontal cortex lesions. Brain, 123 (Pt 11), 2189–202. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/123.11.2189

Bechara, A., & Damasio, A. R. (2005). The somatic marker hypothesis: a neural theory of economic decision. Games and Economic Behavior, 52, 336–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geb.2004.06.010

Article   Google Scholar  

Blanchard, T. C., Strait, C. E., & Hayden, B. Y. (2015). Ramping ensemble activity in dorsal anterior cingulate neurons during persistent commitment to a decision. Journal of Neurophysiology, 114 (4), 2439–49. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00711.2015

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Bohanec, M. (2009). Decision making: A computer-science and information-technology viewpoint. Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems, 7 (2), 22–37

Google Scholar  

Brand, M., Fujiwara, E., Borsutzky, S., Kalbe, E., Kessler, J., & Markowitsch, H. J. (2005). Decision-Making deficits of korsakoff patients in a new gambling task with explicit rules: associations with executive functions. Neuropsychology, 19 (3), 267–277. https://doi.org/10.1037/0894-4105.19.3.267

Broche-Pérez, Y., Jiménez, H., & Omar-Martínez, E. (2016). Neural substrates of decision-making. Neurologia, 31 (5), 319–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nrl.2015.03.001

Byrnes, J. P. (2013). The nature and development of decision-making: A self-regulation model . Psychology Press

Clark, L., & Manes, F. (2004). Social and emotional decision-making following frontal lobe injury. Neurocase, 10 (5), 398–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/13554790490882799

Cummings, J. L. (1995). Anatomic and behavioral aspects of frontal-subcortical circuits a. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 769 (1), 1–14

Dale, S. (2015). Heuristics and biases: The science of decision-making. Business Information Review, 32 (2), 93–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266382115592536

Damasio, A. R. (1996). The somatic marker hypothesis and the possible functions of the prefrontal cortex. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 351 (1346), 1413–20. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1996.0125

Dewberry, C., Juanchich, M., & Narendran, S. (2013). Decision-making competence in everyday life: The roles of general cognitive styles, decision-making styles and personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 55 (7), 783–788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.06.012

Doya, K. (2008). Modulators of decision making. Nature Neuroscience, 11 (4), 410–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn2077

Dunn, B. D., Dalgleish, T., & Lawrence, A. D. (2006). The somatic marker hypothesis: a critical evaluation. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 30 (2), 239–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2005.07.001

Elliott, R., Rees, G., & Dolan, R. J. (1999). Ventromedial prefrontal cortex mediates guessing. Neuropsychologia, 37 (4), 403–411

Ernst, M., Bolla, K., Mouratidis, M., Contoreggi, C., Matochik, J. A., Kurian, V., et al. (2002). Decision-making in a risk-taking task: a PET study. Neuropsychopharmacology, 26 (5), 682–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0893-133X(01)00414-6

Ernst, M., & Paulus, M. P. (2005). Neurobiology of decision making: a selective review from a neurocognitive and clinical perspective. Biological Psychiatry, 58 (8), 597–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.06.004

Evans, J. S. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255–78. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093629

Fellows, L. K. (2004). The cognitive neuroscience of human decision making: A review and conceptual framework. Behavioral & Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews, 3 (3), 159–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534582304273251

Fellows, L. K., & Farah, M. J. (2007). The role of ventromedial prefrontal cortex in decision making: judgment under uncertainty or judgment per se? Cerebral Cortex, 17 (11), 2669–74. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhl176

Fehr, E., & Camerer, C. F. (2007). Social neuroeconomics: the neural circuitry of social preferences. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11 (10), 419–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2007.09.002

Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., & Johnson, S. M. (2000). The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13, 1–17.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(200001/03)13:1<1::AID-BDM333>3.0.CO;2-S

Fischhoff, B. (2010). Judgment and decision making. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1 (5), 724–735. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.65

Forte, G., Favieri, F., & Casagrande, M. (2019). Heart rate variability and cognitive function: a systematic review. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 13, 710

Forte, G., Morelli, M., & Casagrande, M. (2021). Heart rate variability and decision-making: autonomic responses in making decisions. Brain Sciences, 11 (2), 243

Forte, G., Favieri, F., Oliha, E. O., Marotta, A., & Casagrande, M. (2021). Anxiety and attentional processes: the role of resting heart rate variability. Brain Sciences, 11 (4), 480

Frith, C. D., & Singer, T. (2008). The role of social cognition in decision making. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 363 (1511), 3875–86. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0156

Galotti, K. M. (2002). Making decisions that matter: How people face important life choices . Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers

Gigerenzer, G., & Gaissmaier, W. (2011). Heuristic decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 451–82. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120709-145346

Gigerenzer, G., & Selten, R. (Eds.). (2001). Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox . MIT Press

Goel, V., Gold, B., Kapur, S., & Houle, S. (1998). Neuroanatomical correlates of human reasoning. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10 (3), 293–302

Gold, J. I., & Shadlen, M. N. (2007). The neural basis of decision making. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 30, 535–74. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.29.051605.113038

Gottlieb, J. (2007). From thought to action: the parietal cortex as a bridge between perception, action, and cognition. Neuron, 53 (1), 9–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2006.12.009

Gozli, D. G. (2017). Behaviour versus performance: The veiled commitment of experimental psychology. Theory & Psychology, 27, 741–758

Gozli, D. (2019). Free Choice. Experimental Psychology and Human Agency . Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20422-8_6

Group, T. M. A. D., Fawcett, T. W., Fallenstein, B., Higginson, A. D., Houston, A. I., Mallpress, D. E., & McNamara, J. M., …. (2014). The evolution of decision rules in complex environments. Trends in Cognitive Sciences , 18 (3), 153–161

Guess, C. (2004). Decision making in individualistic and collectivistic cultures. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture , 4 (1). https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1032

Gupta, R., Koscik, T. R., Bechara, A., & Tranel, D. (2011). The amygdala and decision-making. Neuropsychologia, 49 (4), 760–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.09.029

Heilbronner, S. R., & Hayden, B. Y. (2016). Dorsal anterior cingulate cortex: a bottom-up view. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 39, 149–70. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-neuro-070815-013952

Hickson, L., & Khemka, I. (2014). The psychology of decision making. International review of research in developmental disabilities (Vol 47, pp. 185–229). Academic

Johnson, J. G., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2010). Decision making under risk and uncertainty. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1 (5), 736–749. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.76

Kable, J. W., & Glimcher, P. W. (2009). The neurobiology of decision: consensus and controversy. Neuron , 63 (6),733–45.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2009.09.003

Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice. Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist, 58 (9), 697–720. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.9.697

Kahneman, D. (2011). P ensieri lenti e veloci . Trad.it. a cura di Serra, L., Arnoldo Mondadori Editore

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47 (2), 263–292

Kheramin, S., Body, S., Mobini, S., Ho, M. Y., Velázquez-Martinez, D. N., Bradshaw, C. M., et al. (2002). Effects of quinolinic acid-induced lesions of the orbital prefrontal cortex on inter-temporal choice: a quantitative analysis. Psychopharmacology (Berl), 165 (1), 9–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-002-1228-6

Lee, V. K., & Harris, L. T. (2013). How social cognition can inform social decision making. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 7, 259. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2013.00259

Lerner, J. S., Li, Y., Valdesolo, P., & Kassam, K. S. (2015). Emotion and decision making.  Annual Review of Psychology, 66 , 799–823

Loewenstein, G., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K., & Welch, N. (2001). Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin, 127 (2), 267–286. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.267

Mather, M. (2006). A review of decision-making processes: weighing the risks and benefits of aging. In Carstensen, L. L., & Hartel, C. R. (Eds.), & Committee on Aging Frontiers in Social Psychology, Personality, and Adult Developmental Psychology, Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences, When I’m 64 (pp. 145–173). National Academies Press

Mazzucchi, L. (2012). La riabilitazione neuropsicologica: Premesse teoriche e applicazioni cliniche (3rd ed.). EDRA

Mishra, S. (2014). Decision-making under risk: integrating perspectives from biology, economics, and psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18 (3), 280–307. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314530517

Moreira, C. (2018). Unifying decision-making: a review on evolutionary theories on rationality and cognitive biases. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.12455

Naqvi, N., Shiv, B., & Bechara, A. (2006). The role of emotion in decision making: a cognitive neuroscience perspective. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15 (5), 260–264. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00448.x

O’Doherty, J. P., Buchanan, T. W., Seymour, B., & Dolan, R. J. (2006). Predictive neural coding of reward preference involves dissociable responses in human ventral midbrain and ventral striatum. Neuron, 49 (1), 157–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2005.11.014

Padoa-Schioppa, C., & Assad, J. A. (2008). The representation of economic value in the orbitofrontal cortex is invariant for changes of menu. Nature Neuroscience, 11 (1), 95–102. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn2020

Palombo, D. J., Keane, M. M., & Verfaellie, M. (2015). How does the hippocampus shape decisions? Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 125, 93–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nlm.2015.08.005

Pardo-Vazquez, J. L., Padron, I., Fernandez-Rey, J., & Acuña, C. (2011). Decision-making in the ventral premotor cortex harbinger of action. Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, 5, 54. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnint.2011.00054

Paulus, M. P., & Yu, A. J. (2012). Emotion and decision-making: affect-driven belief systems in anxiety and depression. Trends in Cognitive Science, 16, 476–483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2012.07.009

Payne, J. W. (1973). Alternative approaches to decision making under risk: Moments versus risk dimensions. Psychological Bulletin, 80 (6), 439–453. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0035260

Payne, J. W., Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1993). The adaptive decision maker . Cambridge University Press

Phelps, E. A., Lempert, K. M., & Sokol-Hessner, P. (2014). Emotion and decision making: multiple modulatory neural circuits. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 37, 263–287

Pronin, E. (2007). Perception and misperception of bias in human judgment. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11 (1), 37–43

Rangel, A., Camerer, C., & Read Montague, P. (2008). Neuroeconomics: The neurobiology of value-based decision-making. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9 (7), 545–556. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2357

Reyna, V. F., & Lloyd, F. J. (2006). Physician decision making and cardiac risk: Effects of knowledge, risk perception, risk tolerance, and fuzzy processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 12 (3), 179–195. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.12.3.179

Rilling, J. K., & Sanfey, A. G. (2011). The neuroscience of social decision-making. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 23–48. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.121208.131647

Robinson, D. N. (2016). Explanation and the “brain sciences". Theory & Psychology, 26 (3), 324–332

Robbins, T. W., James, M., Owen, A. M., Sahakian, B. J., McInnes, L., & Rabbitt, P. (1994). Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB): a factor analytic study of a large sample of normal elderly volunteers. Dementia, 5 (5), 266–81. https://doi.org/10.1159/000106735

Rogers, R. D., Owen, A. M., Middleton, H. C., Williams, E. J., Pickard, J. D., Sahakian, B. J., et al. (1999). Choosing between small, likely rewards and large, unlikely rewards activates inferior and orbital prefrontal cortex. The Journal of Neuroscience, 19 (20), 9029–9038. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.19-20-09029.1999

Rolls, E. T., & Baylis, L. L. (1994). Gustatory, olfactory, and visual convergence within the primate orbitofrontal cortex. The Journal of Neuroscience, 14 (9), 5437–52. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.14-09-05437.1994

Rolls, E. T., Critchley, H. D., Browning, A. S., Hernadi, I., & Lenard, L. (1999). Responses to the sensory properties of fat of neurons in the primate orbitofrontal cortex. The Journal of Neuroscience, 19 (4), 1532–40. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.19-04-01532.1999

Rosenbloom, M. H., Schmahmann, J. D., & Price, B. H. (2012). The functional neuroanatomy of decision-making. The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 24 (3), 266–77. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.neuropsych.11060139

Rushworth, M. F., & Behrens, T. E. (2008). Choice, uncertainty and value in prefrontal and cingulate cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 11 (4), 389–97. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn2066

Sanfey, A. G. (2007). Social decision-making: insights from game theory and neuroscience. Science, 318 (5850), 598–602. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1142996

Serra, L., Bruschini, M., Ottaviani, C., Di Domenico, C., Fadda, L., Caltagirone, C., et al. (2019). Thalamocortical disconnection affects the somatic marker and social cognition: a case report. Neurocase, 25 (1–2), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/13554794.2019.1599025

Shahsavarani, A. M., & Abadi, E. A. M. (2015). The bases, principles, and methods of decision-making: A review of literature. International Journal of Medical Reviews, 2 (1), 214–225

Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2002). Rational actors or rational fools: Implications of the affect heuristic for behavioral economics. Journal of Socio-Economics, 31 (4), 329–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-5357(02)00174-9

Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2004). Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis, 24, 311–322. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00433.x

Staerklé, C. (2015). Political Psychology. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences , 427–433. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.24079-8

Tremblay, S., Sharika, K. M., & Platt, M. L. (2017). Social decision-making and the brain: a comparative perspective. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21 (4), 265–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2017.01.007

Trepel, C., Fox, C. R., & Poldrack, R. A. (2005). Prospect theory on the brain? Toward a cognitive neuroscience of decision under risk. Brain Research. Cognitive Brain Research, 23 (1), 34–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2005.01.016

Van Der Pligt, J. (2015). Decision making, psychology of. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2 (5), 917–922. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.24014-2

Von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of games and economic behavior . Princeton University Press

Weber, E. U., & Hsee, C. K. (2000). Culture and individual judgment and decision making. Applied Psychology: An International Journal, 49, 32–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00005

Weller, J. A., Levin, I. P., Shiv, B., & Bechara, A. (2009). The effects of insula damage on decision-making for risky gains and losses. Society for Neuroscience, 4 (4), 347–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470910902934400

Williams, D. J., & Noyes, J. M. (2007). How does our perception of risk influence decision-making? Implications for the design of risk information. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 8, 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/14639220500484419

Yamada, H., Inokawa, H., Matsumoto, N., Ueda, Y., & Kimura, M. (2011). Neuronal basis for evaluating selected action in the primate striatum. European Journal of Neuroscience, 34 (3), 489–506. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9568.2011.07771.x

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Dipartimento di Psicologia, Università di Roma “Sapienza”, Via dei Marsi. 78, 00185, Rome, Italy

Matteo Morelli & Giuseppe Forte

Dipartimento di Psicologia Dinamica, Clinica e Salute, Università di Roma “Sapienza”, Via degli Apuli, 1, 00185, Rome, Italy

Maria Casagrande

Body and Action Lab, IRCCS Fondazione Santa Lucia, Rome, Italy

Giuseppe Forte

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Maria Casagrande or Giuseppe Forte .

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Morelli, M., Casagrande, M. & Forte, G. Decision Making: a Theoretical Review. Integr. psych. behav. 56 , 609–629 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-021-09669-x

Download citation

Accepted : 09 November 2021

Published : 15 November 2021

Issue Date : September 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-021-09669-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Decision making
• Neural correlates of decision making
• Decision-making tasks
• Decision-making theories
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Unlocking Microeconomic Insights: The Power of Marginal Analysis in Decision-Making

Marginal Analysis in Decision Making: Essential for Microeconomics Students

Microeconomics, an essential branch of economics focusing on the actions of individual entities like consumers, firms, and industries, assumes a pivotal role in unraveling the intricacies of decision-making within diverse economic landscapes. In the expansive realm of microeconomics, where principles drive economic behaviors, marginal analysis emerges as a formidable tool. This article seeks to explore the profound significance of marginal analysis for microeconomics students, shedding light on its pivotal role in enhancing decision-making capabilities and arming students with the requisite skills to adeptly handle the challenges posed by university assignments. As students grapple with the multifaceted dynamics of microeconomic scenarios, the concept of marginal analysis proves to be a linchpin, offering a structured approach to assess incremental changes and weigh the consequential impacts on production, consumption, and resource allocation. Whether it is discerning the optimal output level for a firm to maximize profit or understanding consumer preferences through utility maximization, marginal analysis serves as the compass guiding students through the intricate terrain of economic decision-making. If you need help with your microeconomics homework , don't hesitate to reach out. I'm here to assist you in mastering this essential aspect of economic analysis.

Furthermore, this analytical tool finds practical application in university assignments, where students are often tasked with deciphering real-world problems and proposing viable solutions. The nuanced understanding of marginal analysis enables students to dissect case studies, graphically represent economic relationships, and critically evaluate policy implications. Through the lens of marginal analysis, microeconomics students gain a holistic perspective on how small changes at the margin can lead to significant consequences, fostering a deeper comprehension of economic principles. As microeconomics assumes an ever-increasing role in shaping economic policies and influencing business strategies, the mastery of marginal analysis becomes not merely advantageous but indispensable for aspiring economists and decision-makers navigating the complexities of the economic landscape. In essence, this article advocates for the recognition of marginal analysis as a cornerstone skill for microeconomics students, empowering them to unravel the intricacies of decision-making and excel in the academic rigors of university assignments, ultimately preparing them for the dynamic challenges of the broader economic world.

Understanding Marginal Analysis

At its core, marginal analysis delves into the meticulous examination of incremental changes or the "marginal" effects stemming from a decision. Rooted in the notion that decisions unfold at the margin, this analytical approach intricately considers the supplementary benefits and costs accompanying minor alterations in an activity or decision variable. In the domain of microeconomics, marginal analysis assumes a versatile application, extending its reach across critical facets like production, consumption, and resource allocation. Whether optimizing output levels for profit maximization, understanding consumer behavior through utility maximization, or allocating limited resources efficiently, microeconomics leverages marginal analysis to discern the intricate interplay between incremental shifts and their consequential impacts on economic outcomes. By dissecting decisions into their incremental components, marginal analysis equips economists and decision-makers with a nuanced understanding of the intricate trade-offs inherent in various scenarios. This concept proves particularly invaluable in microeconomics, where the emphasis on individual behaviors and market dynamics demands a granular examination of decision-making processes. As microeconomics students grapple with real-world problem-solving and complex economic scenarios, the incorporation of marginal analysis into their analytical toolkit becomes imperative, fostering a comprehensive comprehension of the subtle yet pivotal influences that marginal changes can exert across diverse economic domains.

Production and Cost Analysis

In the realm of microeconomics, students frequently confront scenarios demanding firms to fine-tune production levels for profit maximization. Marginal analysis proves instrumental in discerning the optimal output by evaluating the marginal cost and marginal revenue associated with each additional unit produced. The overarching objective is to strike a balance, producing at a level where marginal cost equals marginal revenue, thereby ensuring the attainment of the highest possible profit. For instance, envision a widget manufacturer contemplating the quantity of units to produce. If the cost of producing one more widget (marginal cost) is outweighed by the revenue gained from selling that additional widget (marginal revenue), it economically justifies an increase in production. The adept application of marginal analysis equips students to efficiently navigate such intricate decision-making scenarios.

Consumer Behavior and Utility Maximization

In microeconomics, a fundamental focus lies on understanding consumer behavior, where choices are molded by preferences and budget constraints. Marginal analysis assumes a pivotal role in evaluating how an additional unit of a good or service influences a consumer's satisfaction, commonly referred to as utility. For instance, when a student allocates a budget between purchasing textbooks and attending social events, marginal analysis facilitates the determination of an optimal allocation that maximizes overall satisfaction. If the marginal utility gained from an extra textbook surpasses that of attending another social event, the rational choice is to allocate more budget towards textbooks. This exemplifies the practical application of marginal analysis in unraveling the complexities of consumer decision-making.

Resource Allocation

Efficient allocation of limited resources is a recurrent challenge for microeconomics students. Marginal analysis emerges as a guiding compass in this decision-making process, evaluating the marginal productivity of resources across various uses. Picture a farmer grappling with the allocation of land between growing corn and soybeans. Marginal analysis aids the farmer in determining the optimal distribution by comparing the additional yield (marginal product) of each crop on the last unit of land. If the marginal product of soybeans exceeds that of corn, a rational economic choice involves allocating more land to soybeans. This scenario exemplifies how marginal analysis serves as a strategic tool in the intricate process of resource allocation, enriching the decision-making capabilities of microeconomics students.

Defining Marginal Analysis

Defining Marginal Analysis, this fundamental concept in microeconomics entails a meticulous examination of the additional benefit or cost that arises from a one-unit change in a specific variable, all the while maintaining other factors at a constant level. In essence, Marginal Analysis hones in on the nuanced impacts of minor, incremental adjustments within the broader context of decision-making. For students immersed in the study of microeconomics, this concept is akin to a potent analytical tool, facilitating the evaluation of choices, strategic allocation of resources, and the pursuit of optimized decision outcomes. As microeconomic principles underscore the allocation of scarce resources to satisfy unlimited wants, the ability to dissect and understand the marginal implications of decisions becomes paramount. Marginal Analysis empowers students to navigate the complexities of resource allocation, production optimization, and consumer choices by emphasizing the significance of incremental changes. Whether grappling with production decisions where firms must ascertain the optimal output level by weighing marginal costs against marginal benefits or analyzing consumer choices by evaluating the marginal utility of goods and services, microeconomics students find themselves equipped with a versatile toolset. In essence, Marginal Analysis becomes the compass guiding students through the intricate landscape of economic decision-making, offering a systematic approach to dissecting the implications of incremental adjustments and enhancing their ability to make informed choices in the face of resource constraints and competing alternatives.

Marginal Cost (MC):

Marginal Cost, denoted as MC, is a fundamental concept in microeconomics, representing the incremental cost incurred when producing one additional unit of a good or service. This metric plays a pivotal role in the decision-making process of firms aiming to optimize their production levels. By analyzing the relationship between marginal cost and marginal benefit, businesses can make informed choices regarding the most efficient level of production. This crucial economic tool empowers microeconomics students to delve into the intricacies of resource allocation and cost management within the production framework.

Marginal Revenue (MR):

In the realm of microeconomics, Marginal Revenue (MR) stands as a key metric that gauges the additional revenue generated by selling one more unit of a product. In a perfectly competitive market, MR aligns with the price of the product. However, in imperfectly competitive markets, the relationship between MR and price can differ. This concept is vital for students as it unveils the dynamics of revenue generation and pricing strategies employed by businesses. Understanding MR equips microeconomics students with insights into the functioning of markets and aids in crafting strategies for revenue maximization.

Marginal Utility (MU):

Microeconomics delves into the consumer side of decision-making, and Marginal Utility (MU) emerges as a cornerstone in understanding individual choices. MU quantifies the additional satisfaction or benefit derived from consuming one more unit of a good or service. As consumers navigate various options, they strive to maximize utility by comparing the marginal utility of different goods against their respective prices. This concept not only guides consumer behavior but also serves as a crucial element in pricing and production decisions for businesses.

Marginal Product (MP):

Marginal Product (MP) is an essential concept in the realm of production efficiency for firms. It measures the additional output obtained by employing one more unit of input, such as labor or capital. Firms leverage marginal product analysis to determine the optimal level of input that maximizes production efficiency and output. For microeconomics students, understanding MP is paramount as it provides insights into the production process and aids in making informed decisions regarding resource utilization. This concept is integral to grasping the dynamics of production functions and optimizing factors of production for businesses striving to achieve efficiency and profitability.

Practical Application in University Assignments

The practical application of marginal analysis transcends theoretical constructs, becoming an indispensable skill for microeconomics students as they tackle real-world problems within the confines of university assignments. In this academic arena, the mastery of marginal analysis unfolds in multifaceted ways, enabling students to navigate complex economic scenarios and provide well-reasoned solutions. When confronted with case studies, students can employ marginal analysis to dissect and analyze scenarios, unraveling the incremental effects of decisions on outcomes. Graphical representation is another avenue where this skill proves invaluable, as students adeptly create visual depictions of economic relationships, incorporating concepts such as marginal cost, marginal revenue, and quantity produced. Moreover, university assignments often demand a policy-oriented analysis, requiring students to assess the potential impact of economic policies. In such instances, marginal analysis serves as a critical tool to evaluate the effects of policy changes on consumer behavior, producer surplus, and overall economic welfare. By incorporating marginal analysis into their analytical toolkit, students not only enhance their problem-solving capabilities but also develop a nuanced understanding of how small changes at the margin can have substantial repercussions in the economic landscape. Ultimately, the practical application of marginal analysis in university assignments propels microeconomics students beyond theoretical boundaries, preparing them to address the intricacies of decision-making and contribute meaningfully to the field by applying this essential analytical tool to real-world economic challenges.

Case Studies and Problem-Solving

In the realm of microeconomics, university assignments frequently immerse students in case studies that demand comprehensive analysis and decision-making within specified scenarios. Marginal analysis emerges as a stalwart ally in such endeavors, offering students a structured approach to assess the incremental effects of diverse choices. Whether tasked with determining the optimal production level for a firm or dissecting consumer choices, students can leverage marginal analysis to furnish well-reasoned solutions. This analytical tool becomes a beacon, guiding students through the complexities of decision-making in practical, real-world economic situations.

Graphical Representation

Microeconomics, as a discipline, often relies on graphical representations to elucidate complex economic concepts. In this context, marginal analysis takes center stage as students craft graphs delineating relationships between crucial variables such as marginal cost, marginal revenue, and quantity produced. These graphical depictions not only enhance the clarity of their analyses but also serve as essential components often demanded in assignments. Through the lens of marginal analysis, students adeptly navigate the intricacies of economic relationships, providing a visual dimension to their understanding of microeconomic principles.

Policy Analysis

University assignments frequently challenge microeconomics students to delve into the realm of policy analysis, requiring them to scrutinize and propose economic policies. Marginal analysis proves indispensable in this domain, serving as a linchpin for assessing the potential impact of policy changes. For instance, when tasked with evaluating the consequences of a government-imposed tax on a specific good, students employ marginal analysis to discern its effects on consumer behavior, producer surplus, and overall economic welfare. This application of marginal analysis empowers students to critically analyze policy implications and propose informed recommendations, showcasing the practical and impactful nature of this analytical tool in the policy-oriented landscape of microeconomics.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the significance of marginal analysis for microeconomics students cannot be overstated. Through its meticulous examination of incremental changes, it equips students with a powerful tool to make informed decisions in various economic scenarios. By understanding how marginal costs and benefits influence choices, students can navigate complex economic landscapes with clarity and precision. As such, integrating marginal analysis into microeconomic study not only fosters analytical prowess but also cultivates a deep appreciation for the intricate dynamics that shape economic decision-making processes.

Post a comment...

Unlocking microeconomic insights: the power of marginal analysis in decision-making submit your homework, attached files.

Problem Solving vs Decision Making: Difference and Comparison

Every person is, without a doubt, influenced by the worst-case situation for a significant period. Another difficult issue is not understanding the distinction between problem-solving and decision-making.

Decision-making and problem-solving are both psychological words that are frequently used interchangeably. Furthermore, it should be emphasised that these two terms are not interchangeable and are not synonymous.

Key Takeaways Problem-solving involves identifying and resolving issues or obstacles, while decision-making involves choosing different options or courses of action. Problem-solving is used to address a specific issue or challenge, while decision-making can be used in various contexts, such as business, personal life, or government. Problem-solving involves a step-by-step process of analysis and evaluation. At the same time, decision-making can be influenced by various factors such as personal values, emotions, or external pressures.

Problem Solving vs Decision Making

Problem-solving is the process of identifying and resolving a problem or challenge that is preventing an individual or organization from achieving its goal. Decision-making involves choosing a course of action or solution. This process can be complex and involve a variety of factors.

Problem-solving is a complex process that entails in-depth analysis. The identification of an issue is the first step in the problem-solving process. The main goal of problem-solving is to find the best solution.

Problem-solving is coupled with a specific goal. The results of problem-solving should be solution-oriented. The techniques and roads to resolution remain unknown when it comes to problem-solving. The purpose of problem-solving is to fix the problem or issue.

The process of decision-making leads to a final opinion and a course of action. The identification of opportunities is part of the decision-making process. The goal of the decision-making process is to avoid potential difficulties.

When making decisions, a variety of options are explored. The decision-making process can have a variety of results. The paths adopted in the event of decision-making are structured. The objectives of decision-making are unrelated to the resolution of a problem or issue.

Comparison Table

What is problem solving.

Problem-solving is a technique that can be used to solve a problem. When it comes to problem-solving, making the appropriate judgments is critical to reaching a specific outcome.

Problem-solving is a difficult process that entails extensive research. Identifying a difficulty is a common step in the problem-solving process.

In simple words or layman’s terms, problem-solving is simply solving problems, as the name suggests. Here, either an individual or a group tries to solve a problem in this process.

This involves high analytical skills for reaching better and faster solutions. This process also includes gathering information, facts and following or working parallel with human intuition .

The primary goal of problem-solving is to find the best solution possible. In general, problem-solving is linked to a specific goal. Problem-solving results must be solution-oriented.

The techniques and roads to resolution are unknown in the case of problem-solving. The purpose of problem-solving is to resolve the problem or issue.

What is Decision Making?

Making a decision is seen to be a procedure . Depending on the situation, the decision-making process may or may not entail problem-solving.

The decision-making process culminates in the formulation of a conclusion and a plan of action. Identifying opportunities is an important part of the decision-making process.

Decision-making focuses on the actions, ways and alternatives that are used to solve a particular problem. This is also a result of cognitive function.

Sometimes a psychological aspect of an individual is taken into consideration while stressing about making decisions. The needs and wants are taken care of. This process can also be considered as continuous interaction with the surrounding environment.

The goal of the decision-making process is to avoid any potential issues. While making decisions, various types of options are explored. Decision-making can have a variety of results.

The paths that are taken in decision-making are structured. The decision-making goals have nothing to do with resolving a problem or issue.

Main Differences Between Problem Solving and Decision Making

• Problem-solving can be considered a method. On the other hand, decision-making is considered a process.
• At the time of problem-solving, taking the right decisions is important to reach out a certain conclusion. On the other hand, the decision-making process sometimes includes solving problems and sometimes does not.
• The method of problem-solving is complex and includes deep analysis. On the other hand, the decision-making process leads to taking a final opinion and a course of action.
• The method of problem-solving involves the identification of a challenge. On the other hand, the decision-making process involves identifying opportunities.
• Creating the right solution is an important motive for problem-solving. On the other hand, avoiding potential problems is the motive of the decision-making process.
• Problem-solving is associated with a clear objective. On the other hand, different types of options are considered while taking decisions.
• The outcomes coming from problem-solving should be solution-driven. On the other hand, the outcomes of the decision-making can vary.
• In the case of problem-solving, the ways and paths to resolution are not known. On the other hand, in the case of decision-making, the paths taken are structured.
• The goal of problem-solving is to correct the issue or problem. On the other hand, the goals associated with the decision making is not related to the solving of an issue or problem.

• https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794/22321/slovic_189.pdf?sequence=1
• http://www.sci.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~kopec/cis718/fall_2005/2/Rafique_2_humanthinking.doc

Last Updated : 11 July, 2023

I’ve put so much effort writing this blog post to provide value to you. It’ll be very helpful for me, if you consider sharing it on social media or with your friends/family. SHARING IS ♥️

Chara Yadav holds MBA in Finance. Her goal is to simplify finance-related topics. She has worked in finance for about 25 years. She has held multiple finance and banking classes for business schools and communities. Read more at her bio page .

Share this post!

20 thoughts on “problem solving vs decision making: difference and comparison”.

I appreciate the article’s delineation of problem-solving’s complex analysis and decision-making’s structured paths, illustrating the contrasting elements and nuanced approaches of these essential processes.

Absolutely, the article’s comparison table provides a comprehensive overview, elucidating the multifaceted nature of problem-solving and decision-making and their interconnected role in addressing challenges and reaching conclusions.

I found the detailed analysis of problem-solving’s goal of correcting issues and the structured paths of decision-making to be particularly insightful, shedding light on their differing functions.

Indeed, the article’s delineation of these two processes clarifies how problem-solving involves methodical approaches towards resolution, while decision-making focuses on structured choices and actions.

The article’s comparison table effectively highlights the complexity and differences between problem-solving and decision-making, providing a comprehensive overview.

I agree, the table neatly summarizes the key factors of each process, making it easier to grasp the nuances and interconnectedness of problem-solving and decision-making.

I appreciate the detailed explanations of both problem-solving and decision-making processes, which are crucial elements in various aspects of life and business.

The article’s emphasis on the goal-oriented nature of problem-solving and the opportunity identification in decision-making is quite enlightening.

The distinction between problem-solving’s solution-driven outcomes and the structured paths taken in decision-making effectively portrays the dissimilarity in their objectives.

Indeed, understanding the deep analysis and unknown techniques of problem-solving, as opposed to the structured paths and goal of avoiding potential problems in decision-making, provides valuable insights.

Absolutely, the article makes it clear that these two processes have different motives and ultimate goals, shedding light on their multifaceted nature.

The detailed description of problem-solving and decision-making processes provides a comprehensive understanding of their intricacies and interplay in various contexts.

Absolutely, the article’s clear distinction between the two processes and the comparison table help in elucidating the methods and outcomes involved in problem-solving and decision-making.

The article effectively portrays the aims and mechanisms of problem-solving and decision-making, emphasizing the importance of clear identification and identification of opportunities in each process.

This article provides a clear distinction between problem-solving and decision-making, highlighting the different processes and goals involved.

Absolutely, the comprehensive comparison table is especially helpful in summarizing the disparities between problem-solving and decision-making.

I couldn’t agree more. The identification of opportunities in decision-making is a key difference, showing how it’s not just about solving problems, but also about making choices.

The article’s detailed explanation of problem-solving and decision-making sheds light on their distinctive motives, processes, and outcomes, providing valuable insights into their complex nature.

I couldn’t agree more. The article effectively highlights how problem-solving aims to resolve specific issues, while decision-making focuses on choosing alternatives and preventing potential problems.

Absolutely, the comprehensive descriptions underscore the different considerations and end goals of problem-solving and decision-making, elucidating their roles in addressing challenges and formulating solutions.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Want to save this article for later? Click the heart in the bottom right corner to save to your own articles box!

Decision Making and Problem Solving Essay

Steps in decision making.

Decisions can be made at an individual or organizational level. Individual decisions may affect the decision maker, the people who look up to them or the organization they serve. Similarly, organizational decisions may affect individuals or groups associated with the entity. In this respect, different factors affect the process of decision making.

Experiences, the level of information, the uniqueness of the situation and urgency of the matter are some of the factors that influence decision making (Dietrich 1). Having decided on whether the decision is individual or collective, the following guidelines are vital.

First, one must identify the problem that requires a decision. In the second step, one ought to generate possible solutions to the problem. The third step evaluates the consequences of each of the decisions that are to be taken. The fourth step involves choosing the measure you have decided to undertake about the problem. The fifth step is implementation. Implementation may take place at once or may be done in bits depending with the situation. The sixth step involves evaluation of the degree of success of the decision (Lunenburg 3; Anderson 9).

Making decision in the light of Ian Robertson, “Religion and Social Change”and Nicols Fox, “What are Our Real Values”

Determining whether affective domains of mankind determine culture and social change or whether social and cultural changes determine the affective domains is highly contested. In this regard, affective domains refer to the human beliefs, attitudes, social philosophies, ethics, norms and ideals. Karl Marx held the opinion that culture is made of material and nonmaterial constructs.

On the other hand, Max Weber agreed with the approach by Marx on material and nonmaterial constructs, but he held the opinion that the affective domains influenced social changes. According to him, the concept and principles of capitalism emanated from beliefs and other normative aspects (Robertson 10).

A further synthesis of the material and non material paradigms reveal that as much as the positions held by Max and Marx were based on correct constructs, they were relative and contextual. The growth of England as a capitalist over Scotland is a case at hand (Robertson 11).

The emerging modern economies in the East, especially China, complicate further, the view of Weber. Setting the ideals, believing in them and passing them on to the next generation is fast becoming an illusion. The ideals on the value of family, humanity and moral consciousness have become subject to media and celebrities (Fox 122).

Lilian Smith: When I was a child

The article is a classical analogy of racial discrimination in the south of the U.S. The parents talk of the goodness of God, of the virtue of their society, and of the value of life while at the same time they segregate against the people with the colored skin. As a little child, the author wonders why the family treated Janie without regard although she had showed good manners (Smith 36-37).

The white skinned society in the south denies children a chance to demonstrate hospitality, goodness and kindness to their colored skin friends. The only frame of reference in determining civility was in keeping slaves and disregarding them.

Plato: the parable of the cave

The article is about prisoners who perceive the objects of the world in form of shadows. One of the prisoners is freed and told to give his view of the world; the impact of the light hurts him. The cave has conditioned the prisoners into understanding the shadows as the true and real objects (Plato 80). The article is an insight on enlightenment. It advises one on viewing a situation in a new paradigm that is held as the true and real. It is relativistic.

Henry Thoreau: On the Duty of Civil Disobedience

The article systemizes the tenets of social organization. It observes the existence of individual human beings, property and the laws that govern their interaction, appropriation and increase. The society in collective terms, contract a few of its own to oversee the social order. In times of inefficiency and misappropriation of the stewardship of power, the citizens opt for disorder. They become disgruntled by oppression, slavery and short-change their trust in the elected few to oversee social order.

This is the beginning of revolutions (Thoreau 194). The article’s advice for the current situation is that it is not absolute for the collective responsibility to be undertaken directly. Social order is already contracted to the government by the way of election. Furthermore, one continues to contribute to the stewardship of the law and order by way of taxation and service to the government.

E.E Cummings: LIV

The poem is a presentation of the concept of reductionism. Although we are independent as individuals, many factors unite us. The poem states the importance and the reality of unity. The imageries given on tree, leaf, and on the growth of buds is an indication of the society comprised of many components yet united by the virtue of love and co-existence.

A show of love explains who we are (Cummings 181). The poem advises the situation on the value of compassion. The poem completely ignored the personal dreams, economic value and responsibility of provision on the east coast.

Martin Luther king, Jr, “Letters from a Birmingham Jail”

The letter speaks of the issues on racism in the south of the United States. As indicated, the racial discrimination anywhere had effect everywhere. Luther wondered what response he could give to a five year old if they wanted to know causes of segregation. Children understand that all mankind deserves good treatment. The section of the letter that touches on children is especially critical in deciding whether to go to Boston or remain in Iowa with the family (King 77-100).

Albert Camus: The Myth of Sisyphus

The myth is anchored on the condemnation of Sisyphus to roll the rock up the cliff and just before it topples over to the other side, it falls back to the foot of the cliff and he has to repeat. The punishment is given after the accusation of his role when Jupiter stole Aegina who was the daughter to Aesopus (Camus 237).

The myth is a demonstration of the power of divine creatures over the beings on the earth. Sisyphus suffers from labor in futility. The mythology informs the decision to remain in Iowa or leave to the east coast. The decision that violates the will of the divine power comes with adverse consequences.

Auden: the unknown Citizen

The Bureau of Statistics considered the unknown citizen as one with good conduct. He was on the good side of demography according to the Eugenist, he had modest interaction with colleagues, and he was in good health. He also had a reasonable material fortune of radio, automobile, fridge and phonograph. He was well informed from the media and his level of education was apt. (Auden 98).

The unknown citizen is the ideal representation of the decisions that ought to be made in the described situation. He can meet the expectation of serving his community and undertake his employer’s assignment. The decision should strive to meet the ideals posed in the case of the unknown citizen.

Precepts from the living quotations

The message in the quotations is derived from the scripture. It emphasizes on service to humanity through the lessons drawn from the stories of the Biblical personalities. The quotations reveal the benefits of working together as a community and treating each other with kindness (Bacote 155). The message in the nuggets informs the process of making decision in the present scenario by a historical and transcendent understanding.

The decision must strive to meet the ideals observed by the unknown citizen meaning it must be conscious of the family. The decision should also note that the current is an act of nature. The emerging obligations need character, strong will and decisiveness. The economic and social family obligations must be met despite the desire to offer a helping hand in the aftermath of the disaster (Adair 10 & 11).

Decide to be in Boston as your family remains in Iowa to assist the victims then they join you later. They ought to accept leaving old friends is hard but it also gives them opportunity to visit new places. Significant decisions involve breaking with the past (Anderson 11; Ehrgott, Figueira & Greco 88).

Works Cited

Adair, John. Decision making and problem solving . London: Kogan Page Limited, 2007. Print.

Anderson, Barry F. The Three Secrets of Wise Decision Making. Portland: Single Reef Press, 2002. Print.

Auden, Hugh Wystan. The Unknown Citizen. Sunnyvale: Shmoop University Incorporated, 1940. Print.

Bocote, Vicente. Precepts for living2007-2008: Umi Annual Sunday school Lesson Commentary . Illinois: Urban Ministries, Inc., 2007. Print.

Camus, Albert. The Myth of Sisyphus . Washington: Penguin Books Limited, 2013.Print.

Cummings, E E. 100 Selected Poems. New York: Grove press, 1954. Print.

Dietrich, Cindy “Decision Making: Factors that Influence Decision Making, Heuristics Used, and Decision outcomes.” The International Student Journal 2.02 (2010): 1-3. Print.

Ehrgott, Matthias, Figueira, Jose, & Greco Galvatore. Trends in Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis . New York: Springer, 2010. Print.

Fox, Nicols. Against the Machine: The Hidden Luddite Tradition in Literature, Art, and Individual lives. Washington: Island Press, 2002. Print.

Lunenburg, Fred “The Decision Making Process.” The forum of educational administration and supervision journal 27.4 (2010): 1-12. Print.

King, Martin Luther “Letter from Birmingham Jail” why we can’t wait. Martin Luther King, Jr., papers project (1963):77-100. Print.

Plato. The allegory of the Cave. London: P & L Publication, 2010. Print.

Robertson, Ian. Sociology . New York: Worth Publishers, 1981. Print.

Smith, Lilian. Killers of the Dream . New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1949. Print.

Thoreau, David Henry. On the Duty of Civil Disobedience. Washington: Arc Manor, 2007. Print.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, January 17). Decision Making and Problem Solving. https://ivypanda.com/essays/making-decision/

"Decision Making and Problem Solving." IvyPanda , 17 Jan. 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/making-decision/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'Decision Making and Problem Solving'. 17 January.

IvyPanda . 2019. "Decision Making and Problem Solving." January 17, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/making-decision/.

1. IvyPanda . "Decision Making and Problem Solving." January 17, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/making-decision/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Decision Making and Problem Solving." January 17, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/making-decision/.

• Albert Camus’ Sisyphus Treatise and The Plague Review
• The Myth About Sisyphus and the Meaning of Human Life
• Albert Camus “The Myth of Sisyphus” and “The Stranger”: Meursault’s and Sisyphus’ Happiness
• Meaningless Existence in Camus' "The Myth of Sisyphus"
• Camus’ Notions in The Plague, The Myth of Sisyphus and The Stranger
• The Myth of Sisyphus by Albert Camus: The Philosophy of Absurdism
• Post-College Existence: Absurd or Ambiguous?
• Investigation of One of the States of the United States. -Iowa
• The Character of Joseph Grand in "The Plague" by Albert Camus
• The Meaning of Life by Richard Taylor
• Consciousness as a Brain Process
• The Elephant in the Room: Existentialism and the Denial of Death
• Philosophy of Existentialism
• Berkeley’s Argument on Materialism Analysis
• Thomas Kuhn: Pre-Science and Normal Science Periods

Problem Solving and Decision Making: Consideration of Individual Differences Using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator William G. Huitt

Citation: Huitt, W. (1992). Problem solving and decision making: Consideration of individual differences using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Journal of Psychological Type, 24 , 33-44. Retrieved from [date] http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/papers/prbsmbti.html

Return to: | Readings in Educational Psychology | Educational Psychology Interactive |

    Abstract

Improving individuals' and groups' abilities to solve problems and make decisions is recognized as an important issue in education, industry, and government. Recent research has identified a prescriptive model of problem solving, although there is less agreement as to appropriate techniques. Separate research on personality and cognitive styles has identified important individual differences in how people approach and solve problems and make decisions. This paper relates a model of the problem-solving process to Jung's theory of personality types (as measured by the MBTI) and identifies specific techniques to support individual differences .

The recent transition to the information age has focused attention on the processes of problem solving and decision making and their improvement (e.g., Nickerson, Perkins, & Smith, 1985; Stice, 1987; Whimbey & Lochhead, 1982). In fact, Gagne (1974, 1984) considers the strategies used in these processes to be a primary outcome of modern education. Although there is increasing agreement regarding the prescriptive steps to be used in problem solving, there is less consensus on specific techniques to be employed at each step in the problem-solving/decision-making process.

There is concurrent and parallel research on personality and cognitive styles that describes individuals' preferred patterns for approaching problems and decisions and their utilization of specific skills required by these processes (e.g., encoding, storage, retrieval, etc.). Researchers have studied the relationship between personality characteristics and problem-solving strategies (e.g., Heppner, Neal, & Larson, 1984; Hopper & Kirschenbaum, 1985; Myers, 1980), with Jung's (1971) theory on psychological type serving as the basis for much of this work, especially as measured by the MBTI (Myers & McCaulley, 1985).

One conclusion that may be drawn from these investigations is that individual differences in problem solving and decision making must be considered to adequately understand the dynamics of these processes (Stice, 1987). Attention must be paid to both the problem-solving process and the specific techniques associated with important personal characteristics. That is, individuals and organizations must have a problem-solving process as well as specific techniques congruent with individual styles if they are to capitalize on these areas of current research.

McCaulley (1987) attempted to do this by first focusing on individual differences in personality and then by presenting four steps for problem solving based on Jung's (1971) four mental processes (sensing, intuition, thinking, and feeling). Another strategy would be to consider first the problem-solving process and then to integrate individual preferences or patterns within this process. This second strategy is the perspective of this paper.

The purpose of this paper is to relate a model of the problem-solving process to a theory of personality type and temperaments in order to facilitate problem solving by focusing on important individual differences. Specific techniques that can be used in the problem-solving/decision-making process to take advantage of these differences are also identified. The integrated process is applicable to a variety of individual and group situations.

Problem-Solving and Decision-Making Process

Problem solving is a process in which we perceive and resolve a gap between a present situation and a desired goal, with the path to the goal blocked by known or unknown obstacles. In general, the situation is one not previously encountered, or where at least a specific solution from past experiences is not known. In contrast, decision making is a selection process where one of two or more possible solutions is chosen to reach a desired goal. The steps in both problem solving and decision making are quite similar. In fact, the terms are sometimes used interchangeably.

Most models of problem solving and decision making include at least four phases (e.g., Bransford & Stein, 1984; Dewey, 1933; Polya, 1971): 1) an Input phase in which a problem is perceived and an attempt is made to understand the situation or problem; 2) a Processing phase in which alternatives are generated and evaluated and a solution is selected; 3) an Output phase which includes planning for and implementing the solution; and 4) a Review phase in which the solution is evaluated and modifications are made, if necessary. Most researchers describe the problem-solving/decision-making process as beginning with the perception of a gap and ending with the implementation and evaluation of a solution to fill that gap.

Each phase of the process includes specific steps to be completed before moving to the next phase. These steps will be discussed in greater detail later in this paper.

Consideration of Individual Differences

Although there are a variety of ways to consider individual differences relative to problem solving and decision making, this paper will focus on personality type and temperament as measured by the MBTI.

Personality Type and Problem Solving

Researchers have investigated the relationship of Jung's theory of individuals' preferences and their approach to problem solving and decision making (e.g., Lawrence, 1982, 1984; McCaulley, 1987; Myers & McCaulley, 1985). The following is a summary of their findings.

When solving problems, individuals preferring introversion will want to take time to think and clarify their ideas before they begin talking, while those preferring extraversion will want to talk through their ideas in order to clarify them. In addition, Is will more likely be concerned with their own understanding of important concepts and ideas, while Es will continually seek feedback from the environment about the viability of their ideas.

Sensing individuals will be more likely to pay attention to facts, details, and reality. They will also tend to select standard solutions that have worked in the past. Persons with intuition preferences, on the other hand, will more likely attend to the meaningfulness of the facts, the relationships among the facts, and the possibilities of future events that can be imagined from these facts. They will exhibit a tendency to develop new, original solutions rather than to use what has worked previously.

Individuals with a thinking preference will tend to use logic and analysis during problem solving. They are also likely to value objectivity and to be impersonal in drawing conclusions. They will want solutions to make sense in terms of the facts, models, and/or principles under consideration. By contrast, individuals with a feeling preference are more likely to consider values and feelings in the problem-solving process. They will tend to be subjective in their decision making and to consider how their decisions could affect other people.

The final dimension to be considered describes an individual's preference for either judging (using T or F) or perceiving (using S or N). Js are more likely to prefer structure and organization and will want the problem-solving process to demonstrate closure. Ps are more likely to prefer flexibility and adaptability. They will be more concerned that the problem-solving process considers a variety of techniques and provides for unforeseen change.

As a demonstration of how personality type can affect problem solving, McCaulley (1987) describes the problem-solving characteristics of two of the 16 MBTI types, ISTJ and ENFP.

In problem solving, ISTJ will want a clear idea of the problem (I) and attack it by looking for the facts (S) and by relying on a logical, impersonal (T), step-by-step approach in reaching conclusions. In contrast, ENFP will throw out all sorts of possibilities (N), seeking feedback from the environment to clarify the problem (E). Brainstorming (NP) will be enjoyed. The human aspects of the problem (F) are likely to be emphasized over impersonal, technical issues (T). To the ISTJ, the ENFP approach is likely to seem irrational or scattered. To the ENFP, the ISTJ approach is likely to seem slow and unimaginative. (pp. 43-44)

Temperament

Kiersey and Bates (1978) provide another view of Jung's theory. These authors focus on four temperaments similar in many ways to those described in ancient times by Hippocrates and in the early 20th century by psychologists such as Adickes (1907), Kretschmer (1921/1925), and Spranger (1928). These temperaments can be useful in discussing individual differences related to problem solving and decision making since they are associated with fundamental differences in orientation to problem solving and goals to be addressed.

The first dimension considered in temperament is the one related to differences in the perceptual processes used in gathering information--the S-N dimension. Kiersey and Bates (1978) argue that S-N is the most fundamental dimension since all other dimensions depend on the type of information most preferred. The concrete-abstract dimension in Kolb's (1984) theory of learning style supports this proposal.

For individuals with a sensing preference, the second dimension to be considered (J-P) relates to the utilization of data--should they be organized and structured or should additional data be gathered. For Ns, the second dimension (T-F) relates to the evaluation of data by logic and reason or by values and impact on people. Therefore, the four temperaments are SP, SJ, NT, and NF.

The SP temperament is oriented to reality in a playful and adaptable manner. The goal of the SP is action, and the SP's time reference is the present. The SP wants to take some immediate action using an iterative approach to achieve the end result or goal. The SP's definition of the problem is likely to change in the process of solving it. Individuals of this temperament are not likely bound by original perceptions and want the freedom to change their perceptions based on new information. Sometimes lack of a coherent plan of action diverts the SP from the original problem.

An individual of the SJ temperament is oriented to reality in an organized manner, strives to be socially useful, and performs traditional duties within a structured framework. SJs are detail conscious, are able to anticipate outcomes, and prefer evolutionary rather than revolutionary change. SJs often need help in categorizing details into meaningful patterns and generating creative, non-standard alternatives.

The NT temperament approaches problem solving scientifically and is future oriented. NTs are likely to be interested in the laws or principles governing a situation. The prescriptive problem-solving/decision-making process described by researchers is oriented to the NT temperament. NTs tend to overlook important facts and details and need help considering the impact of solutions on people.

The NF temperament seeks self-discovery, which appears to be a circular goal, and is oriented to the future in terms of human possibilities. When engaged in the problem-solving process, NFs may rely on internal alternatives often interpreted as not grounded in reality or logic. They are often concerned with the integrity of solutions and strive to enhance personal development. NFs need help attending to details and focusing on realistic, formulated solutions.

The validity of the problem-solving process will be seen from different perspectives by each temperament. SPs will value their own experiences; SJs will value tradition and authority; NTs will value logic and reason; NFs will value insight and inspiration. The challenge for using the problem-solving process described by experts is to utilize techniques and procedures that acknowledge individual differences and provide an opportunity for alternative perspectives to be considered.

Problem-Solving Techniques

It is not enough to describe a problem-solving process and to describe how individuals differ in their approach to or use of it. It is also necessary to identify specific techniques of attending to individual differences. Fortunately, a variety of problem-solving techniques have been identified to accommodate individual preferences. Some of these techniques are oriented more to NT and SJ individuals who tend to be more linear and serial, more structured, more rational and analytical, and more goal-oriented in their approach to problem solving. Other techniques are more suited to NF and SP individuals who demonstrate a preference for an approach that is more holistic and parallel, more emotional and intuitive, more creative, more visual, and more tactual/kinesthetic. It is important that techniques from both categories be selected and used in the problem-solving process. Duemler and Mayer (1988) found that when students used exclusively either reflection or inspiration during problem solving, they tended to be less successful than if they used a moderate amount of both processes. This section offers some examples of both types of techniques; the next section will demonstrate how to integrate them into the problem-solving process to accommodate individual differences.

The following techniques focus more on logic and critical thinking, especially within the context of applying the scientific approach:

A. Analysis--the identification of the components of a situation and consideration of the relationships among the parts (Bloom, Englehart, Furst, Hill, & Krathwohl, 1956);

B. Backwards planning--a goal selection process where mid-range and short-term conditions necessary to obtain the goal are identified (Case & Bereiter, 1984; Gagne, 1977; Skinner, 1954); this technique is related to the more general technique of means-ends analysis described by Newell and Simon (1972);

C. Categorizing/classifying--the process of identifying and selecting rules to group objects, events, ideas, people, etc. (Feuerstein, Rand, Hoffman, & Miller, 1980; Sternberg, 1988);

D. Challenging assumptions--the direct confrontation of ideas, opinions, or attitudes that have previously been taken for granted (Bransford & Stein, 1984; Brookfield, 1987);

E. Evaluating/judging--comparison to a standard and making a qualitative or quantitative judgment of value or worth (Bloom et al., 1956);

F. Inductive/deductive reasoning--the systematic and logical development of rules or concepts from specific instances or the identification of cases based on a general principle or proposition using the generalization and inference (e.g., Devine, 1981; Pelligrino, 1985; Sternberg, 1988);

G. Thinking aloud--the process of verbalizing about a problem and its solution while a partner listens in detail for errors in thinking or understanding (Whimby & Lochhead, 1982);

H. Network analysis--a systems approach to project planning and mangement where relationships among activities, events, resources, and timelines are developed and charted. Specific examples include Program Evaluation and Review Technique and Critical Path Method (Awani, 1983; Handy & Hussain, 1969);

I. Plus-Minus-Interesting (PMI)--considering the positive, negative, and interesting or thought-provoking aspects of an idea or alternative using a balance sheet grid where plus and minus refer to criteria identified in the second step of the problem-solving process (de Bono, 1976; Janis & Mann, 1977);

J. Task analysis--the consideration of skills and knowledge required to learn or perform a specific task (Gagne, 1977; Gardner, 1985).

The following problem-solving techniques focus more on creative, lateral, or divergent thinking (e.g., de Bono, 1983; Prince, 1970; Wonder & Donovan, 1984):

A. Brainstorming--attempting to spontaneously generate as many ideas on a subject as possible; ideas are not critiqued during the brainstorming process; participants are encouraged to form new ideas from ideas already stated (Brookfield, 1987; Osborn, 1963);

B. Imaging/visualization--producing mental pictures of the total problem or specific parts of the problem (Lazarus, 1978; McKim, 1980; Wonder & Donovan, 1984);

C. Incubation--putting aside the problem and doing something else to allow the mind to unconsciously consider the problem (Frederiksen, 1984; Osborn, 1963);

D. Outcome psychodrama--enacting a scenario of alternatives or solutions through role playing (Janis & Mann, 1977);

E. Outrageous provocation--making a statement that is known to be absolutely incorrect (e.g., the brain is made of charcoal) and then considering it; used as a bridge to a new idea (Beinstock, 1984); also called "insideouts" by Wonder and Donovan (1984);

F. Overload--considering a large number of facts and details until the logic part of the brain becomes overwhelmed and begins looking for patterns (Wonder & Donovan, 1984); can also be generated by immersion in aesthetic experiences (Brookfield, 1987), sensitivity training (Lakin, 1972), or similar experiences;

G. Random word technique--selecting a word randomly from the dictionary and juxtaposing it with problem statement, then brainstorming about possible relationships (Beinstock, 1984);

H. Relaxation--systematically relaxing all muscles while repeating a personally meaningful focus word or phrase (Benson, 1987); a specific example of the more general technique called "suspenders" by Wonder and Donovan (1984);

I. Synthesizing--combining parts or elements into a new and original pattern Bloom et al., 1956; Sternberg, 1988);

J. Taking another's perspective--deliberately taking another person's point of view (de Bono, 1976; referred to as "be someone else" by Wonder and Donovan (1984);

K. Values clarification--using techniques such as role-playing, simulations, self-analysis exercises, and structured controversy to gain a greater understanding of attitudes and beliefs that individuals hold important (Fraenkel, 1977; Johnson & Johnson, 1988; Kirschenbaum, 1977).

Integrating Techniques into the Problem-Solving Process

The problem-solving techniques discussed above are most powerful when combined to activate both the logical/rational and intuitive/creative parts of the brain (Wonder & Donovan, 1984). The following narrative will provide an example of how these techniques can be used at specific points in the problem-solving process to address important individual differences. The techniques will be presented within the context of a group problem-solving situation but are equally applicable to an individual situation. The terms in parentheses refer to personality dimensions to which the technique would appeal.

The Input Phase

The goal of the Input phase is to gain a clearer understanding of the problem or situation. The first step is to identify the problem(s) and state it(them) clearly and concisely. Identifying the problem means describing as precisely as possible the gap between one's perception of present circumstances and what one would like to happen. Problem identification is vital to communicate to one's self and others the focus of the problem-solving/decision-making process. Arnold (1978) identified four types of gaps: 1) something is wrong and needs to be corrected; 2) something is threatening and needs to be prevented; 3) something is inviting and needs to be accepted; and 4) something is missing and needs to be provided. Tunnel vision (stating the problem too narrowly) represents the major difficulty in problem identification as it leads to artificially restricting the search for alternatives.

Brainstorming is an excellent technique to begin the problem-solving process. Individually, participants quickly write possible solutions (introversion, perception), share these alternatives as a group in a non-judgmental fashion, and continue to brainstorm (extraversion, perception). Participants then classify, categorize, and prioritize problems, forming a hierarchy of the most important to the least important (intuition, thinking).

The second step of the Input phase is to state the criteria that will be used to evaluate possible alternatives to the problem as well as the effectiveness of selected solutions. During this step it is important to state any identified boundaries of acceptable alternatives, important values or feelings to be considered, or results that should be avoided. In addition, criteria should be categorized as either essential for a successful solution or merely desired.

Brainstorming can also be used during this second step. Participants quickly write possible criteria for use in evaluating alternatives (introversion, perception). These factors generally fall into the following categories: 1) important personal values, attitudes, and feelings to be considered (sensing, feeling); 2) important values, attitudes, and feelings to be considered in context of the work group, organization, community, society, etc. (extraversion, intuition, feeling); 3) practical factors that relate to how an alternative should work (sensing, thinking); and 4) factors that logically flow from the statement of the problem, relevant facts, or how the solution should fit into the larger context (intuition, thinking). Values clarification techniques can be very useful in generating criteria related to values, feelings, and attitudes. Role-playing and simulations are especially appreciated by SPs and SJs, who generally take a more practical approach to problem solving. Self-analysis exercises and structured controversy are more likely to appeal to NFs and NTs, who focus on principles and abstractions. In addition, the use of both deductive and inductive reasoning can be important in generating criteria. For example, logically generating criteria from the problem statement would use deductive reasoning, whereas combining several different values or feelings to form criteria would use inductive reasoning.

After criteria are generated they are then shared in a non-judgmental manner using procedures suggested in values clarification strategies (extraversion, perception). Important criteria are placed into different categories, and a preliminary selection is made. Selected criteria are then evaluated in terms of their reasonableness given the problem statement (intuition, thinking, judging). Of course, these criteria can, and probably will, be modified based on important facts identified in the next step.

The third step is to gather information or facts relevant to solving the problem or making a decision. This step is critical for understanding the initial conditions and for further clarification of the perceived gap. Most researchers believe that the quality of facts is more important than the quantity. In fact, Beinstock (1984) noted that collecting too much information can actually confuse the situation rather than clarify it.

The brainstorming technique could again be used in this step. As done previously, participants quickly write those facts they believe to be important (introversion, sensing) and then share them in a non-judgmental fashion (extraversion, sensing). These facts are classified and categorized, and relationships and meaningfulness are stablished (intuition, thinking). The techniques of imaging and overload can be used to establish patterns and relationships among the facts. The facts are analyzed in terms of the problem statement and criteria, and non-pertinent facts are eliminated (thinking, judging). The remaining facts and associated patterns are then prioritized and additional facts collected as necessary (thinking, perceiving).

The Processing Phase

In the Processing phase the task is to develop, evaluate, and select alternatives and solutions that can solve the problem. The first step in this phase is to develop alternatives or possible solutions. Most researchers focus on the need to create alternatives over the entire range of acceptable options as identified in the previous phase (Schnelle, 1967). This generation should be free, open, and unconcerned about feasibility. Enough time should be spent on this activity to ensure that non-standard and creative alternatives are generated.

Again, brainstorming is a technique that can be used first. Participants quickly write alternatives using the rules of brainstorming (introversion, perception), then share the results in a non-judgmental fashion and develop additional alternatives (extraversion, perception). A number of the techniques mentioned above such as challenging assumptions, imaging, outcome psychodrama, outrageous provocation, the random word technique, and taking another's perspective can be used at this point to generate more creative alternatives. Those alternatives obviously unworthy of further consideration are eliminated (intuition, judging). It is possible to categorize or classify alternatives and consider them as a group, but care should be taken not to make the categories too complex or unwieldy. If the person or group is dissatisfied with the quantity or quality of the alternatives under consideration, a brief use of the progressive relaxation technique may be beneficial as well as the application of another, previously unused, creative technique. If dissatisfaction still remains, putting aside the problem (incubation) may be helpful.

The next step is to evaluate the generated alternatives vis-a-vis the stated criteria. Advantages, disadvantages, and interesting aspects for each alternative (using the PMI technique) are written individually (introversion, sensing, judging), then shared and discussed as a group (extroversion, sensing, judging). Most researchers advocate written evaluation, if only in the form of personal notes. After discarding alternatives that are clearly outside the bounds of the previously stated criteria, both advantages and disadvantages should be considered in more detail. An analysis of relationships among alternatives should be completed (i.e., is an advantage of one a disadvantage for another) and consideration should be given to the relative importance of advantages and disadvantages. Only those alternatives the majority considers relevant and correct are considered further.

The third step of the processing phase is to develop a solution that will successfully solve the problem. For relatively simple problems, one alternative may be obviously superior. However, in complex situations several alternatives may likely be combined to form a more effective solution (simply selecting one alternative will appeal to sensing, judging; combining one or more alternatives to make a new alternative will appeal to intuition, perceiving). A major advantage of this process is that if previous steps have been done well then choosing a solution is less complicated (Simon, 1969).

Before leaving this phase it is important to diagnose possible problems with the solution and implications of these problems (what could go wrong--sensing, judging; implications--intuition, perceiving). When developing a solution it is important to consider the worst that can happen if the solution is implemented. In addition, the solution should be evaluated in terms of overall "feelings." That is, does the alternative match important values as previously stated (feeling).

The Output Phase

During the Output phase a plan is developed and the solution actually implemented. The plan must be sufficiently detailed to allow for successful implementation, and methods of evaluation must be considered and developed. When developing a plan, the major phases of implementation are first considered (intuition), and then steps necessary for each phase are generated. It is often helpful to construct a timeline and make a diagram of the most important steps in the implementation using a technique such as network analysis (sensing, judging). Backwards planning and task analysis are also useful techniques at this point. The plan is then implemented as carefully and as completely as possible, following the steps as they have been developed and making minor modifications as appropriate (sensing, judging).

The Review Phase

The next step, evaluating implementation of the solution, should be an ongoing process. Some determination as to completeness of implementation needs to be considered prior to evaluating effectiveness. This step is often omitted and is one reason why the problem-solving/decision-making process sometimes fails: the solution that has been selected is simply not implemented effectively. However, if the solution is not implemented then evaluation of effectiveness is not likely to be valid.

The second step of this phase is evaluating the effectiveness of the solution. It is particularly important to evaluate outcomes in light of the problem statement generated at the beginning of the process. Affective, cognitive, and behavioral outcomes should be considered, especially if they have been identified as important criteria. The solution should be judged as to its efficiency (thinking, judging), its impact on the people involved (feeling, judging), and the extent to which it is valued by the participants (feeling, judging).

The final step in the process is modifying the solution in ways suggested by the evaluation process. Evaluation of the solution implementation and outcomes generally presents additional problems to be considered and addressed. Issues identified in terms of both efficiency and effectiveness of implementation should be addressed.

Table 1 lists important aspects of personality when considering attention to individual differences during problem solving and decision making. Each aspect of personality has a different orientation to problem solving, different criteria for judging the effectiveness of the process and selected alternatives, as well as different preferred techniques and strengths. These differences must be considered by both individuals and groups if effective solutions are to be generated and implemented.

Table 1. Aspects of personality important for problem solving and decision making

Considering Temperament

If the majority of the group is composed of a single temperament, the basic process can be modified to take advantage of the dominant attitudes. For example, if the majority of the group is composed of SPs, it is often useful to shorten the information collection and alternatives evaluation steps and move relatively quickly to an iterative process of identifying an appropriate solution through action. This identification might be done using psychodrama, building simple models or simulations, and trying out different alternatives. The entire group might brainstorm about the statement of the problem, pertinent facts, and criteria then form a subcommittee to conduct a more thorough analysis. Results could then be submitted to the whole group for consideration, and alternatives could be generated and evaluated. The subcommittee could then take the alternatives, develop a solution, and work out implementation details.

If the group contains a majority of SJs, care should be taken to proceed in a step-by- step, orderly manner, with ample time for consideration of all details at each step. The group leader should consistently remind participants of where they are in the overall process since SJs sometimes focus too intensely on details and lose sight of the broader goal. During the alternatives generation phase, the group leader must be prepared to use any or all techniques for generating creative options since SJs are likely to select a traditional, familiar solution rather than formulate something new. Most importantly, the process must result in a careful, detailed plan of action that participants can follow to solve the problem. Following a step-by-step procedure is the strength of the SJs, and a properly developed solution is likely to be accurately implemented.

If the group is composed mainly of NTs, the group leader should be prepared to spend as much time as possible developing a model of the problem and its related elements. It is critical that group members have a common representation of the problem as this representation will guide the development and selection of alternatives. Careful consideration must be given to collection and discussion of all relevant details and facts as NTs are likely to consider the meaningfulness of the facts and details and often overlook those that conflict with their representations. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, care must be given to carefully analyze any alternative in terms of its impact on people. Consideration of others' perspectives in terms of values and feelings is often difficult for NTs since they tend to view the world in such a logical, analytical manner.

When the group is composed mainly of NFs, it will naturally focus on selecting alternatives that maximize possibilities in people. The same careful attention to facts and details necessary for NTs is also appropriate for NFs since NFs also focus on the significance of facts and details within their representation of the problem. Focusing on facts and details is also beneficial since it more likely results in solutions that can be realistically implemented. NFs are the prototype idealists and sometimes want to select theoretically possible alternatives that are difficult to implement given current circumstances. A process for monitoring implementation of the solution is also important since NFs sometimes do not pay attention to the details of managing the change process.

Table 2 presents aspects of temperament important for problem solving and decision making. Each temperament has distinct elements and preferred processes and techniques as well as different needs or weaknesses. If consideration is given these differences, it increases the likelihood of individual satisfaction with the process and implementation of selected alternatives. Implemented solutions will more likely be effective since they have been considered from all perspectives.

Summary and Conclusions

In general, there is a need to develop and use a problem-solving/decision-making process that is both scientific and considerate of individual differences and viewpoints. While the scientific process has provided a method used successfully in a wide variety of situations, researchers have described individual differences that can influence perspectives and goals related to problem solving. These differences can be used to identify appropriate problem-solving techniques used in each step of the problem-solving process.

The process described in this paper allows individuals to use a standard method in a variety of situations and to adapt it to meet personal preferences. The same process can be used in group situations to satisfy the unique perspectives of individual members. Decisions made in this manner are more likely to be effective since individuals can consciously attend to both personal strengths and weaknesses, while groups are more likely to select solutions that will both solve the problem and be acceptable to individual group members.

Table 2. Aspects of temperament important for problem solving and decision making

The model and the outlined techniques, appeal to individuals differently. Both extraverts and introverts appreciate the process because it constantly allows them to utilize a strength. Sensing types appreciate the organization of information into manageable parts, and intuitives like having a model and a demonstration of the relationships among parts. Intuitives also appreciate having assistance in generating and analyzing specifics. Feeling types appreciate the built-in steps for considering values and affect, but often have the most difficulty with the process. SFs sometimes become confused or overwhelmed with the amount of informtion generated and simply want to focus on what they like or do not like, while NFs think it is silly to be so analytical when the correct answer is obvious and can be ascertained more easily. Perceiving types like the process because it allows for systematic generation and consideration of a variety of alternatives, although strong perceiving types sometimes dislike the structure imposed on the problem-solving process. Judging types like the organization and structure of the process, although strong judging types sometimes become impatient with the length of the process. Care must be taken to provide these individuals with sufficient training so that their personal experiences validate the process.

The benefits of the process described in this paper can be considered in three major categories: general, organizational, and individual.

General . One of the primary benefits of using this process is that it is an effective way of managing change. Because rapid and unpredictable change is the norm today, it is important that sufficient resources be available to manage it. In addition, the process can be used by individuals and organizations to solve a wide variety of problems. Since there is continuous diversity in the types of problems to be solved, it is important to have a generalizable, but flexible, process to resolve them. If it were necessary to have a unique problem-solving technique for every problem, it would be easy to be quickly overwhelmed before even getting started. While it may be impossible to have a single process that is applicable to all problems or decisions by all individuals, it is important to have a generalizable, though flexible, process that individuals believe fits with their unique styles and that can be used to capitalize on strengths and support weaknesses.

A second general advantage is that the process provides for the generation of both objective and subjective criteria used to select and evaluate alternatives. That is, reason and logic are balanced by creativity and divergence throughout the process. Duemler and Mayer (1988) demonstrated that when individuals used both types of techniques they were more successful in their problem solving. This provides the individual and/or group with increased confidence that a correct decision is being made even if reaching that decision requires a little extra time. A related benefit is that use of the process allows decision maker(s)/problem solver(s) to better sell the selected solutions to superiors and/or subordinates since the important individual differences likely to be valued by these individuals have already been considered. Additionally, the process has a built-in step to consider what could go wrong if particular solutions are selected. However, this step is taken only after creative and original alternatives have been considered and does not limit alternatives to those already proven successful.

Work group or organization. One of the primary benefits of using this process in a work group or organization is that it allows individuals within the group to understand the problem thoroughly before considering alternatives. Too often, problem-solving discussions focus on the debate of preselected alternatives. At the outset of the discussion (or perhaps even before), participants select positions as to which alternative is better. The result is a separation into camps of winners and losers. Use of this process takes energy normally spent on arguing for a specific solution and rechannels that energy into a collective search for an acceptable solution.

A related benefit is that a thorough discussion prior to considering alternatives can actually make problem solving less complicated and successful results more likely to be achieved. Quite often group discussion is not about solutions, but about assumptions of facts, criteria, and important values that remain unstated throughout the deliberation. By clearly stating these before alternatives/solutions are discussed, the actual selection of alternatives is often easier. Frequently a lack of careful analysis by groups attempting to solve a problem leads to selecting a solution on some criteria other than "does it solve the problem." Sometimes a situation of "group think" occurs where one alternative is presented, and everyone simply agrees that it is best without critical analysis. This can lead the organization to make decisions based on power relationships (the boss likes this one), on affiliations (George is my friend, so I'll support him), or on some basis other than achievement of goals.

Finally, use of a problem-solving process enhances the development of unity within the work group or organization. If everyone is using the same process of problem solving, then unity or consensus is much easier to achieve. Unified action generally produces better results than nonunified action (Kolstoe, 1985). If the selected solution is incorrect, then problems can be identified quickly and corrections can be made. On the other hand, if all participants are not working toward a common goal or if some members are actually trying to work against group goals, then energy that should be focused on solving the problem is dissipated; the proper solution may not be identified for some time, if at all.

Individual . One of the primary benefits to individuals in using this process is that the strengths and weaknesses of the individual can be identified and used or compensated for when making a decision. Everyone has strong and weak points that result from preferences in how a problem is viewed or considered. Careful selection and application of techniques reviewed in this paper (or similar techniques) increase the likelihood that individuals will enhance their strengths and attend to issues they would otherwise omit or attend to less well.

When participating in the problem-solving process in a group, two additional advantages occur. First, individuals can learn to value alternative viewpoints or preferences by considering differences in others as strengths rather than as "wrong" or of less value. It is only natural that we consider our own approaches or preferences as more correct than other approaches. However, as is evident by the above discussion of the steps in problem solving, all preferences and a variety of techniques must be used if the best solutions are to be developed and implemented. In this era of rapid change, it is vital that we consider all preferences, whether described in personality or otherwise, as being equally appropriate and valuable.

Additionally, the development of an individual's decision-making powers can be enhanced by advancing through the process with others in a group situation. Whimby and Lochhead (1982) have demonstrated that verbalizing one's thinking process while someone else listens and critiques that process (the think-aloud technique) is one of the most valuable ways to improve problem solving and decision making. When individuals are active and participate in a group-based, problem-solving process, it can lead to the development of the skills required to make better independent decisions.

Importance of a Knowledge Base and Critical Thinking Skills

It is generally accepted that at least three elements are required for problem solving and decision making: a knowledge base, an adequate level of thinking and communication skills, and an organized approach or strategy to solve problems (Woods, 1987). While this paper has outlined the third element, it is important to realize that inadequate development of the other two areas will likely result in less than adequate problem-solving performance. A knowledge base is unique to every problem and no general statements are likely to be applicable other than the individual or group must comprehend the facts, concepts, and principles applicable to the specific situation and be able to apply them. On the other hand, many researchers have studied the importance of thinking and communication skills as the foundation for problem solving and decision making and have described numerous attempts to improve them (e.g., Chipman, Segal & Glaser, 1985; Feuerstein, 1979; Nickerson et al., 1985). Without development of these skills, successful execution of the process discussed in this paper becomes more difficult.

Adickes, E. (1907). Character und weltanschauung . Tubingen.

Arnold, J. (1978). The seven building blocks to better decisions . New York: AMACON.

Awani, A. (1983). Project management techniques . New York: Petrocelli Books.

Benson, H. (1987). Your maximum mind . New York: Times Books.

Beinstock, E. (1984). Creative problem solving (Cassette Recording). Stamford, CT: Waldentapes.

Bloom, B., Englehart, M., Furst, E., Hill, W., & Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain . New York: Longmans Green.

Bransford, J., & Stein, B. (1984). The IDEAL problem solver . New York: W. H. Freeman.

Brookfield, S. (1987 ). Challenging adults to explore alternative ways of thinking and acting . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Case, R., & Bereiter, C. (1984). From behaviorism to cognitive behaviorism to cognitive development: Steps in the evolution of instructional design. Instructional Science, 13 , 141- 158.

Chipman, S., Segal, J., & Glaser, R. (Eds.). (1985). Thinking and learning skills: Volume 2.Research and open questions . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

de Bono, E. (1976). Teaching thinking . London: Temple Smith.

de Bono, E. (1983). de Bono's thinking course . London: British Broadcasting Corp.

Dewey, J. (1933). How we think . New York: Heath. (Originally published in 1910).

Devine, T. (1981). Teaching study skills: A guide for teachers . Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Duemler, D., & Mayer, R. (1988). Hidden costs of reflectiveness: Aspects of successful scientific reasoning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80 (4), 419-423.

Feuerstein, R. (1979). The dynamic assessment of retarded performers . Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.

Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., Hoffman, M., & Miller, R. (1980). Instrumental enrichment: An intervention program in cognitive modifiability . Baltimore: University Park Press.

Fraenkel, J. (1977). How to teach about values: An analytic approach . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Frederiksen, N. (1984). Implications of cognitive theory for instruction in problem solving. Review of Educational Research, 54 , 363-407.

Gagne, R. (1974). Essentials of learning from instruction . Hinsdale, IL: Dryden.

Gagne, R. (1985). The conditions of learning (3 rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Gagne, R. (1984). Learning outcomes and their effects. American Psychologist, 39 , 377-385.

Gardner, M. (1985). Cognitive psychological approaches to instructional task analysis. In E. Gordon (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 12 pp. 157-195). Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association.

Handy, H., & Hussain, K. (1969). Network analysis for educational management . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Heppner, P., Neal, G., & Larson, L. (1984). Problem-solving training as prevention with college students. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 62 , 514-519.

Hopper, R., & Kirschenbaum, D. (1985). Social problem solving and social competence in preadolescents: Is inconsistency the hobgoblin of little minds? Cognitive Therapy and Research, 9 , 685-701.

Janis, I., & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment . New York: The Free Press.

Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1988, May). Critical thinking through structured controversy. Educational Leadership, 45 , 58-64.

Jung, K. (1971). Psychological types . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Originally published in 1921).

Kiersey, D., & Bates, M. (1978). Please understand me: Character and temperament types . Del Mar, CA: Prometheus Nemesis Book Co.

Kirschenbaum, H. (1977). Advanced value clarification . La Jolla, CA: University Associates.

Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Kolstoe, J. (1985). Consultation . Oxford: George Ronald Press.

Kretschmer, E. (1925). Physique and character (W. Spratt, Trans.). New York: Harcourt Brace. (Original work published 1921).

Lakin, M. (1972). Interpersonal encounter: Theory and practice in sensitivity training . New York: McGraw-Hill.

Lawrence, G. (1982). People types and tiger stripes: A practical guide to learning styles (2nd ed.). Gainesville, FL: Center for Applications of Psychological Type, Inc.

Lawrence, G. (1984). A synthesis of learning style research involving the MBTI. Journal of Psychological Type, 8 , 2-15.

Lazarus, A. (1978). In the mind's eye . New York: Rawson.

McCaulley, M. (1987). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: A Jungian model for problem solving. In J. Stice (Ed.), Developing critical thinking and problem-solving abilities (pp. 37-54). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

McKim, R. (1980). Thinking visually: A strategy manual for problem solving . Belmont, CA: Lifetime Learning.

Myers, I. (1980). Gifts differing . Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Myers, I., & McCaulley, M. (1985). Manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator . Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Newell, A., & Simon, H. (1972). Human problem solving . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Nickerson, R., Perkins, D., & Smith, E. (1985). The teaching of thinking . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Osborn, A. (1963). Applied imagination (3rd ed.). New York: Scribner.

Pelligrino, J. (1985). Inductive reasoning ability. In R. Sternberg (Ed.)., Human abilities: An information-processing approach (pp. 195-226). New York: W. H. Freeman.

Polya, G. (1971). How to solve it . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Originally published in 1957).

Prince, G. (1970). The practice of creativity . New York: Macmillan.

Rubenstein, M. (1986). Tools for thinking and problem solving . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Schnelle, K. (1967). Case analysis and business problem solving . New York: McGraw-Hill.

Simon, H. (1969). The sciences of the artificial . Cambridge: M. I. T. Press.

Skinner, B. (1954). The science of learning and the art of teaching . Harvard Educational Review, 24 , 86-97.

Spranger, E. (1928). Types of men. Halle, Niemayer, Verlag.

Sternberg, R. (1988). The triarchic mind: A new theory of human intelligence . New York: Penguin Books.

Stice, J. (Ed.). (1987). Developing critical thinking and problem-solving abilities . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Whimbey, A., & Lochhead, J. (1982). Problem solving and comprehension (3 rd ed.). Philadelphia: Franklin Institute Press.

Wonder, J., & Donovan, P. (1984 ). Whole-brain thinking: Working from both sides of the brain to achieve peak job performance . New York: Ballantine Books.

Woods, D. (1987). How might I teach problem solving. In J. Stice (Ed.), Developing critical thinking and problem-solving abilities (pp. 55-72). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

• Considering Individual Differences

Dr. William G. (Bill) Huitt

Dept. of Psychology, Counseling, & Guidance Valdosta State University Valdosta, GA 31698-0001

Office: (912) 333-5613 FAX: (912) 244-9937

[email protected]

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar

UPSC Coaching, Study Materials, and Mock Exams

Enroll in ClearIAS UPSC Coaching Join Now Log In

Call us: +91-9605741000

Decision Making and Problem Solving

Last updated on December 10, 2023 by Alex Andrews George

ClearIAS.com is dedicated to providing aspirants with essential tools to successfully navigate the UPSC Civil Services Prelims .

One such tool is the ability to think decisively, which is critical for effectively tackling the CSAT (Civil Services Aptitude Test) Paper .

This blog will delve into the importance of decision-making and problem-solving skills, further illuminated through Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs) examples with detailed solutions.

Table of Contents

Importance of Decision Making & Problem Solving

Decision making and problem-solving are pivotal skills tested in the CSAT paper . As future civil servants, aspirants need to develop these skills to address complex, multifaceted problems efficiently and ethically.

1. Decision Making

Decision making is the process of making choices by evaluating alternatives. It requires analytical and critical thinking skills, alongside an understanding of the implications and consequences of each option.

2. Problem Solving

Problem-solving entails identifying, analyzing, and resolving problems in a systematic manner. It often requires innovative thinking and the ability to apply learned concepts to novel situations.

Add IAS, IPS, or IFS to Your Name!

Your Effort. Our Expertise.

Join ClearIAS

MCQ Examples of Decision-Making Questions

Below are MCQ examples that demonstrate decision-making skills:

Scenario: An area is affected by severe flooding. You, as a district magistrate, have limited resources. Which of the following should be your immediate priority?

• A. Repairing roads
• B. Distributing food and water
• C. Rebuilding houses
• D. Organizing entertainment to lift people’s spirits

Answer: B. Distributing food and water

Solution: Immediate needs like food and water are crucial for survival in disaster scenarios, making them the top priority.

Scenario: You are working on a project with a tight deadline. Your team member is consistently delivering work late, affecting the timeline. What should be your immediate step?

• A. Report the member to higher authorities
• B. Remove the member from the team
• C. Discuss the issue with the member
• D. Ignore the issue and adjust the project timeline

Answer: C. Discuss the issue with the member

UPSC Prelims Test Series 2024

Take All-India Mock Exams: Analyse Your Progress!

Solution: Communication is key in resolving team disputes. Before taking drastic measures, understanding the member’s perspective and finding a solution collaboratively is advisable.

Scenario: Your city is facing a significant rise in COVID-19 cases. As an officer, you are assigned to create awareness. Which approach is most effective?

• A. Distribute pamphlets
• B. Organize large public awareness events
• C. Implement awareness through social media and local networks
• D. Ignore the situation, assuming people are already aware

Answer: C. Implement awareness through social media and local networks

Solution: Social media and local networks provide wide reach without risking further spread through large gatherings.

Scenario: There is a proposal for a new dam which will provide water and electricity but will displace a local tribe. What should you consider first?

• A. Proceed with the construction immediately
• B. Reject the proposal outright
• C. Assess alternative solutions and engage with the tribe for their input
• D. Delay the decision indefinitely

Answer: C. Assess alternative solutions and engage with the tribe for their input

Solution: It is essential to balance development and the welfare of all stakeholders involved, necessitating a thorough assessment and inclusive decision-making process.

Scenario: As a civil servant, you receive two projects. Project A will benefit a large number of people slightly. Project B will significantly benefit a smaller group. Which project should be prioritized?

• A. Project A
• B. Project B

Answer: C. Both

Solution: Civil services work for the welfare of all. An ideal approach would be finding a way to implement both projects effectively, balancing the broader good with significant impact where needed.

Scenario: You have a limited budget for a healthcare initiative. What is the crucial factor to consider when deciding which health programs to fund?

• A. Popularity of the program
• B. Political backing
• C. Program’s potential impact on public health
• D. The novelty of the program

Answer: C. Program’s potential impact on public health

Solution: The primary consideration for any healthcare initiative should be its potential positive impact on public health, ensuring that it addresses the community’s most pressing health needs efficiently.

John needs to choose between two job offers. Offer A has a higher salary but is located in a city with a high cost of living. Offer B has a lower salary but is situated in a town with a lower cost of living. Which job offer should John choose?

• D. Cannot be determined

Answer: D. Cannot be determined

Solution : This question requires decision-making skills. Without knowing John’s priorities and values, the answer cannot be determined. Each offer has its pros and cons, and the decision rests on John’s personal preferences and circumstances.

MCQ Examples of Problem-Solving Questions

What is the next number in the series: 2, 6, 12, 20?

Answer: B. 30

Solution : This is a series problem. The series is progressing by adding consecutive even numbers (4, 6, 8, etc.). Thus, 20 + 10 = 30.

If all Ps are Qs, and some Qs are Rs, which of the following must be true?

• A. All Ps are Rs
• B. Some Ps are Rs
• C. No Ps are Rs
• D. None of the above

Answer: D. None of the above

Solution : Without definite information, we cannot confirm any of the given options. It is possible that some Ps are Rs, but it is not necessarily true.

Three individuals have to be selected from a group of 6 people. How many different combinations are possible?

Answer: C. 20

Solution : This is a combination problem. The number of ways to choose 3 individuals from 6 is given by the combination formula: 6C3 = 6! / (3!*(6-3)!) = 20.

If a shirt costs Rs.40 after a 20% discount, what was its original price?

Answer: B. Rs.50

Solution : Let the original price be X. The shirt is sold for 80% of its original price after a 20% discount. So, 0.80X = Rs.40. Solving for X gives X = Rs.50.

A train covers a distance of 150 km in 2.5 hours. What is its average speed?

Answer: A. 60 km/h

Solution : Average speed is obtained by dividing the total distance by the total time taken. So, 150 km / 2.5 hours = 60 km/h.

How to study Decision Making and Problem Solving for CSAT?

Students may note that this article on Decision Making and Problem Solving is just an overview of the topic. There is a lot more to learn about Decision Making and Problem Solving in the CSAT paper.

We recommend the below sources to learn the subject.

• Join the ClearIAS CSAT Course .
• Join ClearIAS Prelims Test Series .
• Join ClearIAS Prelims cum Mains Course.
• Go through ClearIAS YouTube Classes on CSAT.
• Read books on CSAT .

Also read:   CSAT Course: UPSC Prelims Paper 2 Program

Decision-making and problem-solving are vital skills for the UPSC CSAT Prelims and for effective functioning as a civil servant .

As you have seen the decision-making and problem-solving section is not limited to scenario-based questions!

Aspirants should keep in mind that any questions which are problem-solving or decision-making in nature can be asked from this section.

Further, questions may not be limited to the Class X level, as is the case with the basic numeracy section or data interpretation.

Practising decision-making and problem-solving questions not only improves these skills but also boosts your confidence in tackling the diverse set of problems presented in the examination.

For more resources and practice questions, continue exploring ClearIAS.com. Happy studying!

Aim IAS, IPS, or IFS?

Prelims cum Mains (PCM) GS Course: Target UPSC CSE 2025 (Online)

₹95000 ₹59000

Prelims cum Mains (PCM) GS Course: Target UPSC CSE 2026 (Online)

₹115000 ₹69000

Prelims cum Mains (PCM) GS Course: Target UPSC CSE 2027 (Online)

₹125000 ₹79000

About Alex Andrews George

Alex Andrews George is a mentor, author, and social entrepreneur. Alex is the founder of ClearIAS and one of the expert Civil Service Exam Trainers in India.

He is the author of many best-seller books like 'Important Judgments that transformed India' and 'Important Acts that transformed India'.

A trusted mentor and pioneer in online training , Alex's guidance, strategies, study-materials, and mock-exams have helped many aspirants to become IAS, IPS, and IFS officers.

Reader Interactions

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Don’t lose out without playing the right game!

Follow the ClearIAS Prelims cum Mains (PCM) Integrated Approach.

Join ClearIAS PCM Course Now

UPSC Online Preparation

• Union Public Service Commission (UPSC)
• Indian Administrative Service (IAS)
• Indian Police Service (IPS)
• IAS Exam Eligibility
• UPSC Free Study Materials
• UPSC Exam Guidance
• UPSC Prelims Test Series
• UPSC Syllabus
• UPSC Online
• UPSC Prelims
• UPSC Interview
• UPSC Toppers
• UPSC Previous Year Qns
• UPSC Age Calculator
• UPSC Calendar 2024
• About ClearIAS
• ClearIAS Programs
• ClearIAS Fee Structure
• IAS Coaching
• UPSC Coaching
• UPSC Online Coaching
• ClearIAS Blog
• Important Updates
• Announcements
• Book Review
• ClearIAS App
• Work with us
• Advertise with us
• Privacy Policy
• Terms and Conditions
• Talk to Your Mentor

Featured on

and many more...

Take ClearIAS Mock Exams: Analyse Your Progress

UPSC Prelims Test Series for GS and CSAT: With Performance Analysis and All-India Ranking (Online)

₹9999 ₹4999