Review

Selection of one approach rather than another is not haphazard. Distinctive aspects and requirements affect the easy and successful application of each approach.

Because each approach is a framework for action, it can be no better than the skilled and knowledgeable application of methods derived from it.

Skillfully applying a well-devised method, even if less appropriate, may be far more successful than an inept application of a clumsy method that superficially seems more appropriate.

See a worked example: we use the framework to decide on a decision approach.

Note: The approaches appear to address different questions: e.g. the rationalist explains "why?"; the empiricist answers "what?"; &c. However, this is misleading because all approaches will provide distinctive answers to such questions.  View some pictures.

Zealous advocates of each approach claim universal application and oppose specific correlations or constraints of the sort offered here.

In workshops, managers and practitioners typically proclaim "horses for courses" as the sensible way. (I agree.) Yet the same people reveal in our decision exercises an unhelpful over-identification with just one or two approaches.

Difficulty in changing an approach, even in the face of ineffectiveness, is common. Persistence with an inappropriate approach may also be due to the tenacity of management consultants, often academics.

Groups that epitomize an approach (e.g. psychotherapists, local politicians) find themselves particularly identified with one of the methods.

Rotating through approaches in meetings without thoroughly using any particular one can waste an inordinate amount of time. This is often associated with arguments about the best way to deal with the issue.

Where the practice of a profession does not have an underpinning science, the decision-making framework will spontaneously generate competing schools, practice and research—without those involved knowing what is happening.

e.g. Social work paradigms can be aligned to the various decision approaches:

■ the behaviorist school is predominantly pragmatic
■ the problem-solving school is predominantly empiricist
■ the task-centred school is predominantly rationalist
■ the psychotherapeutic school is predominantly imaginist
■ the activist community work school is predominantly dialectic
■ the functional school is predominantly structuralist
■ the holistic school is predominantly systemic.

References are available in Kinston and Algie (1989)

In non-work situations, we mostly take decisions for granted and neither document nor check them in any great detail.  However, if we scrutinize everyday decisions, we will see that all of the approaches come into use here and there, now and then.

At work we feel responsible, and others look critically at what we achieve and how we achieve. This leads us to become highly self-conscious about decision-making with a need to choose the best way forward. As a result, we gravitate to a way that feels right and best for us.  That in turn may take us into a particular profession or discipline.

Of course, those people highly committed to a particular approach will also display that preference in everyday life.

Reflective individuals and academics write up the ways of deciding and give them various names. When written up, a way or mentality becomes a paradigm, theory, doctrine, or general approach—and that means it can be taught as 'the' way.

Normally authors of texts are under the sway of a particular mentality without full awareness, or with awareness and a conviction that it is correct or true, or at least the best on offer.

No single decision approach is sufficient for leadership, except for pure pragmatist achievers.

Combinations of two approaches do however define successful leaders within organizations of all sorts. One of the two approaches must be pragmatic.

To appreciate how combinations work, including implications for leadership style, continue to the construction of a TET for the approaches.

If decisions are important in your work, the typology will enable you to gain distance from the issue, to restrain the tendency to use your habitual approach, and to obtain a broader perspective on realistic possibilities for action.

Extension of your repertoire is certainly possible and your contribution in teams will become more nuanced.

Work in groups may also improve if everyone is helped to grasp the typology and appreciate their own way of thinking.

The immediate benefit is that pointless conflicts then reduce. Also, because each approach leads to different ways of participating and contributing, discussion and exploration can be maximally productive.  Read more.