5 Simple Steps To Improve Your Decision Making

5 Simple Steps to Improve Your Decision
Making





Alex McClafferty ,
CONTRIBUTOR
I cover Customer Success, customer support and SaaS.
Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.

TWEET THIS
 Self-awareness is an entrepreneurial power play.
Entrepreneurs are natural born problem solvers.

To solve difficult problems, you need to make difficult decisions.
In this post, I will unpack five tips to help you improve your decision
making process.
1. Don't delay
Simple decisions are fun. You can tick them off your to do list and feel
like you’ve accomplished something along the way. When the stakes
increase and you’re faced with making a critical business decision,
don’t delay because it’s difficult.
Dedicate a focused block of time each day to work through the pros,
cons, risks and realistic outcomes of your decision. Consider
the second and third order effects of your decision during this session.
Sweeping problems under the rug will not help you make better
decisions.
2. Shelve ego and emotion
Decision making can be difficult because you become too personally
invested in how a decision will make you look and feel. Can you
objectively solve the problem? Yes! List potential causes and put your
emotion and ego on the back-burner.
Recommended by Forbes
MOST POPULAR
Photos: The Richest Person In Every State
ACTIVE CONVERSATION
Quit Your Job And Live Abroad: 8 Places So Cheap You Might Not
Need To Work
Imagine your business isn’t generating enough revenue to hit your

target. What is the specific cause of this?
 Do you have a positioning issue?
 Is your pricing right?

 Do your potential customers know your brand?
 What can help you solve these problems?

You will make better decisions by focusing on the facts instead of
personal deficiencies. If you need help with anything in your business,
from marketing through to customer service, you have options.
Self-awareness is an entrepreneurial power play.
3. Ask an expert
The decision you're making has likely been made in the past. While the
problems you're trying to solve are unique to you, it's highly probable
that someone else has solved the same issue at a larger scale.
Luckily, entrepreneurs are very approachable and love to help each
other. To get an expert help with your question, research the
influencers in the area you need help with, then send three of them a
quick note to ask for their help. Serve up the facts, your thoughts and
the options you are considering.
A neutral third-party to help you make decisions will keep
you objective.
Work from a proven playbook instead of trying to reinvent the wheel.
PAGE 1 / 2 Continue
1
Comment on this story
. Question your data
You will never have complete data to make your decision. This is OK.
It's still your responsibility to seek the right data. Relying on a friend’s opinion as

a trusted data source may land you in hot water. Instead, use qualitative and
quantitative customer feedback if you're making a decision that impacts your
customers. Use industry trends, research reports and ask experts in your field if
you're making a strategic move. The only thing that is worse than having no data
is trusting the wrong data, so be vigilant about the inputs to your decision making
process.
Seek trustworthy data and your decision making ability will skyrocket.
5. Plan for doomsday
The final step of decision making is understand the underlying risks of the
decisions you make.
I like to call it planning for doomsday. Take 10 minutes to deeply consider the

absolute worst case scenario of the decision you're about to make. For example, if
you need to let someone go from your business, what is theabsolute worst
case outcome? Perhaps they’ll sue you for wrongful dismissal or your team will
lose their motivation. There are dozens of ways to mitigate the risks of each
decision, but first, you need to clearly identify these risks.
Know your risks and you will rest easy when making decisions.
When you get a decision wrong, don’t beat yourself up. Instead, reflect on why it
failed, then write it down to make sure you don’t make the same mistake twice.
Did you enjoy this post? Follow Alex here

process.
decisions you make.


process.
decisions you make.

Decision-making
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article deals with decision-making as analyzed in psychology. See also Decision theory.
Sample flowchart representing the decision process to add a new article to Wikipedia.
In psychology, decision-making is regarded as the cognitive process resulting in the selection

of a belief or a course of action among several alternative possibilities. Every decision-making
process produces a final choice; it may or may not prompt action. Decision-making is the
process of identifying and choosing alternatives based on the values and preferences of the
decision-Maker.
Contents
[hide]
 1Overview
 2Problem analysis
o 2.1Analysis paralysis
o 2.2Information overload
o 2.3Post-decision analysis
 3Decision-making techniques
o 3.1Group
o 3.2Individual
 4Steps
o 4.1GOFER
o 4.2DECIDE
o 4.3Other
o 4.4Group stages
 5Rational and irrational
 6Cognitive and personal biases
 7Cognitive styles
o 7.1Optimizing vs. satisficing
o 7.2Intuitive vs. rational
o 7.3Combinatorial vs. positional
o 7.4Influence of Myers-Briggs type
 8Neuroscience
 9In adolescents vs. adults
 10See also
 11References
 12External links
Overview[edit]
Decision-making can be regarded as a problem-solving activity terminated by a solution deemed
to be satisfactory. It is therefore a process which can be more or less rational or irrational and
can be based on explicit or tacit knowledge.
Human performance with regard to decisions has been the subject of active research from
several perspectives:
 Psychological: examining individual decisions in the context of a set of needs, preferences

and values the individual has or seeks.
 Cognitive: the decision-making process regarded as a continuous process integrated in the
interaction with the environment.
 Normative: the analysis of individual decisions concerned with the logic of decision-making,
or communicative rationality, and the invariant choice it leads to.[1]
A major part of decision-making involves the analysis of a finite set of alternatives described in
terms of evaluative criteria. Then the task might be to rank these alternatives in terms of how
attractive they are to the decision-maker(s) when all the criteria are considered simultaneously.
Another task might be to find the best alternative or to determine the relative total priority of each
alternative (for instance, if alternatives represent projects competing for funds) when all the
criteria are considered simultaneously. Solving such problems is the focus of multiple-criteria
decision analysis (MCDA). This area of decision-making, although very old, has attracted the
interest of many researchers and practitioners and is still highly debated as there are many
MCDA methods which may yield very different results when they are applied on exactly the
same data.[2] This leads to the formulation of a decision-making paradox.
Logical decision-making is an important part of all science-based professions, where specialists
apply their knowledge in a given area to make informed decisions. For example, medical
decision-making often involves a diagnosis and the selection of appropriate treatment.
But naturalistic decision-making research shows that in situations with higher time pressure,
higher stakes, or increased ambiguities, experts may use intuitive decision-making rather than
structured approaches. They may follow a recognition primed decision that fits their experience
and arrive at a course of action without weighing alternatives. [citation needed]
The decision-maker's environment can play a part in the decision-making process. For example,
environmental complexity is a factor that influences cognitive function. [3] A complex environment
is an environment with a large number of different possible states which come and go over time.
[4]
Studies done at the University of Colorado have shown that more complex environments
correlate with higher cognitive function, which means that a decision can be influenced by the
location. One experiment measured complexity in a room by the number of small objects and
appliances present; a simple room had less of those things. Cognitive function was greatly
affected by the higher measure of environmental complexity making it easier to think about the
situation and make a better decision. [3]
Research about decision-making is also published under the label problem solving, in particular
in European psychological research.[5]
Problem analysis[edit]
This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve
this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may
be challenged and removed. (July 2015) (Learn how and when to remove this
template message)
It is important to differentiate between problem analysis and decision-making. Traditionally, it is

argued that problem analysis must be done first, so that the information gathered in that process
may be used towards decision-making. [6][page needed]
Characteristics of problem analysis
 Analyze performance, what should the results be against what they actually are
 Problems are merely deviations from performance standards
 Problems must be precisely identified and described
 Problems are caused by a change from a distinctive feature
 Something can always be used to distinguish between what has and hasn't been affected by
a cause
 Causes of problems can be deduced from relevant changes found in analyzing the problem
 Most likely cause of a problem is the one that exactly explains all the facts, while having the
fewest assumptions (Occam's razor).
Characteristics of decision-making
 Objectives must first be established

 Objectives must be classified and placed in order of importance
 Alternative actions must be developed
 The alternatives must be evaluated against all the objectives
 The alternative that is able to achieve all the objectives is the tentative decision
 The tentative decision is evaluated for more possible consequences
 The decisive actions are taken, and additional actions are taken to prevent any adverse
consequences from becoming problems and starting both systems (problem analysis and
decision-making) all over again
 There are steps that are generally followed that result in a decision model that can be used
to determine an optimal production plan[7]
 In a situation featuring conflict, role-playing may be helpful for predicting decisions to be
made by involved parties[8]
Analysis paralysis[edit]
Main article: Analysis paralysis
Analysis paralysis is the state of over-analyzing (or over-thinking) a situation so that a decision
or action is never taken, in effect paralyzing the outcome.
Information overload[edit]
Main article: Information overload
Information overload is "a gap between the volume of information and the tools we have to
assimilate" it.[9] Excessive information affects problem processing and tasking, which affects
decision-making.[10] Crystal C. Hall and colleagues described an "illusion of knowledge", which
means that as individuals encounter too much knowledge it can interfere with their ability to
make rational decisions.[11]
Post-decision analysis[edit]
Evaluation and analysis of past decisions is complementary to decision-making. See also Mental
accounting and Postmortem documentation.
Decision-making techniques[edit]
Decision-making techniques can be separated into two broad categories: group decision-
making techniques and individual decision-making techniques. Individual decision-making
techniques can also often be applied by a group.
Group[edit]
 Consensus decision-making tries to avoid "winners" and "losers". Consensus requires that a

majority approve a given course of action, but that the minority agree to go along with the
course of action. In other words, if the minority opposes the course of action, consensus
requires that the course of action be modified to remove objectionable features.
 Voting-based methods:
 Majority requires support from more than 50% of the members of the group. Thus,
the bar for action is lower than with consensus.
 Plurality, where the largest block in a group decides, even if it falls short of a majority.
 Range voting lets each member score one or more of the available options. The
option with the highest average is chosen. This method has experimentally been shown
to produce the lowest Bayesian regret among common voting methods, even when
voters are strategic.[citation needed]
 Delphi method is structured communication technique for groups, originally developed for
collaborative forecasting but has also been used for policy making.
 Dotmocracy is a facilitation method that relies on the use of special forms called Dotmocracy
Sheets to allow large groups to collectively brainstorm and recognize agreement on an
unlimited number of ideas they have authored.
 Participative decision-making occurs when an authority opens up the decision-making
process to a group of people for a collaborative effort.
 Decision engineering uses a visual map of the decision-making process based on system
dynamics and can be automated through a decision modeling tool, integrating big
data, machine learning, and expert knowledge as appropriate.
Individual[edit]
 Decisional balance sheet: listing the advantages and disadvantages (benefits and costs,
pros and cons) of each option, as suggested by Plato's Protagoras and by Benjamin
Franklin.[12]
 Simple prioritization: choosing the alternative with the highest probability-weighted utility.
This may involve considering the opportunity cost of different alternatives. See also Decision
analysis.
 Satisficing: examining alternatives only until the first acceptable one is found. The opposite
is maximizing or optimizing, in which many or all alternatives are examined in order to find
the best option.
 Acquiesce to a person in authority or an "expert"; "just following orders".
 Anti-authoritarianism: taking the most opposite action compared to the advice of mistrusted
authorities.
 Flipism e.g. flipping a coin, cutting a deck of playing cards, and other random or coincidence
methods – or prayer, tarot cards, astrology, augurs, revelation, or other forms of divination,
superstition or pseudoscience.
 Automated decision support: setting up criteria for automated decisions.
 Decision support systems: using decision-making software when faced with highly complex
decisions or when considering many stakeholders, categories, or other factors that affect
decisions.
Steps[edit]
GOFER[edit]
In the 1980s, psychologist Leon Mann and colleagues developed a decision-making process
called GOFER, which they taught to adolescents, as summarized in the book Teaching Decision
Making To Adolescents.[13] The process was based on extensive earlier research conducted with
psychologist Irving Janis.[14] GOFER is anacronym for five decision-making steps:
1. Goals: Survey values and objectives.

2. Options: Consider a wide range of alternative actions.
3. Facts: Search for information.
4. Effects: Weigh the positive and negative consequences of the options.
5. Review: Plan how to implement the options.
DECIDE[edit]
Main article: DECIDE
In 2008, Kristina Guo published the DECIDE model of decision-making, which has six parts: [15]
1. Define the problem

2. Establish or Enumerate all the criteria (constraints)
3. Consider or Collect all the alternatives
4. Identify the best alternative
5. Develop and implement a plan of action
6. Evaluate and monitor the solution and examine feedback when necessary
Other[edit]
In 2007, Pam Brown of Singleton Hospital in Swansea, Wales, divided the decision-making
process into seven steps:[16]
1. Outline your goal and outcome.

2. Gather data.
3. Develop alternatives (i.e., brainstorming).
4. List pros and cons of each alternative.
5. Make the decision.
6. Immediately take action to implement it.
7. Learn from and reflect on the decision.
In 2009, professor John Pijanowski described how the Arkansas Program, an ethics curriculum
at the University of Arkansas, used eight stages of moral decision-making based on the work
of James Rest:[17]:6
1. Establishing community: Create and nurture the relationships, norms, and procedures
that will influence how problems are understood and communicated. This stage takes
place prior to and during a moral dilemma.
2. Perception: Recognize that a problem exists.
3. Interpretation: Identify competing explanations for the problem, and evaluate the drivers
behind those interpretations.
4. Judgment: Sift through various possible actions or responses and determine which is
more justifiable.
5. Motivation: Examine the competing commitments which may distract from a more moral
course of action and then prioritize and commit to moral values over other personal,
institutional or social values.
6. Action: Follow through with action that supports the more justified decision.
7. Reflection in action.
8. Reflection on action.
Group stages[edit]
According to B. Aubrey Fisher, there are four stages or phases that should be involved in all
group decision-making:[18]
 Orientation. Members meet for the first time and start to get to know each other.
 Conflict. Once group members become familiar with each other, disputes, little fights and
arguments occur. Group members eventually work it out.
 Emergence. The group begins to clear up vague opinions by talking about them.
 Reinforcement. Members finally make a decision and provide justification for it.
It is said that establishing critical norms in a group improves the quality of decisions, while the
majority of opinions (called consensus norms) do not. [19]
Rational and irrational[edit]

In economics, it is thought that if humans are rational and free to make their own decisions, then
they would behave according to rational choice theory.[20]:368–370Rational choice theory says that a
person consistently makes choices that lead to the best situation for himself or herself, taking
into account all available considerations including costs and benefits; the rationality of these
considerations is from the point of view of the person himself, so a decision is not irrational just
because someone else finds it questionable.
In reality, however, there are some factors that affect decision-making abilities and cause people
to make irrational decisions – for example, to make contradictory choices when faced with the
same problem framed in two different ways (see also Allais paradox).
Cognitive and personal biases[edit]
Biases usually creep into decision-making processes. Here is a list of commonly debated biases
in judgment and decision-making:
 Selective search for evidence (also known as confirmation bias): People tend to be willing to

gather facts that support certain conclusions but disregard other facts that support different
conclusions. Individuals who are highly defensive in this manner show significantly greater
left prefrontal cortex activity as measured by EEG than do less defensive individuals.[21]
 Premature termination of search for evidence: People tend to accept the first alternative that
looks like it might work.
 Cognitive inertia is unwillingness to change existing thought patterns in the face of new
circumstances.
 Selective perception: People actively screen out information that they do not think is
important (see also Prejudice). In one demonstration of this effect, discounting of arguments
with which one disagrees (by judging them as untrue or irrelevant) was decreased by
selective activation of right prefrontal cortex.[22]
 Wishful thinking is a tendency to want to see things in a certain – usually positive – light,
which can distort perception and thinking. [23]
 Choice-supportive bias occurs when people distort their memories of chosen and rejected
options to make the chosen options seem more attractive.
 Recency: People tend to place more attention on more recent information and either ignore
or forget more distant information (see Semantic priming). The opposite effect in the first set
of data or other information is termed primacy effect.[24][page needed]
 Repetition bias is a willingness to believe what one has been told most often and by the
greatest number of different sources.
 Anchoring and adjustment: Decisions are unduly influenced by initial information that shapes
our view of subsequent information.
 Groupthink is peer pressure to conform to the opinions held by the group.
 Source credibility bias is a tendency to reject a person's statement on the basis of a bias
against the person, organization, or group to which the person belongs. People
preferentially accept statement by others that they like (see also Prejudice).
 Incremental decision-making and escalating commitment: People look at a decision as a
small step in a process, and this tends to perpetuate a series of similar decisions. This can
be contrasted with zero-based decision-making (see Slippery slope).
 Attribution asymmetry: People tend to attribute their own success to internal factors,
including abilities and talents, but explain their failures in terms of external factors such as
bad luck. The reverse bias is shown when people explain others' success or failure.
 Role fulfillment is a tendency to conform to others' decision-making expectations.
 Underestimating uncertainty and the illusion of control: People tend to underestimate future
uncertainty because of a tendency to believe they have more control over events than they
really do.
 Framing bias: This is best avoided by increasing numeracy and presenting data in several
formats (for example, using both absolute and relative scales). [25]
 Sunk-cost fallacy is a specific type of framing effect that affects decision-making. It
involves an individual making a decision about a current situation based on what they
have previously invested in the situation. [20]:372 An example of this would be an individual
that is refraining from dropping a class that they are most likely to fail, due to the fact
that they feel as though they have done so much work in the course thus far.
 Prospect theory involves the idea that when faced with a decision-making event, an
individual is more likely to take on a risk when evaluating potential losses, and are more
likely to avoid risks when evaluating potential gains. This can influence one's decision-
making depending if the situation entails a threat, or opportunity. [20]:373
 Optimism bias is a tendency to overestimate the likelihood of positive events occurring in the
future and underestimate the likelihood of negative life events.[26]Such biased expectations
are generated and maintained in the face of counter evidence through a tendency to
discount undesirable information. [27] An optimism bias can alter risk perception and decision-
making in many domains, ranging from finance to health.
 Reference class forecasting was developed to eliminate or reduce cognitive biases in
decision-making.
Cognitive styles[edit]
Optimizing vs. satisficing[edit]
Main article: Maximization (psychology)
Herbert A. Simon coined the phrase "bounded rationality" to express the idea that human
decision-making is limited by available information, available time and the mind's information-
processing ability. Further psychological research has identified individual differences between
two cognitive styles: maximizers try to make anoptimal decision, whereas satisficers simply try to
find a solution that is "good enough". Maximizers tend to take longer making decisions due to
the need to maximize performance across all variables and make tradeoffs carefully; they also
tend to more often regret their decisions (perhaps because they are more able than satisficers to
recognise that a decision turned out to be sub-optimal). [28]
Intuitive vs. rational[edit]
Main article: Dual process theory
The psychologist Daniel Kahneman, adopting terms originally proposed by the

psychologists Keith Stanovich and Richard West, has theorized that a person's decision-making
is the result of an interplay between two kinds of cognitive processes: an automatic intuitive
system (called "System 1") and an effortful rational system (called "System 2"). System 1 is a
bottom-up, fast, and implicit system of decision-making, while system 2 is a top-down, slow, and
explicit system of decision-making.[29] System 1 includes simple heuristics in judgment and
decision-making such as the affect heuristic, the availability heuristic, the familiarity heuristic,
and therepresentativeness heuristic.
Combinatorial vs. positional[edit]
Styles and methods of decision-making were elaborated by Aron Katsenelinboigen, the founder
of predispositioning theory. In his analysis on styles and methods, Katsenelinboigen referred to
the game of chess, saying that "chess does disclose various methods of operation, notably the
creation of predisposition-methods which may be applicable to other, more complex systems." [30]:5
Katsenelinboigen states that apart from the methods (reactive and selective) and sub-methods
(randomization, predispositioning, programming), there are two major styles: positional and
combinational. Both styles are utilized in the game of chess. According to Katsenelinboigen, the
two styles reflect two basic approaches touncertainty: deterministic (combinational style) and
indeterministic (positional style). Katsenelinboigen's definition of the two styles are the following.
The combinational style is characterized by:
 a very narrow, clearly defined, primarily material goal; and

 a program that links the initial position with the final outcome.
In defining the combinational style in chess, Katsenelinboigen wrote: "The combinational style
features a clearly formulated limited objective, namely the capture of material (the main
constituent element of a chess position). The objective is implemented via a well-defined, and in
some cases, unique sequence of moves aimed at reaching the set goal. As a rule, this
sequence leaves no options for the opponent. Finding a combinational objective allows the
player to focus all his energies on efficient execution, that is, the player's analysis may be limited
to the pieces directly partaking in the combination. This approach is the crux of the combination
and the combinational style of play.[30]:57
The positional style is distinguished by:
 a positional goal; and

 a formation of semi-complete linkages between the initial step and final outcome.
"Unlike the combinational player, the positional player is occupied, first and foremost, with the
elaboration of the position that will allow him to develop in the unknown future. In playing the
positional style, the player must evaluate relational and material parameters as independent
variables. ... The positional style gives the player the opportunity to develop a position until it
becomes pregnant with a combination. However, the combination is not the final goal of the
positional player – it helps him to achieve the desirable, keeping in mind a predisposition for the
future development. The pyrrhic victory is the best example of one's inability to think
positionally."[31]
The positional style serves to:
 create a predisposition to the future development of the position;

 induce the environment in a certain way;
 absorb an unexpected outcome in one's favor; and
 avoid the negative aspects of unexpected outcomes.
Influence of Myers-Briggs type[edit]
According to Isabel Briggs Myers, a person's decision-making process depends to a significant
degree on their cognitive style.[32][page needed] Myers developed a set of four bi-polar dimensions,
called the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). The terminal points on these dimensions
are: thinking and feeling; extroversion andintroversion; judgment and perception;
and sensing and intuition. She claimed that a person's decision-making style correlates well with
how they score on these four dimensions. For example, someone who scored near the thinking,
extroversion, sensing, and judgment ends of the dimensions would tend to have a logical,
analytical, objective, critical, and empirical decision-making style. However, some psychologists
say that the MBTI lacks reliability and validity and is poorly constructed. [33][34]
Other studies suggest that these national or cross-cultural differences in decision-making exist
across entire societies. For example, Maris Martinsons has found that American, Japanese and
Chinese business leaders each exhibit a distinctive national style of decision-making. [35]
Neuroscience[edit]
Decision-making is a region of intense study in the fields of systems neuroscience, and cognitive
neuroscience. Several brain structures, including the anterior cingulate
cortex (ACC), orbitofrontal cortex and the overlapping ventromedial prefrontal cortex are
believed to be involved in decision-making processes. Aneuroimaging study[36] found distinctive
patterns of neural activation in these regions depending on whether decisions were made on the
basis of perceived personalvolition or following directions from someone else. Patients with
damage to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex have difficulty making advantageous decisions.[37]
[page needed]
A common laboratory paradigm for studying neural decision-making is the two-alternative forced

choice task (2AFC), in which a subject has to choose between two alternatives within a certain
time. A study of a two-alternative forced choice task involving rhesus monkeys found that
neurons in the parietal cortex not only represent the formation of a decision[38] but also signal the
degree of certainty (or "confidence") associated with the decision. [39] Another recent study found
that lesions to the ACC in the macaque resulted in impaired decision-making in the long run of
reinforcement guided tasks suggesting that the ACC may be involved in evaluating past
reinforcement information and guiding future action. [40] A 2012 study found that rats and humans
can optimally accumulate incoming sensory evidence, to make statistically optimal decisions. [41]
Emotion appears able to aid the decision-making process. Decision-making often occurs in the
face of uncertainty about whether one's choices will lead to benefit or harm (see also Risk).
The somatic-marker hypothesis is a neurobiological theory of how decisions are made in the
face of uncertain outcome. This theory holds that such decisions are aided by emotions, in the
form of bodily states, that are elicited during the deliberation of future consequences and that
mark different options for behavior as being advantageous or disadvantageous. This process
involves an interplay between neural systems that elicit emotional/bodily states and neural
systems that map these emotional/bodily states.[42] A recent lesion mapping study of 152 patients
with focal brain lesions conducted by Aron K. Barbey and colleagues provided evidence to help
discover the neural mechanisms of emotional intelligence.[43][44][45]
Although it is unclear whether the studies generalize to all processing, subconscious processes
have been implicated in the initiation of conscious volitional movements. See the Neuroscience
of free will.
In adolescents vs. adults[edit]

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve
this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may
be challenged and removed. (May 2014) (Learn how and when to remove this
template message)
During their adolescent years, teens are known for their high-risk behaviors and rash decisions.
Recent research[citation needed] has shown that there are differences in cognitive processes between
adolescents and adults during decision-making. Researchers have concluded that differences in
decision-making are not due to a lack of logic or reasoning, but more due to the immaturity
of psychosocial capacities that influence decision-making. Examples of their undeveloped
capacities which influence decision-making would be impulse control, emotion
regulation, delayed gratification and resistance to peer pressure. In the past, researchers have
thought that adolescent behavior was simply due to incompetency regarding decision-making.
Currently, researchers have concluded that adults and adolescents are both competent
decision-makers, not just adults. However, adolescents' competent decision-making skills
decrease when psychosocial capacities become present.
Recent research[citation needed] has shown that risk-taking behaviors in adolescents may be the product
of interactions between the socioemotional brain network and its cognitive-control network. The
socioemotional part of the brain processes social and emotional stimuli and has been shown to
be important in reward processing. The cognitive-control network assists in planning and self-
regulation. Both of these sections of the brain change over the course of puberty. However, the
socioemotional network changes quickly and abruptly, while the cognitive-control network
changes more gradually. Because of this difference in change, the cognitive-control network,
which usually regulates the socioemotional network, struggles to control the socioemotional
network when psychosocial capacities are present. [clarification needed]
When adolescents are exposed to social and emotional stimuli, their socioemotional network is
activated as well as areas of the brain involved in reward processing. Because teens often gain
a sense of reward from risk-taking behaviors, their repetition becomes ever more probable due
to the reward experienced. In this, the process mirrors addiction. Teens can become addicted to
risky behavior because they are in a high state of arousal and are rewarded for it not only by
their own internal functions but also by their peers around them.
Adults are generally better able to control their risk-taking because their cognitive-control system
has matured enough to the point where it can control the socioemotional network, even in the
context of high arousal or when psychosocial capacities are present. Also, adults are less likely
to find themselves in situations that push them to do risky things. For example, teens are more
likely to be around peers who peer pressure them into doing things, while adults are not as
exposed to this sort of social setting.[46][47]
A recent study suggests that adolescents have difficulties adequately adjusting beliefs in
response to bad news (such as reading that smoking poses a greater risk to health than they
thought), but do not differ from adults in their ability to alter beliefs in response to good news.
[48]
This creates biased beliefs, which may lead to greater risk taking. [49]
See also[edit]
 Thinking portal
 Aboulomania
 Adaptive performance
 Agent (economics)
 Analytic hierarchy process
 Argument map
 Business decision mapping
 Choice architecture
 Choice modelling
 Decision downloading
 Decision engineering
 Decision fatigue
 Decision theory
 Decision quality
 Robust decision
References[edit]
1. Jump up^ Kahneman, Daniel; Tversky, Amos, eds. (2000). Choices, values, and frames.
New York; Cambridge, UK: Russell Sage Foundation; Cambridge University Press.
p. 211. ISBN 0521621720. OCLC 42934579.
2. Jump up^ Triantaphyllou, Evangelos (2000). Multi-criteria decision making methods: a
comparative study. Applied optimization. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
p. 320. doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-3157-6.ISBN 0792366077.
3. ^ Jump up to:a b Davidson, Alice Ware; Bar-Yam, Yaneer (2006) [2000]. "Environmental
complexity: information for human–environment well-being" (PDF). In Bar-Yam, Yaneer; Minai,
Ali. Unifying themes in complex systems. Berlin; New York: Springer. pp. 157–
168. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-35866-4_16.ISBN 9783540358640.
4. Jump up^ Godfrey-Smith, Peter (2001). "Environmental complexity and the evolution of
cognition" (PDF). In Sternberg, Robert J.; Kaufman, James C. The evolution of intelligence.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. pp. 223–250.ISBN 080583267X. OCLC 44775038.
5. Jump up^ Frensch, Peter A.; Funke, Joachim, eds. (1995). Complex problem solving: the
European perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.ISBN 0805813365. OCLC 32131412.
6. Jump up^ Kepner, Charles Higgins; Tregoe, Benjamin B. (1997) [1965]. The new rational
manager: an updated edition for a new world (Updated ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton Research
Press. OCLC 37666447.
7. Jump up^ Monahan, George E. (2000). Management decision making: spreadsheet
modeling, analysis, and application. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press.
pp. 33–40. ISBN 0521781183. OCLC 42921287.
8. Jump up^ Armstrong, Jon Scott (2001). "Role playing: a method to forecast decisions". In
Armstrong, Jon Scott. Principles of forecasting: a handbook for researchers and practitioners.
International series in operations research & management science. Boston, MA: Kluwer
Academic Publishers. pp. 15–30. doi:10.1007/978-0-306-47630-3_2. ISBN 0792379306.
9. Jump up^ Paul Saffo quoted in: Foley, John (30 October 1995). "Managing information:
infoglut". InformationWeek. Archived from the original on 2001-02-22. Retrieved 2015-07-26.
10. Jump up^ Kutty, Ambalika D.; Kumar Shee, Himanshu; Pathak, R. D. (November
2007)."Decision-making: too much info!". Monash Business Review. 3 (3): 8–
9.doi:10.2104/mbr07056.
11. Jump up^ Hall, Crystal C.; Ariss, Lynn; Todorov, Alexander (July 2007). "The illusion of
knowledge: when more information reduces accuracy and increases
confidence" (PDF). Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.103 (2): 277–
290. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2007.01.003.
12. Jump up^ Franklin, Benjamin (1975) [1772]. "To Joseph Priestley". In Willcox, William
Bradford. The papers of Benjamin Franklin: January 1 through December 31, 1772. 19. New
Haven: Yale University Press. pp. 299–300. ISBN 0300018657.OCLC 310601.
13. Jump up^ Mann, Leon; Harmoni, Ros; Power, Colin (1991). "The GOFER course in decision
making". In Baron, Jonathan; Brown, Rex V. Teaching decision making to adolescents. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. pp. 61–78.ISBN 0805804978. OCLC 22507012. See
also: Mann, Leon (July 1989). "Becoming a better decision maker". Australian
Psychologist. 24 (2): 141–155.doi:10.1080/00050068908259558.
14. Jump up^ Janis, Irving L.; Mann, Leon (1977). Decision making: a psychological analysis of
conflict, choice, and commitment. New York: Free Press. ISBN 0029161606.OCLC 2542340.
15. Jump up^ Guo, Kristina L. (June 2008). "DECIDE: a decision-making model for more
effective decision making by health care managers". The Health Care Manager.27 (2): 118–
127. doi:10.1097/01.HCM.0000285046.27290.90.PMID 18475113.
16. Jump up^ Brown, Pam (November 29, 2007), Career coach: decision-making, Pulse,
retrieved July 12, 2012 (subscription required)
17. Jump up^ Pijanowski, John (February 2009). "The role of learning theory in building effective
college ethics curricula". Journal of College and Character. 10 (3): 1–13. doi:10.2202/1940-
1639.1088.
18. Jump up^ Griffin, Emory A. (1991). "Interact system model of decision emergence of B.
Aubrey Fisher" (PDF). A first look at communication theory (1st ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
pp. 253–262. ISBN 0070227780. OCLC 21973427.
19. Jump up^ Postmes, T; Spears, Russell; Cihangir, Sezgin (2001). "Quality of decision making
and group norms". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 80(6): 918–
930. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.80.6.918. PMID 11414374.
20. ^ Jump up to:a b c Schacter, Daniel L.; Gilbert, Daniel Todd; Wegner, Daniel M. (2011)
[2009].Psychology (2nd ed.). New York: Worth
Publishers. ISBN 9781429237192.OCLC 755079969.
21. Jump up^ Blackhart, G. C.; Kline, J. P. (2005). "Individual differences in anterior EEG
asymmetry between high and low defensive individuals during a rumination/distraction
task" (PDF). Personality and Individual Differences. 39(2): 427–
437. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.01.027.
22. Jump up^ Drake, R. A. (1993). "Processing persuasive arguments: 2. Discounting of truth
and relevance as a function of agreement and manipulated activation asymmetry".Journal of
Research in Personality. 27 (2): 184–196.doi:10.1006/jrpe.1993.1013.
23. Jump up^ Chua, E. F.; Rand-Giovannetti, E.; Schacter, D. L.; Albert, M.; Sperling, R. A.
(2004). "Dissociating confidence and accuracy: Functional magnetic resonance imaging shows
origins of the subjective memory experience" (PDF). Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 16 (7):
1131–1142. doi:10.1162/0898929041920568.PMID 15453969.
24. Jump up^ Plous, Scott (1993). The psychology of judgment and decision making.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press. ISBN 0877229139. OCLC 26548229.
25. Jump up^ Perneger, Thomas V.; Agoritsas, Thomas (December 2011). "Doctors and
patients' susceptibility to framing bias: a randomized trial". Journal of General Internal
Medicine. 26 (12): 1411–1417. doi:10.1007/s11606-011-1810-x.PMC 3235613
. PMID 21792695.
26. Jump up^ Sharot, Tali (2011). The optimism bias: a tour of the irrationally positive brain(1st
ed.). New York: Pantheon Books. ISBN 9780307378484.OCLC 667609433.
27. Jump up^ Sharot, Tali; Korn, Christoph W.; Dolan, Raymond J. (October 2011). "How
unrealistic optimism is maintained in the face of reality". Nature Neuroscience.14 (11): 1475–
1479. doi:10.1038/nn.2949. PMC 3204264 . PMID 21983684.
28. Jump up^ Spar
Decision-making: Suggestions for

school staff
The material is also available in a PDF format: Decision-making: Suggestions for school staff [317KB]pdf
Effective decision-making skills are important for children’s learning in many areas
When children are supported to make responsible decisions at school it helps them manage their own
behaviour and relate more effectively to others. Many situations provide opportunities to teach and
reinforce children’s developing decision-making skills at school.
These arise in formal learning, social activities, play, and in choosing appropriate behaviour in the school
grounds. School staff can assist children to manage their behaviour at school by teaching skills for
decision-making and encouraging children to use them in a range of situations.
For younger students:

Provide opportunities to make simple decisions. Asking students to explain the reasons for their choices
helps them develop skills of evaluation.
Comment on decisions made by characters in stories (eg “Do you think Charlie made a good decision?
Do you think he should have done something different?”)
Model the steps for decision-making by talking through decisions you need to make.
For older students:
Explicitly teach the steps of decision-making and provide practice in using them.
Build goal-setting and decision-making steps into assigned learning tasks by making them an
explicit component of task instructions. This builds their capacity for self-regulated learning, which has
been shown to enhance academic performance.
Step 1: What’s my goal?
Step 2: What strategies/options can help?
Step 3: What are the pros and cons of each option?
Step 4: Choose the best one to try.
Step 5: Evaluate how my choice worked. What do I need to change?

Even younger students can be involved (with guidance) in deciding on classroom and school rules.
Children accept that adults will make the fi nal decision, but appreciate being consulted and having the
opportunity to contribute to the rules. In addition to building children’s decision-making skills, this helps
them to own and accept rules as necessary and fair. Providing students with some choice over what
andhow they learn can enhance motivation as well as responsibility
Asking, “Was that a good decision?” helps children to evaluate their actions. Asking, “What’s a better
way to handle it?” prompts them to choose a better option. Asking, “What can we do about this?” invites
them to discuss a problem and to get your help in thinking of a strategy for managing it better.
Primary school children often expect school staff to make decisions for them. This sometimes occurs
even for relatively minor decisions that children could make for themselves. Teaching and reinforcing the
steps of decision-making helps to support children to develop independence and confidence in their own
judgment. For example, a child who is given a specific suggestion in response to the question, “What
should we play?” learns that adults are good at determining what he or she should do. When the
response is, “Let’s see, what ideas do you have?” he or she is encouraged to take responsibility for
generating options. Further ‘scaffolding’ can help the child to evaluate the options and make a choice, at
the same time increasing confidence for deciding independently in the future.
See also
KidsMatter Primary
Cultural diversity and children's wellbeing
The need to belong
Show MoreContent changes above
How Decisions Are Made In School

Getting clear on who is involved in schools is not easy. We need to understand how
decisions are made in schools. In order to affect schools, you can build your
understanding of how decision-making in schools works.
The following positions represent as the typical “flow” of decision-making affecting

students in public schools. Different people may exert different kinds of influence in
every decision. Each person is not guaranteed a place “at the table” (most here often
are excluded). Following is a summary of everyone who might be involved.
Each of these roles can include student voice; few currently involve students in
meaningful ways. Following are descriptions of each role, and how Meaningful Student
Involvement can happen with them.
Roles That Can Benefit From Student Voice
Students—All students everywhere, in every grade and every school, should

experience Meaningful Student Involvement every day. Individual students determine
whether they’re meaningfully involved. You are in ultimately in charge of your own
education because you can actively choose whether or not you are going to actively
participate and learn in schools.
Peers—Younger and older students actively and passively influence other students’
decision-making. This can be meaningful if its done intentionally to make schools better.
Student Leaders—Many schools have active programs that draw out “traditional
student leaders” by identifying certain skills or abilities students have. Despite having a
range of abilities, these student leaders are mostly focused on activities that affect
students only. However, a growing number of student leaders have an increasing
amount of ability toaffect the whole education system. There are also “nontraditional”
student leaders whose influence over their peers’ decision-making has not been
acknowledged in school.
Parents—Guiding children is one of the most important jobs of parents; this is

especially true in schools. Parents can also passively or actively decision-making.
School Support Staff/Paraprofessionals/Adult Volunteers—Secretaries, adult

tutors, coaches, librarians, classroom assistants, and parent representatives may
influence student decision-making. Paraprofessionals are people who are hired to work
in schools to help students and teachers be successful.
Teachers—Everyday students are subjected to a range of decisions made by teachers

about grading, curriculum, behavior management, and relationships with students.
Teachers are also responsible for executing others’ decisions.
Teacher Leaders—Among the faculty at a school are teachers whose experience,

knowledge, or influence gives them ability, authority, or position to make decisions for
other teachers. These teachers may lead grade-level or curriculum areas, participate on
special committees, or influence decision-making in other ways.
Counselors—Students often go to counselors to ask questions, seek advice, and talk

to when they need a supportive adult in school. While they often guide student decision-
making with classes or life after high school, counselors may also help students make
decisions about life in general.
Assistant Principal—Many schools principals need assistants to guide behavior

management, budgeting, staff supervision, curriculum, and other areas. They affect
students by doling out punishments and rewards; guiding student activities; and in other
ways.
Principal/HeadMaster—The commonly acknowledged “leader” of a school is

responsible for most areas of school operations, including many of the assistant
principal roles listed above. They also publicly represent the school; mediate conflicts
among students, staff, parents, and community members; and interact with district,
state, and federal authorities.
District Administration—Officials on the district level administer programs, funds,

rules and regulations given to them by their superiors. In some states districts are
simply counties (Maryland) or large regions. New York City has more than 10 districts.
District offices may also be known as a local education agency, or LEA.
District Superintendent—The leader of a given area or group of schools,

superintendents are often the first elected official in the chain of decision-making
affecting students. Sometimes they are appointed by the district school board or city
mayor. They act as the figurehead and authority of all education-related issues within
their physical area of authority.
District School Board—These elected officials get recommendations from the public
and the superintendent to deliver their range of decision-making authority. They set the
budget and agenda of schools, assign students to schools, make rules and policies, set
learning standards, and more.
Regional Administration—These are in-between organizations that may offer

professional development, administrative guidance, or funding to districts and local
schools. These offices have different names, including Educational Service Districts
(Washington); BOCEs (New York); or Regional Service Centers (Texas).
State Administration—These officials are responsible for administering federal and

state programs designed to meet the goals of schools. Also known as the state
education agency or department of education. In several states this is the Office of
Superintendent of Public Administration.
State Education Leader—The state education leader may be elected or appointed;

they may also work equally with the state school board and governor, or independently.
They are responsible for guiding the implementation of the rules, regulations, laws,
budgets, and programs of the state legislature; in some states, the governor; and the
federal government. This person may be called the Chief Education Officer, or the
Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI).
State School Board—An elected group of officials that overseas all schools and
ensures the state’s adherence to federal rules and regulations. Students can be
meaningfully involved as full voting members elected by their peers are responsible for
a full slate of activities, issues, and outcomes.
Governor/State Legislature/State Supreme Court—The state-level officials who are

responsible for setting state priorities and funding for education, as well as ensuring
local, state, and federal compliance with education laws.
U.S. Secretary of Education—The individual official responsible for setting and

implementing the President’s education agenda. The leader of the U.S. Department of
Education.
U.S. Department of Education—The federal agency responsible for administering the

budgets, rules, and regulations of the Secretary of Education and the Congress.
U.S. Representatives and U.S. Senators—Elected officials responsible for setting the

President’s educational policy recommendations into motion, in addition to
supplementing their states’ policy with additional funding.
U.S. Supreme Court Justices—These individuals are appointed to make sure schools

comply with the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
U.S. President—The elected official responsible for setting national educational

priorities affecting all public schools.
These are the people who are currently affected by student voice, and who should be
partners through Meaningful Student Involvement.
What do you think? Share your comments below!
For more information or assistance, contact us.

More Info
 Understanding Schools
 Meaningful Student Involvement Toolbox
 Student Voice Toolbox
5 Criteria to Consider When

Making Your Next Big Decision
Sponsored Links
From Our Partners
Flying from Asia to North America? Accomplish More On the Go Bloomberg for ALL
NIPPON AIRWAYS
Crazy Cheap Flashlight - Selling Like Hotcakes! Lumify X9
A game that changes the way you look at strategy! Vikings: Free Online Game

by Taboola
Videos You May Like
For Better Conversations, Replace 'How Are You?' With This One Phrase (Video)
This One Habit Can Help Make You Smarter (Video)
The Soul of Entrepreneurship: How Giving Back Adds Value (Video)

Does Your Startup Need a 'Secret Ideas Room'? (Video)
by Taboola
Image credit: Picjumbo
JEFF BOSS
CONTRIBUTOR
Entrepreneur, Executive Coach, Author, Speaker

BOOKS
Here's a Book Every Entrepreneur Needs to Read

JEFF BOSS
HABITS
5 Smart Habits of People Who Make Things Happen

JEFF BOSS
INNOVATION
4 Random Innovations to Fuel Your Startup Creativity

JEFF BOSS
 134Shares






FEBRUARY 6, 2015
Leadership in any capacity requires a laser-like focus, complete awareness of

the problem set, and a willingness to “move the needle” when faced with
uncertainty. Leaders must, at any point, be willing to make a split-second
decision with potentially long-lasting and profound impacts.
The challenge, though, is that not every leader is willing to make such decisions
for fear of it being considered “wrong.” They think that once a decision is made it
is interminable and irreversible, and that adapting down the road isn’t an option
or, even worse, they’ll be fired for being decisive.
Related: Know When to Double Down in Business
What’s wrong with this notion? Plenty. Here are five criteria to consider when
making your next big decision:
1. The purpose of the decision

In the military, there was (and still is) a pecking order of priority upon which
decisions are based. The mission always came first, followed by what would
serve the team, and finally, what would serve the individual. The individual
always comes last because he or she was always the smallest link in the
organizational chain. Playing to self-interest serves little purpose, and that’s not
what a team or an organization is about.
2. Wrong is never permanent
Well, “never” is a strong word, but you get the idea. I’ve said before that failure is
only determined by where you choose to stop, and it also depends on how that
particular problem is perceived. The higher one ascends within an organization.
For example, the same problem that appears tricky at one level may not
necessarily be the right one to solve for at another. Seek as many viewpoints as
you can to enhance your understanding of the situation.
3. Timeline to execution
There are internal and external influences that shape the feasibility of execution
along a given timeline. Internal influences refer to the competency of you and
your team to execute the decision in the time allotted, whereas external
influences signify the driving forces that impact the deadline that you have no
control over, such as weather, the economy or market demand.
You want to ask yourself two questions. First, "Is now the right time todecide?" If
the answer is yes, then your next question is, "Am I capable of executing the
decision?" If the answer is no then ask "why?"
Related: 4 Ways to Overcome Self-Doubt
4. Known unknowns and unknown unknowns

These are the constraints surrounding the execution of your decisions.
A known unknown is when you realize a specific intangible exists but can’t
quantify how much, such as traffic (if you live in Los Angeles you know exactly
what I’m talking about). For instance, you're aware that rush hour in LA never
really has an end point, so it could take you anwhere from 20 minutes to two
hours to travel from A to B. The point is, you know that uncertainty exists but
don't know how much.
Unknown unknowns are when Murphy likes to throw another wrench in the mix
that you simply can’t plan for, such as (continuing with the traffic example) a
vehicle accident or engine breakdown.
Try to identify all constraints as best you can so you know how to align them
towards the purpose of your decision.
5. Resource accessibility
If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again. The result of any effort will depend in
part on the resources used to execute it, so be sure to identify not only the
primary resources available but also secondary ones, too. Every decision should
have a contingency plan for when those unknown unknowns arise and deem
your primary course of action obsolete.
Decision-making can paralyze you if you’re not prepared. Tackle your next major
dilemma using the aforementioned considerations and feel better about the
decisions you come to.
problem-solving and decision-making

simple processes for problem-solving and decision-making
Problem solving and decision-making are important skills for business and life. Problem-solving
often involves decision-making, and decision-making is especially important for management and
leadership. There are processes and techniques to improve decision-making and the quality of
decisions. Decision-making is more natural to certain personalities, so these people should focus
more on improving the quality of their decisions. People that are less natural decision-makers are
often able to make quality assessments, but then need to be more decisive in acting upon the
assessments made. Problem-solving and decision-making are closely linked, and each requires
creativity in identifying and developing options, for which thebrainstorming technique is particularly
useful. See also the free SWOT analysis template and examples, and PEST analysis template,
which help decision-making and problem-solving. SWOT analysis helps assess the strength of a
company, a business proposition or idea; PEST analysis helps to assess the potential and suitability
of a market. Good decision-making requires a mixture of skills: creative development and
identification of options, clarity of judgement, firmness of decision, and effective implementation. For
group problem-solving and decision-making, or when a consensus is required, workshops help,
within which you can incorporate these tools and process as appropriate. Here are some useful
methods for effective decision-making and problem-solving: First a simple step-by-step process for
effective decision-making and problem-solving.
See also the decision-making facilitative questions template.
And definitely see the ethical decision-making quick guide.
decision-making process
1. Define and clarify the issue - does it warrant action? If so, now? Is the matter urgent,
important or both. See the Pareto Principle.
2. Gather all the facts and understand their causes.
3. Think about or brainstorm possible options and solutions. (See brainstorming process)
4. Consider and compare the 'pros and cons' of each option - consult others if necessary or
useful - and for bigger complex decisions where there are several options, create a template
which enables measurements according to different strategic factors
(see SWOT, PEST, Porter).
5. Select the best option - avoid vagueness and weak compromises in trying to please
everyone.
6. Explain your decision to those involved and affected, and follow up to ensure proper and
effective implementation.
Decision-making maxims will help to reinforce the above decision-making process whether related to
problem-solving or not, for example:
"We know what happens to people who stay in the middle of the road. They get run down." (Aneurin
Bevan)
"In any moment of decision the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the
wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing." (attributed to Theodore Roosevelt - more
maxims on the quotes page)
There is often more than one good answers when you are faced with a complex decision. When
you've found the best solution you can find, involve others in making it work, and it probably will.
(More useful rules, acronyms and training ideas on the acronyms page.)

'pros and cons' and 'weighted' decision-making methods
A simple process for decision-making is to compile a 'weighted' scored , of 'pros and cons' list.
Pro means 'for', and con means 'against' - i.e., advantages and disadvantages.
For more complex decisions, several options can be assessed against differing significant criteria, or
against a single set of important factors. In any case, factors/options can be weighted and scored
appropriately.
The 'pros and cons' method can be used especially for two-option problem-solving and decision-
making issues where implications need to be understood and a decision has to be made in a
measured objective sense.
Using a 'weighted list' scoring method is especially useful in big organizational or business
decisions, especially which involve lots of different strategic considerations (as
in SWOT and PEST and Porter's Five Forces concept). In such situations you can assess different
options according to a single set of criteria (the most important considerations), or you can allocate
weighted/scored criteria differently to each option (examples of templates are below).
Some decisions are a simple matter of whether to make a change or not, such as moving, taking a
new job, or buying something, selling something, replacing something, etc. Other decisions involve
number of options, and are concerned more with how to do something, involving a number of
choices. Use the brainstorming process to identify and develop options for decision-making and
problem-solving. If involving a group in the process then running a workshop is often a good
approach.
1. First you will need a separate sheet for each identified option.
2. On each sheet write clearly the option concerned, and then beneath it the headings 'pros'
and 'cons' (or 'advantages' and disadvantages', or simply 'for' and 'against'). Many decisions
simply involve the choice of whether to go ahead or not, to change or not; in these cases you
need only one sheet.
3. Then write down as many effects and implications of the particular option that you (and
others if appropriate) can think of, placing each in the relevant column.
4. If helpful 'weight' each factor, by giving it a score out of three or five points (e.g., 5 being
extremely significant, and 1 being of minor significance).
5. When you have listed all the points you can think of for the option concerned compare the
number or total score of the items/effects/factors between the two columns.
6. This will provide a reflection and indication as to the overall attractiveness and benefit of the
option concerned. If you have scored each item you will actually be able to arrive at a total
score, being the difference between the pros and cons column totals. The bigger the
difference between the total pros and total cons then the more attractive the option is.
7. If you have a number of options and have complete a pros and cons sheet for each option,
compare the attractiveness - points difference between pros and cons - for each option. The
biggest positive difference between pros and cons is the most attractive option.
8. N.B. If you don't like the answer that the decision-making sheet(s) reflect back to you,
it means you haven't included all the cons - especially the emotional ones, or you
haven't scored the factors consistently, so re-visit the sheet(s) concerned.
You will find that writing things down in this way will help you to see things more clearly, become
more objective and detached, which will help you to make clearer decisions.
Using a scoring template also allows for the involvement and contribution of other people, far more
objectively, controllably and usefully, than by general discusssion without a measurement
framework.
'pros and cons' and weighted decision-making templates - examples

This first simple example below enables the weighting of the pros and cons of buying a new car to
replace an old car.
The methodology is easily adapted for more complex decisions, such as in business strategy and
consideration of more complex factors (notably found within other tools such
in SWOT and PEST and Porter's Five Forces).
(The actual scores below are examples and are not suggested weightings of how to make such a
decision, which must be your own ideas).
Decision-making criteria depend on your own personal situations and preferences. Criteria and
weighting will change according to time, situation, etc.
Your own mood and feelings can also affect how you assess things, which is additional justification
for the need of a measurable and robust method.
In bigger strategic business decision-making, it is often beneficial to seek input from others as to
factors and weighting scores. In such situations, a template offers a way for people to contribute in a
managed structured way.
The main template question can be whatever suits your purposes - it can be about timing, where,
who, how, and is not necessarily restricted to two columns. The same methodology can be used
to compare a series of several options.
For more complex situations, especially which entail many more rows and columns, it's sensible to
use a spreadsheet.
Use whatever scoring method makes good sense to you for your situation. The example shows a
low score method, but you can score each item up to 10, or 20 or 100, or an 'A/B/C' or three-star
scoring method - whatever works best for you.
Should I replace my old car with a new one?
pros (for - advantages) score cons (against - disadvantages)

better comfort 3 cost outlay will mean making sacrifices
lower fuel costs 3 higher insurance
lower servicing costs 4 time and hassle to choose and buy it
better for family use 3 disposal or sale of old car
better reliability 5 big decisions like this scare and upset me
it'll be a load off my mind 2

total 6 pros 20 total 5 cons
In the above example, on the basis of the pros and cons and the weighting applied, there seems to
be a clear overall quantifiable advantage in the decision to go ahead and buy a new car.
Notice that with this decision-making method it's even possible to include 'intangible' emotional
issues in the pros and cons comparison, for example 'it'll be a load off my mind', and 'decisions
scare and upset me'.
A decision-making pros and cons list like this helps remove the emotion which blocks clear thinking
and decision-making. It enables objectivity and measurement, rather than reacting from instinct, or
avoiding the issue altogether. Objective measurement helps in making a confident decision.
The total weighted scores are the main deciding factor rather than the total number of pros and
cons, although there is not a scientific 'right' or 'wrong' way to consider the total number of pros and
cons compared with the total weighted scores.
If the weighted scores are indicating a decision which makes you feel uncomfortable, then check
your weightings, and also check that you've not missed out any factors on either side of the table.
If the decision makes you feel uncomfortable and this is not reflected in the table, then add it as a
factor and give it a score.
Seeking feedback or input from a trusted neutral friend can be helpful in confirming your factors and
their scores.
blank pros and cons decision-making template

You should be able to cut and paste this template into a text editor or spreadsheet. Add more rows
or columns as required.
For more complex decisions, especially strategic/organizational, the sub-headings 'pros' and 'cons'
should be replaced by the names of the different options.
Refer to other tools such as SWOT and PEST and Porter's Five Forces as appropriate.
question/decision/option:
Site-Based Decision Making: Its Potential for Enhancing

Learner Outcomes
Schools are doing a very good job of doing what they were designed to do - decades ago. In the early twentieth
century, when the country was moving beyond an agricultural economy into the industrial era, the goal of public
education was to provide school attendees with a basic education; the curriculum was dominated by reading, writing,
arithmetic (Joyce, Hersh, & McKibbin, 1983). In the current post-industrial period, however, our society has charged
schools with delivering a high quality, multi-disciplinary education to all students, seeking to guarantee the promise of
successful learning and adulthood employment for each of our children. To complicate this mandate, never before
have students come to the public school from such diverse backgrounds, family patterns, and native languages.
Thus, "schools are searching for dramatic new ways to effectively meet the needs of all children," states a study
group representing the American Association of School Administrators, the National Association of Elementary
School Principals, and the National Association of Secondary School Principals (Fulbright, 1988, preface). This
search stems from the difficulties schools are encountering as they address the needs presented by an increasingly
diverse student population. School and district governance are being re-examined, and educational leaders at all
levels are focusing significant attention on restructuring schools and, specifically, on site-based decision making.
Considering the Possibilities of Site-Based Decision Making

Restructuring is defined by Corbett (1990) as making major changes in the school's organizational rules, roles, and
relationships in order to obtain different results. Corbett's conceptualization resonates with Cuban's analysis of
change. Cuban (1988), in analyzing school change over the past several decades, has categorized change efforts as
either first-order change, "trying to make what already exists more efficient and more effective . . . without
substantially altering the ways in which adults and children perform their roles" (p. 342), or second-order change,
which "transforms familiar ways of doing things into new ways of solving persistent problems" (p. 342). Such
transformation might include, for example, more participatory roles for parents and community members, and broad
involvement in decision making by all constituents at the campus level.
Cuban believes that first-order changes have allowed the system to remain "essentially untouched," resulting in
insufficient success for all students. He maintains that change should be framed in terms of the second-order type,
focusing on the fundamental arrangements by which schools operate in order to achieve different, and better, results
in meeting the needs of all children. One example of second order change is site-based decision making, designed to
promote shifts in roles and relationships away from the traditional bureaucratic model of schools and districts to a
more open, participatory system. Site-based decision making is being proposed by many as a worthy "tool to
increase student achievement" (Fulbright, 1988, p. 5).
What is site-based decision making?

Harrison and colleagues (1989) suggest that the new arena for decision making
"brings the responsibility for decisions as close as possible to the school . . . defining how school staffs can
work collaboratively to make these decisions . . . creating ownership for those responsible for carrying out
decisions by involving them directly in the decision-making process and by trusting their abilities and
judgments . . . " (p. 55).
These ideas are embedded in many of the terms being used to portray the shift of additional authority, autonomy, and
accountability to the school site and the personnel within. Included are such terms as decentralization, restructuring,
site-based management, school-based management, participatory decision making, school-based autonomy - to
name a few.
These terms typically are meant to reflect changes in governance structures, and the identification of the school as
the primary unit of improvement; redistributing decision-making authority is viewed as a major vehicle for stimulating
improvements (Malen, Ogawa, & Kranz, 1990). The new authority for decision making is used to determine
programs, personnel, and budget. Further, decisions involve a wide array of actors at the site level: principals,
teachers, parents, community representatives, and students. These site actors are frequently organized in a team or
site council to represent their colleagues. Given discretion and influence, participatory decision-making teams can
use their authority to consider learning approaches that are tailored to their diverse populations of students.
Despite the advocacy put forward by numerous writers and organizations, Malen and colleagues (1990) suggest from
their review of the literature that site-based decision making is not a new idea, but is a "recurrent reform . . . surfacing
periodically when public education is under fire" (p. 289). Such efforts, these authors contend, seem to reappear in
times of "intense stress - when broad publics are criticizing the performance of schools . . . when, in sum, a turbulent
environment generates a host of highly salient demands and the system is pressed to search for solutions to . . .
intractable problems" (p. 297). Malen and colleagues' observations may give reason to consider carefully how the
introduction of site-based decision making into a district will contribute substantively to improved outcomes for
students, rather than serve as a pro forma response to public criticism.
What role changes may be anticipated with site-based decision making?

Corbett (1990), Cuban (1988), and others maintain that restructuring schools entails a major re-design of the ways
that schools operate. Governance structures, including decision making, take on very different forms. As Corbett
suggests, new roles and relationships differ from those traditionally found in schools and districts. A brief look at the
new roles of the various stakeholders in the district and local site follows.
Groups expected to be included in site-based decision making are students, parents, and teachers. Their new roles
are described by Gibbs (1991). In the traditional model, students were isolated from operational and policy decisions.
In the new shared decision-making model, students, especially older students, may influence policies by providing
advice and input through participation in decision making.
Close to students are parents who, in yesterday's model, were mostly uninformed and underutilized resources and,
like students, were isolated from decision making and the operations of the school. An abundant literature advocates
training parents to develop understandings and skills relative to the education system's purposes, and to act as
colleagues in planning and decision making, and as advocates and partners in the local school's change efforts.
Teachers, too, have been isolated from active involvement in significant decision making and have been dependent
on administrative and external (to the school) policy development. In the past, they have had limited communication
with each other in their own buildings and have been underutilized as sources of ideas and information to each other
and the staff as a whole. In site-based decision making, it is expected that they will develop interactions across the
campus community and become broadly connected with staff and parents. These interactions provide the setting for
their sharing of ideas and concerns, and participation in making decisions for their campus.
Teachers who are professional organization representatives will find their roles also changing (Steinberger, 1990).
Whereas they had frequently acted as guardians of teacher rights and the teachers' contract, the new model requires
flexibility from the organization's representative. Yesterday's model found these representatives in direct confrontation
with the school system, and serving as negotiators of issues; the "new" model embraces collaboration and
cooperative participation in decision making in all areas. The typical organizational liaison was a representative of
either teachers or administrators; they now need to act as partners with teachers, administrators, the school board,
and the broader educational community.
Many school board members also will experience new role expectations (Gibbs,1991). Certainly not all, but many
board members, once advocated uniform procedures across the district and maintenance of the status quo. They had
been unilateral policy makers. Their roles, too, will become more collegial as they become advocates of flexibility,
support change and improvement, and accept partners in policy making.
Gibbs also pictures changed roles for superintendents, other central office staff, and principals. As the chief
administrative officer and general manager of the district, director of operations, and deliverer of top down mandates,
the superintendent will exhibit new behaviors. These new behaviors will be characterized by inviting participation and
serving as an executive team member, encouraging bottom up change. Rather than delivering uniform treatment to
all campuses, the superintendent will support differences and uniqueness.
New behaviors of other central office staff will be required. Rather than delivering policies made in the central office
and monitoring their implementation in schools, they will respond to schools and serve as resources and facilitators
for them, to assist them in their change efforts. Many central office staff have been viewed as isolated from the
campuses, as experts or specialists in particular academic areas. In site-based decision making, they will become
integrated into various campus activities. They may provide training, coordinate district level human and material
resources for the campus, support schools' autonomy, and share decision making.
Perhaps no other role will be more affected by site-based decision making than that of the principal. The principal has
been described as the middle manager, enforcer of policies made elsewhere, and maintainer of alignment with the
district status quo. In addition, the principal has been characterized as a lonely, isolated person, but nonetheless, the
"hero" of school improvement, championing the cause of school change, guiding and managing its success. This
individual will continue to have responsibility for the individual school's operations ( Jenni, 1991). And, yet, many
other players are expected to share in making decisions for the school.
Thus, the principal will need to develop colleagueship with the faculty and staff in order to participate in and invite
staff participation in policy development, and ensure that the needs of his/her school are met. A framework for
decision making, such as that provided below, can be very useful as the principal and staff embark upon the new
structure of site-based decision making.
How can site-based decision making link to learner outcomes?
The purpose of site-based decision making, as suggested in this paper, is improved educational outcomes for all
students. The substance of decision making, therefore, should address issues for improving teaching and learning.
To support this purpose, campus decision makers may find it helpful to classify decisions into three types: mandated,
expedient, and essential (Dick Foster, personal communication, July 1988). After categorizing decisions, decision
makers then give their time and attention to the type of decisions that hold the most promise for quality learning
opportunities for students.
There is seldom any need for site-based decision makers to spend significant time discussing whether to implement a
mandated policy. There is little reason to discuss the merits of an issue over which the team has no control. Each
state's minimum required number of days in the school calendar is an example of a mandate. The principal has the
responsibility to communicate this type of decision to the staff through standard administrative practice; however, it
may be productive for the staff to plan the way in which a mandate is implemented.
The expedient type of decision improves the efficiency and management of the school. This is the type of decision
many board of education members and too many professionals prefer to address. Use of facilities, driveway surfaces,
brand of copy machines, and use of energy sources are examples of expediency concerns. There will be a strong
temptation for the campus team to want to address matters of expediency as part of the shared decision-making
process. There are multiple and competing demands on school staffs' time. If they use it for the expedient type of
decisions, they will likely decrease the time and energy that could be focused on essential decisions.
Essential decisions impact the teaching/learning process. These are decisions that involve one or more dimensions
of that process, i.e., what we teach (curriculum), how we teach (instruction), or the culture within which we teach.
Alteration of curriculum documents, proposed staff development directions, and staffing patterns are examples of this
type of decision. Issues that impact the teaching/learning process should demand the major portion of each agenda
for a team meeting. The campus decision-making team that expends a major portion of its time and energy on
essential decisions has a stronger potential to produce positive results in student learning.
In addition to setting priorities for decision making, the campus team or site council may wish to consider the degree
of participation of various role groups or their representatives in particular decisions. Participation can be
characterized on a continuum from "no involvement" to "total participation." One schema (adapted from Wallace, et
al., 1990) delineates seven levels of involvement:
1. do not participate, where teachers, parents, or community representatives show no interest in the decision
or are not given the opportunity by the principal;
2. provide information to the administrator, where various role groups provide relevant information to the
principal to assist him/her in making a more informed decision;
3. formulate alternatives, where various role groups are solicited by the principal for their ideas and solutions to
problems;
4. suggest specific alternatives, where role groups generate solutions and advance opinions on how best to
proceed, with the principal selecting from the alternatives suggested;
5. review and comment on proposed decision, where role groups are given responsibility to review and
comment on the principal's proposed decision;
6. jointly make decision, where the principal and role groups analyze problems and arrive at decisions
together, with the principal reserving the right to veto or adjust decisions; and
7. make the decision, where all members of the team, council or school community strive for consensus and
share equally in decision making, with the principal an equal member of the group.
In sum, participating in essential decisions that address teaching and learning is proposed as a primary focus for the
campus decision makers. The degree to which the various decision makers are involved, as delineated by Wallace
and colleagues above, is another variable that may influence opportunities for succeeding more effectively with all
students. Schmuck and Runkel (1985) assert that reaching consensus through participatory decision making is most
desirable. It makes good sense that a broad array of persons representing various knowledge bases, experiences,
and expertise can contribute more meaningfully to discussions and decisions about the increasingly diverse needs of
students and how to address them.
Learning from Those Who Have Tried It

In a review of the literature about site-based decision making, Kolsti & Rutherford (1991) discovered that information
about its effects on students seldom appears, with any evidence in the form of testimony. Johnson (1991) reports that
research studies have failed to find a relationship between site-based management and student achievement.
(However, she found patterns of directionality in her study of middle schools. In schools where students were
achieving, there was a significantly higher level of shared decision making and less central control.) Most prevalent in
the literature are reports of what was learned when implementing site-based decision making at district and campus
levels.
In a four year longitudinal study of two Minnesota school districts, Jenni (1991) concluded that issues of power tend
to interfere with a school's goal of site-based decision making. Further, whatever their position, individuals in schools
tend to resist change. Third, the "activities of site councils tend to be observational and discussional rather than
advisory and decisional" (p. 137).
In a study of five school systems across the nation (and documentaries of additional communities), Hill and Bonan
(1991) draw conclusions focused on the relationships between the school, district system, and parents. These
authors concluded that
 site-based decision making is a reform of the whole school system even though it focuses on individual
schools;
 change at the school level will result if site-based decision making is the school system's basic strategy for
reform, rather than one of several projects for reform;
 site-managed schools that have their own unique attributes and operations are likely to develop over time;
 the balanced relationship of the district system and individual schools that represent variety, not uniformity,
will require new thinking about accountability; and
 parental choice, where parents are free "to move among schools," is the ultimate means of accountability for
site-managed schools.
In a study of 14 schools in Oregon (whose leadership teams controlled resources of $1,000.00 per teacher for the
projects), Conley (1991) reports changes in the behaviors of principals and teachers. Principals in the schools were
acting as developers and facilitators, rather than as "bosses." They helped in creating a common vision, or clear
sense of purpose, by using a wide array of data. They allocated resources (space, scheduling, personnel) to achieve
the vision. They broadened decision-making structures through development of ad hoc committees and task forces.
They supported teachers in becoming decision makers through helping them "navigate the sometimes treacherous
shoals of the district bureaucracy" (p. 41) and providing information to the total school community about the internal
functions of the school (fiscal allocation, available resources, class loads/staffing, etc.).
Teacher changes occurred in new roles, skills, perceptions, and relationships with their peers. Teachers developed a
greater sense of efficacy and control, as well as the ability to influence their work environment. They began
experiencing more participation and satisfaction; their increased energy, they thought, appeared to impact their
instructional practices and teacher-student interactions.
Lessons from these authors and others, most clearly articulated by Jenni (1991, p. 149-150), include the following:
Teachers are reluctant to take on new role definitions as decision makers, as they see their primary role in the
classroom and the principal as decision maker. Training and retraining are essential but often are nonexistent in site-
based decision-making programs. Accountability and decision-making responsibilities are vague, with the principal
rather than the school team assuming the ultimate responsibility; if responsibility for decisions rests outside the
purview of the decision-making group, what real function does the group serve? Clear purpose and direction must be
established for site councils, or school teams, with decision-making parameters clearly delineated; council control of
resources also helps.
Preparing for Implementation

In order for a school district to be successful in implementing site-based decision making, the various constituencies
involved in decision making must operate synergistically. Each campus should be part of a vision of decentralization
whose purpose is improvement. However, uniqueness needs to be maintained. The campuses should not all be alike
nor think alike; but, each should be part of an overall effort that "thinks together." The fundamental vehicle for
developing a synergistic school district is planning.
How does the district office provide guidance and support?

Initial planning is done at the district level, possibly by a team representing the schools and all constituencies,
whereby goals and priorities are articulated for the entire system. These goals form the parameters within which the
schools will function so that there is, in fact, a system of schools. Further, the boundaries within which schools will
operate are established through district policy development and through the clearly defined and communicated
limitations of budgets and program and personnel options. It is neither reasonable nor fair to deliver a decision-
making apparatus to schools without accompanying guidelines that inform schools about the amount of flexibility they
will be able to have. Campus decision making presents opportunities to develop individualization and uniqueness, yet
it also represents the opportunity to proceed toward accomplishing goals common to the campus and to the district.
In addition, there must be a district vision and commitment to shared decision making and planning. Adequate time is
a necessity; shared decision making cannot occur if there is insufficient time for meeting. The district can
demonstrate its commitment through the provision of time presented to the schools in optional scheduling formats
from which they select the most useful.
The district should also provide the resources for training in communication skills, team building, use of decision-
making models, conflict management, and understanding of the change process. Some level of technical assistance
should be available in order for school staff to receive feedback and suggestions, plus opportunities for improving
their decision-making and planning skills.
Central office staff must also model shared decision making. It requires very little time for central office staff members
and other instructional leaders to develop rhetoric related to site-based decision making. However, support for the
process will erode quickly if leadership advocates shared decision making, but continues to formulate and
demonstrate administrative procedures that ultimately inhibit the process. In school districts where site-based
decision making is successful, central office staff members assume the role of facilitators. Their new role and
behavior patterns exhibit a helping attitude, responding to the decisions and declared needs of the schools.
If central office staff members are to be able to respond appropriately to site-based decision making, they will need to
understand change. Site-based decision making is a change of Cuban's "second order" mentioned above - and is
very complex. First and foremost, there must be a clear understanding of what site-based decision making is, acts
like, looks like. A clear conceptualization of how it will work, with its boundaries and privileges, is highly important.
This image of site-based decision making should be consistently held by all persons across the district - at central
office, campus, and community levels. Consistency will reduce unnecessary frustrations based on misunderstanding
or lack of information.
Another important facet of change is that the individual must be considered at all times. The uniqueness of people
and their circumstances cannot be overlooked; this idea resonates with the new expectation that schools will become
increasingly unique.
How is collegiality developed at the campus?

Site-based decision making will be more successful on a campus where the principal, teachers, and staff members
function as a team. Conversely, decision making will be minimal if the group is unable to work in harmony toward
achieving the goals they identify. It should be noted that research suggests that schools' instructional processes
occur more effectively as a collegial effort (Little, 1981). Various factors can support the collegiality and the viability of
educational decision making on a campus. These include knowledge, understanding, and skills needed for the
shared decision-making process.
As already cited, the district makes resources available for supporting the campus staff to function as a team and for
developing new skills that contribute to collegial site-based decisions. Another factor is a school's organizational
culture, which is characterized as, or in the process of becoming: open, accepting, trusting, and risk taking. Patience
and perseverance demonstrated by the staff in developing their approach to decision making are equally supporting.
Resources for time and training may be allocated; central office staff can contribute help and assistance; a pleasant,
respectful and caring atmosphere may develop at the school site - and substantive, student-related decision making
may never occur if the cultural values and norms are not student-directed.
Maintaining the Focus on Learners

This paper suggests that learner outcomes and site-based decision making can be linked. The site-based decision-
making process should be thoughtful, purposeful, and well planned. The purpose to be served is increased program
quality and equity in the schools; thus, the results should be enhanced outcomes of success for all students. The
concluding section of this paper makes a final argument for the tight coupling of site-based decision making, student
learning outcomes, and effective leadership.
The literature is mixed in its reports of the motivations for implementing site-based decision making in schools. Some
schools adopted the strategy as a pro forma response to increasing external demands for change; others adopted it
because it seemed to be "a good thing." It would appear in many cases that site-based decision making was
introduced as an end in itself. In others, it served as a schema to professionalize the work environment for teachers,
as a way to involve parents in the life of the school, or as a way to "democratize" the school organization. While these
latter purposes are worthy, site-based decision making should be explicitly considered as a means to increased
learner outcomes. Therefore, the initial emphasis should be on school and classroom improvement, followed by a
focus on site-based decision making as a way to strengthen and support the school improvement initiative. This
"works" in the following scenario that was developed in a collaborative effort by nine of the ten U. S. regional
laboratories funded by OERI (Office of Educational Research and Improvement), and reported by Corbett and Blum
(1992).
A district and its schools are mobilized to examine broadly their goals and the end product or outcome of their
educational system. Organizing campus improvement committees, the district and school leaders guide a process for
describing what students will be able to do and for identifying student attributes. Having articulated the end result, the
school committee (representative of the school community) focuses on instruction and the teaching/learning
conditions needed for successfully realizing the student outcomes desired. In turn, new structures (i.e., decentralizing
governance or decision making to the school) are designed and instituted to support the school in addressing the vital
processes of teaching and learning and in more effectively making the changes deemed necessary for success with
all students.
Those schools that have been engaged in an effective school/school improvement process have a head start in
several ways. They have focused on developing a team that represents the school community and shares in decision
making (although it typically has lacked broad authority). The team is an existing structure for instituting site-based
decision making. Second, the effective schools process focuses on examining a wide array of data that are
aggregated and disaggregated as input for making decisions. A third focus is on implementing the effective school
characteristics. These characteristics include focus on instruction, instructional leadership, monitoring and measuring
of progress, high expectations for all learners, and a school climate conducive to learning - each one important to
site-based decision making where the priority attention is on teaching and learning.
One of the dilemmas many schools have faced in their school improvement efforts is lack of sufficient decision-
making authority to bring about their desired plans for increasing student gains. Site-based decision making,
accompanied by appropriate accountability, autonomy, and authority distributed from the district level, allows schools
more flexibility to meet the unique needs of their students. Because of the increasing diversity of students, many of
whom are at risk of not succeeding, schools will need to be less uniform in programs and instructional strategies and
less conforming to a singular pattern.
It appears that the effects of site-based decision making on student outcomes have not yet been proven. However, in
an environment of decentralization, school leaders have new opportunities to guide their school communities in
collegial decision making that addresses more efficiently the vital processes of teaching and learning for all students.
As the school community and its leadership study and reflect on the school's goals and the needs of all its students,
especially those at risk, their collective wisdom and shared decisions have the possibility to strengthen the selection
of strategies that hold the highest potential for student success.
References
 Conley, D. T. (1991). Lessons from Laboratories in School Restructuring and Site-Based Decision-Making,
Oregon's "2020" Schools Take Control of Their Own Reform. Oregon School Study Council, 34(7), 1-61.
 Corbett, H. D. (1990). On the Meaning of Restructuring. Philadelphia: Research for Better Schools.
 Corbett, H. D. & Blum, R. E. (1992). Thinking Backwards to Move Forward. Unpublished manuscript,
Research for Better Schools, Philadelphia.
 Cuban, L. (1988). A Fundamental Puzzle of School Reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 69(5), 341-344.
 Fulbright, L. (Ed.) (1988). School-Based Management: A Strategy for Better Learning. American Association
of School Administrators, National Association of Elementary School Principals & National Association of
Secondary School Principals.
 Gibbs, G. J. (1991). School-Based Management: Are We Ready? Intercultural Development Research
Association, 28(4), 1-8.
 Harrison, C. R., Killion, J. P., & Mitchell, J. E. (1989). Site-Based Management: The Realities of
Implementation.Educational Leadership, 46(8), 55-58.
 Hill, P. T. & Bonan, J. (1991). Decentralization and Accountability in Public Education. Santa Monica, CA:
RAND.
 Jenni, R. W. (1991). Application of the School-Based Management Process Development Model. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement, 2(2), 136-151.
 Johnson, M. A. (1991). Principal Leadership, Shared Decision Making, and Student
Achievement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin,
 Joyce, B. R., Hersh, R. H., & McKibbin, M. (1983). The Structure of School Improvement. New York:
Longman, Inc.
 Kolsti, K. & Rutherford, B. (1991). Site-Based Management: Definitions, Implications, and
Indicators. Unpublished manuscript, The University of Texas at Austin.
 Little, J. W. (1981). School Success and Staff Development in Urban Desegregated Schools: A Summary of
Recently Completed Research. Boulder, CO: Center for Action Research.
 Malen, B., Ogawa, R. T., & Kranza, J. (1990). What Do We Know About School-Based Management? A
Case Study of the Literature - A Call for Research. In W. H. Clune & J. F. Witte (Eds.) Choice and Control in
American Education, Volume 2: The Practice of Choice, Decentralization and School Restructuring. London:
Falmer Press, pp. 289-342.
 Schmuck, R. A. & Runkel, P. J. (1985). The Handbook of Organizational Development in Schools. Palo Alto,
CA: Mayfield Press.
 Steinberger, E. (1990). Teachers Unions Handling Tricky Turns on the Road to Reform, Hazards Lie in Little
Direction and Unmarked Destination. The School Administrator, 47(7), 26-31.
 Wallace, R. C., Jr., Radvak-Shovlin, B., Piscolish, M., & Le Mahieu, P, G. (1990). The Instructional Cabinet
and Shared Decision Making in the Pittsburgh Public Schools: Theory, Practice and Evaluation. Paper
presented at Annual Meeting of American Educational Research Association, Boston.
Credits and Disclaimer

Issues . . . about Change is published and produced quarterly Southwest Educational Development Laboratory
(SEDL). This publication is based on work sponsored by the Office of Educational Research & Improvement, U.S.
Department of Education under grant number RP91002003. The content herein does not necessarily reflect the views
of the department or any other agency of the U.S. government or any other source. Available in alternative formats.
The Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL) is located at 4700 Mueller Blvd., Austin, Texas 78723;
512-476-6861/800-476-6861. SEDL is an Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer and is
committed to affording equal employment opportunities to all individuals in all employment matters.
This issue was written by practitioner, Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction, Dr. Elvis Arterbury,
Beaumont Independent School District, Beaumont, Texas, and Shirley M. Hord, Senior Research Associate, Services
for School Improvement, SEDL.
Published in Issues ...about Change Volume 1, Number 4, Site-Based Decision Making: Its Potential for Enhancing Learner
Outcomes (1991)

5 Simple Steps To Improve Your Decision Making

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

5 Simple Steps To Improve Your Decision Making

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

5 Simple Steps to Improve Your Decision

I cover Customer Success, customer support and SaaS.

Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.

Entrepreneurs are natural born problem solvers.

Imagine your business isn’t generating enough revenue to hit your

 Do you have a positioning issue?

 Is your pricing right?

 What can help you solve these problems?

It's still your responsibility to seek the right data. Relying on a friend’s opinion as

Seek trustworthy data and your decision making ability will skyrocket.

5. Plan for doomsday

I like to call it planning for doomsday. Take 10 minutes to deeply consider the

Did you enjoy this post? Follow Alex here

. Question your data

It's still your responsibility to seek the right data. Relying on a friend’s opinion as

Seek trustworthy data and your decision making ability will skyrocket.

5. Plan for doomsday

Did you enjoy this post? Follow Alex here

It's still your responsibility to seek the right data. Relying on a friend’s opinion as

Seek trustworthy data and your decision making ability will skyrocket.

5. Plan for doomsday

I like to call it planning for doomsday. Take 10 minutes to deeply consider the

Sample flowchart representing the decision process to add a new article to Wikipedia.

In psychology, decision-making is regarded as the cognitive process resulting in the selection

 Psychological: examining individual decisions in the context of a set of needs, preferences

It is important to differentiate between problem analysis and decision-making. Traditionally, it is

 Objectives must first be established

 Consensus decision-making tries to avoid "winners" and "losers". Consensus requires that a

1. Goals: Survey values and objectives.

1. Define the problem

1. Outline your goal and outcome.

Rational and irrational[edit]

 Selective search for evidence (also known as confirmation bias): People tend to be willing to

The psychologist Daniel Kahneman, adopting terms originally proposed by the

 a very narrow, clearly defined, primarily material goal; and

 a positional goal; and

 create a predisposition to the future development of the position;

A common laboratory paradigm for studying neural decision-making is the two-alternative forced

In adolescents vs. adults[edit]

Decision-making: Suggestions for

For younger students:

For older students:

Explicitly teach the steps of decision-making and provide practice in using them.

Step 1: What’s my goal?

Step 2: What strategies/options can help?

Step 3: What are the pros and cons of each option?

Step 4: Choose the best one to try.

Step 5: Evaluate how my choice worked. What do I need to change?

How Decisions Are Made In School

The following positions represent as the typical “flow” of decision-making affecting

Roles That Can Benefit From Student Voice

Students—All students everywhere, in every grade and every school, should

Parents—Guiding children is one of the most important jobs of parents; this is

School Support Staff/Paraprofessionals/Adult Volunteers—Secretaries, adult

Teachers—Everyday students are subjected to a range of decisions made by teachers

Teacher Leaders—Among the faculty at a school are teachers whose experience,

Counselors—Students often go to counselors to ask questions, seek advice, and talk

Assistant Principal—Many schools principals need assistants to guide behavior

Principal/HeadMaster—The commonly acknowledged “leader” of a school is

District Administration—Officials on the district level administer programs, funds,

District Superintendent—The leader of a given area or group of schools,

Regional Administration—These are in-between organizations that may offer

State Administration—These officials are responsible for administering federal and