The 4 main decision making styles and how to use them

Each day is a series of decisions — and you might think you make them mindlessly. But most people have a dominant decision-making style. There’s a common method in the way you approach choices.
Some of these decision-making methods are more productive than others. If you write out multiple pros and cons lists, you might be wasting time overthinking instead of trusting your gut. And gathering all relevant data before making a choice is great when you have concrete, accurate information at your fingertips, less so when data is vague.

Understanding your preferred method can give you the confidence to make and implement decisions without second-guessing yourself. And if you know an approaching decision falls in your area of weakness, you can proceed cautiously, seek others’ input, and use it as a growth opportunity.

What are decision-making styles?
According to Rowe and Boulgarides’ Decision Style Theory (DST), decision-making styles work along two axes:
Cognitive complexity refers to the decision-maker’s tolerance for ambiguity. People with a lower tolerance tend to decide by considering a few clearly defined options, while those who tolerate ambiguity well likely to explore novel and less-defined options.
Value orientation refers to where the decision-maker’s priorities lie. People who value technical (task-based) outcomes tend to decide by considering which options will lead to the best measurable results. Those who prefer social outcomes, like group harmony, are more likely to ask stakeholders what they think and focus on guiding the group toward consensus.

Combining these two continuums creates four decision-making styles:
Directive decision-makers have a low tolerance for ambiguity and a technical value orientation
Analytic decision-makers have a high tolerance for ambiguity and a technical value orientation
Behavioral decision-makers have a low tolerance for ambiguity and a social value orientation
Conceptual decision-makers have a high tolerance for ambiguity and a social value orientation

The 4 decision-making styles

Knowing your decision-making style can make you a better leader. While decision-making is important for everyone, leaders must be especially mindful of their approach, as many of their choices affect others.

If you’re a leader (or hope to be one in the future), learning to adjust your style to each situation is an excellent step toward making better decisions.

Here’s a breakdown of each style with successful examples of decision-making by four leaders who each favor a different method.

1. Directive decision-making

Directive decision-makers prefer a high level of structure and make decisions based on technical outcomes. When considering possible courses of action, they focus on their own knowledge: their gut feeling, past experiences, and whether the existing procedures fit the outcomes they’re considering.

Advantages of directive decision-making:

This method is fast, as directive decision-makers don’t usually seek extra data or consider external input
The process is low-effort, which reduces decision fatigue
This method maintains momentum rather than miring the company in endless discussion

The decision-maker doesn’t seek feedback, so there are few overt conflicts to deal with
The simplicity of the decision makes it easy to evaluate after the fact (e.g., did sales increase after this marketing campaign: yes/no)
Accountability for the final decision is clear
Disadvantages of directive decision-making:

This method’s lack of consultation process can alienate stakeholders
Solutions may be unrealistic because the decision-maker is disconnected from on-the-ground realities
This method can lead to autocratic “my-way-or-the-highway” thinking
Outcomes tend to be conventional
Due to the lack of external input, the decision-maker may base solutions on incomplete information
The decision-maker runs the risk of oversimplifying complex situations
Former Apple CEO Steve Jobs was a classic directive decision-maker. For most of his working life, Jobs was an opinionated manager who went with his gut,
rarely consulted, and micromanaged everything — even the food in the cafeteria. Jobs didn’t do market research since he believed customers didn’t know what they wanted.
And under his leadership, Apple released the iMac, iPod, iPhone, and iPad, reversed the company’s previous decline, and grew into a business with one of the largest market capitals in the world.

2. Analytic decision-making

Analytic decision-makers prefer a low level of structure and make decisions based on technical outcomes. They collect large volumes of data from different sources, then pore over the data to evaluate every solution before settling on one.
Advantages of analytic decision-making:

It’s detail-oriented, so analytic decision-makers notice things others might not
The high volume of information involved makes predictions more accurate
The decision-maker goes in with few biases and preconceptions
It considers unconventional options
Disadvantages of analytic decision-making:

It consumes time and energy
Managing so much information can be stressful for the decision-maker
It relies on the existence of relevant data collected in similar situations
It can lead to analysis paralysis
It’s a risk-averse approach
Billionaire investor Warren Buffett is an example of an analytic decision-maker. Buffett famously does careful homework on every stock he invests in by reading as many annual reports as possible.
He assimilates massive amounts of data relating to thousands of companies and picks only the very few he expects will be runaway successes in the long term, an approach that’s made him the wealthiest investor in the world.

3. Behavioral decision-making

Behavioral decision-makers prefer a high level of structure and make socially oriented decisions. They map out a few courses of action, seek feedback from various sources, and try to build a consensus regarding the best path. Leaders with this approach tend to favor a consultative management style.
Advantages of behavioral decision-making:

It incorporates diverse opinions and experiences
The decision-maker remains humble and open to persuasion
People feel listened to and included in the decision process
There’s collective ownership of the decision and more buy-in from stakeholders
Disadvantages of behavioral decision-making:

It takes time to build a consensus
The decision-maker needs to be able to resolve conflict satisfactorily rather than just override it
The decision-maker can focus too much on keeping everyone happy
Former New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern promoted consensus throughout her leadership term and demonstrated outstanding behavioral decision-making during the country’s COVID-19 response. Ardern conferred with her advisors to determine the best way to proceed during the pandemic.

Then, she used empathy, honesty, and humor (noting, for example, that the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy were considered essential workers) to build bipartisan political support and virtually unanimous public favor for strict isolation policies.

4. Conceptual decision-making

Conceptual decision-makers prefer a low level of structure and make socially oriented decisions. Rather than providing stakeholders with a predetermined set of possible outcomes (as in behavioral decision-making), conceptual decision-makers set up brainstorming sessions with stakeholders to seek and develop creative solutions.
Advantages of conceptual decision-making:

It tackles problems at their root, avoiding short-term fixes
It encourages creative problem-solving and “thinking outside the box”
The diversity of input can lead to unexpectedly innovative solutions
It allows for calculated risks
It prioritizes big-picture thinking, acknowledging that a solution’s effects may spread beyond the company into the society
It usually includes careful consideration of ethical issues
Disadvantages of conceptual decision-making:

It’s time-consuming

It can be difficult to translate theory into practice
It can be hard to evaluate the results, as there are so many moving parts and impacts at various levels
Nobel Peace Prize winner Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, President of Liberia from 2006–2018 and Africa’s first female head of state, is an excellent example of a conceptual decision-maker. Sirleaf is famed for her ability to relate to people from diverse cultures, educational backgrounds, and walks of life, from diplomats to farmers.
She navigated the difficult position of being a female leader in a deeply patriarchal society, ultimately turning around a country that was in significant debt. She met with foreign heads of state, conferring with them and petitioning for aid and debt relief, and introduced novel solutions to widespread food insecurity following an extended consultation process.

What’s your style?

While reading about each decision-making style, one method may call out to you — or perhaps a leadership example resonates. Chances are this is how you make decisions, but if you’re still wondering which style you prioritize, consider the following:
What level of structure makes me feel most comfortable? Consider whether you prefer ambiguous, open-ended situations with many correct answers or highly structured situations where you’re choosing between a small number of obvious options.

What’s my main priority when making a decision? Think about whether you seek out numbers and concrete outcomes or talk to people and aim to maintain group harmony.
Then, compare your ambiguity tolerance and technical versus social priorities to determine your decision-making style based on the previously outlined definitions.