Decision-Making Processes in the Workplace
The article mentions Daniel Kahneman without explaining much about him. We will get to know him much better in the next section when we start to think about thinking.
Sometimes the most well-structured decision-making processes go awry, not because
of the process itself, but because of the participants or the environment. This article shows us what can go wrong and how to get things back on track to meet
your TOR deliverables.
The article discusses obstacles to improved decision-making, including "cognitive limitations, heuristics and biases and individual inclinations". Heuristics are mental shortcuts individuals use to solve problems. These have great use, for instance, telling humans to run when they see a saber-toothed tiger without thinking too much about the decision. The choice of which cat to adopt from a shelter today may require less use of heuristics and more cognitive exercise.
Materials and Methods
Instruments
Decision-making Competency: to assess this emergent construct, three components of the Decision-Making-Competency Inventory scale (DMCI) have been used. The DMCI scale has been created to assess some key aspects of decision-making skills by asking participants to report on their way of making decisions when they face important choices. Because we applied this measure to the organizational domain, each item began with the stem, "When I have a big decision to make in the workplace…" In relation to the present research, our interest focuses on the self-regulation process and consequently to the following three components: The person's sense of self-determination in critically evaluating options (reversed scored, e.g., "When I have a big decision to make about doing something that requires my skill, I often make a bad decision because I either underestimate or overestimate how good I am at something"), self-appraisal (reversed scored, e.g., "I just go with a decision that all my colleagues are going with"), and the adequate self-confidence level in decisions (e.g., "I usually believe that I will make a good decision"). Respondents are asked to indicate on a five-point scale how much like them each statement is, with choices ranging from 1 (not at all like me) to 5 (very much like me).
Decision Environment Management (DEM)
To assess this construct, we used the Decision Environment Management Inventory (DEMI; Ceschi et al., submitted). The instrument is meant to ask participants to recall hypothetical decision scenarios usually present in the workplace (e.g., cost management choice, multiple job task situations, events organization, personnel relations, etc.), in which the quality of decisions can be differently affected or supported by the presence of some aspects of the work environment, such as the relation with the supervisor, with colleagues, the workload, some specific work activities, etc. Specifically, the instrument is composed of 17 items and assesses the three following components: interpersonal behavioral determinants, properties of the organizational environment, cognitive and analytical aspects. All items start with the following sentence: "How the following interpersonal/ cognitive activities/ organizational and work aspects would affect or support your decision-making at work? Examples of items are: "relaxed relations between you and colleagues" "working overtime" "having to deal with some activities that need logical skills" "bureaucracy annoyances of your organization". The respondent has to first think about his/her current job experience, and, by using the scale reported, answer the items. Because the items present positive or negative aspects which can affect the goodness of decision-making at work, the respondents has the possibility to answer them by using a seven point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = in a very bad way, to 7 = in a very good way. For more information regarding the scale, see the Appendix, in Supplementary Materials.
Job Resources
Three job resources were included in the questionnaire: feedback, opportunities for professional development, and social perceived support from colleagues. Feedback was measured with a three-item scale. Example items are "I receive sufficient information about my work objectives" and "My job offers me opportunities to find out how well I do my work" (1 = never, 5 = always). Opportunities for professional development were measured with the three-item scale of Bakker et al., including: "My work offers me the opportunity to learn new things" and "I have sufficient possibilities to develop myself at work" (1 = totally disagree, 5 = totally agree). Social support was measured with three items from the scale developed by Van Veldhoven and Meijman. Example items are "Can you ask your colleagues for help if necessary?" and "Can you count on your colleagues when you face difficulties at work?" (1 = never, 5 = always).
Job Demands
Three job demands were included in the questionnaire: cognitive demands, emotional demands, and hassles. Cognitive demands were evaluated with a four-item scale. A typical item of this scale is "Does your work demand enhanced care or precision?" (from 1 = never to 5 = always). Emotional demands were based on a scale developed by Van Veldhoven and Meijman and included four items. An example is "Does your work put you in emotional situations?" (1 = never, 5 = always). The Hassles scale was used to detect the level of perceived administrative hassles. It is composed of six items. Examples are: "I have to deal with administrative hassles"; "I have many hassles to go through to get projects/assignments done"; (1 = never, 5 = always).
Exhaustion
Three exhaustion items of the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory were used. Example items are "There are days when I feel tired before I arrive at work" and "After my work, I usually feel worn out and weary" (1 = totally disagree, 4 = totally agree).
Performance
Two types of job performance were assessed: in-role and extra-role performance. In-role performance relates to officially needed outcomes and behaviors that straight serve the organization aims. Other labels sometimes used are job-specific task proficiency or simply task performance. General in-role performance was measured with three items, an example is: "I achieve the objectives of my job" (0 = Not at all characteristic, 6 = Totally characteristic). Extra-role performance (i.e., contextual performance) is defined as work behaviors and activities that are not necessarily related to work tasks but that contribute to the social and psychological aspects of the organization. It was measured with other three items, such as: "I managed to plan my work so that it was done on time" (same previous respond scale). Both scales were derived from the questionnaire by Goodman and Svyantek. In addition, a second instrument: the Individual Work Performance Questionnaire was used to measure the two types of performance. It is structured in three dimensions: the task performance (i.e., in-role performance), the contextual performance (i.e., extra performance) and the counterproductive work behavior (not considered in the present study). Compared to the previous scale, the questionnaire is composed of more items: five for the task performance, seven for contextual performance; the rate is expressed on a five-point rating scale (0 = never, 4 = very often). A task performance example item is: "I managed to plan my work so that it was done on time," whereas a contextual performance one is: "I actively participated in work meeting".