Analyzing Decision Styles: Findings And Recommendations

Decisions Style Analysis

This report presents the findings of a decisions style analysis that I undertook. Four different exercises were undertaken. First, I completed a decisions preference instrument. Second, I kept a diary of my decisions over the period of the exercises which I then analyzed to find out trends in my decision making. Third, I completed a personality test to determine my personality and my shadow side. Finally, I engaged in a mentors-feedback session whereby I discussed the results from the three exercises with a colleague. The next section details the findings and recommendations from the exercises described.

Decisions Style Analysis

Analysis of Own Decisions Preferences

Table 1 below shows my results from the decision instrument exercise. From the table, my highest decision making preference is through logic. The score for this decision preference was higher than the given average. On the other hand, my scores for intuition and balance were average. The scores in these categories were similar to the given normal scores.

Currently, two of my decision preferences are not high; intuition and balance. A few areas of improvement would push the two to high. First, enhancing my intuition would push my balance preference higher. Having both intuition and logical preferences implies that the decisions made will ultimately result from a blend of intuition and logical thinking (Bavolar & Orosova, 2015). Therefore, I would primarily need to enhance my intuition so as to push the three preferences to high.

To enhance my intuition, I need to start paying more attention to my surrounding/environment. This will allow me to gather the necessary pieces of information that come together to form a ‘hunch/gut feeling’ (Ivanovska & Geiese, 2011). Second, I could build my intuitiveness by building my personal confidences in my gut feelings. This could be done by testing out a variety of hunches starting with the ones with the least consequences. Success in the trials has the potential to build the subconscious confidence in my abilities to make intuitive decisions (Azeska & Kevereski, 2017). Finally, I could build my intuitiveness by changing my routines. Engaging in new and potentially unfamiliar activities requires creativity and is a good way to try out my hunches (Elayyan, 2015).

Table 1: Decision Instrument Results

Decision Diary Analysis

I have learned a great deal about my decisions preferences by keeping and analyzing a decision diary. The first thing I realized is that I tend to do things because they look right rather than feel right. In most of the decisions entries in my diary, I arrived at my final decision after considering the alternatives that were apparent to me although I would later realize that I could have done something better in some cases.

Next, I realized that I do trust my gut feeling. However, when making important decisions, I tend to investigate more before following my hunches. Further, most of the people I consult with often encourage me to think rationally before making crucial decisions. However, this is not always the case. There are instances when I am advised to follow my guts. I always prefer to justify my decisions objectively.  This is partly why I rarely consider my emotional responses when dealing with a problem. In such situations, my goal is usually to do whatever will have the best long run results.

Analysis of Own Decisions Preferences

Own Type and Shadow Side Analysis

From the 16 personalities types test results, my primary type is a debater (ENTP) (Table 1) (Neris Analytics Limited, 2018). Debaters are typically quick witted, knowledgeable and who can easily connect seemingly unrelated ideas to construct a robust argument. People with this personality do not shy away from conflict and often derive pleasure in engaging in rational discussions.

Further, they are charismatic, energetic and have the tendency to keep innovating. Consequently, they are indispensable in situations that require constant brainstorming and innovation (Kim & Han, 2014). On the other hand, debaters are often ruthlessly honest especially in defense of their point of view. This tendency to engage in honest and rational arguments may present them as intolerant, insensitive and very argumentative (Zarafshani, Sharafi, & Rajab, 2011).

As a debater, I realize that I have the tendency to rationalize everything. I tend to analyze anything I engage in with a view to finding the most logical solution. This may cause ripples with some of the people I engage with particularly those that tend to shy away from arguments or verbal conflicts. However, debaters tend to express themselves with exceptional charisma, originality and natural enthusiasm (Yang, Richard, & Durkin, 2016).

This may mitigate the negative perception that the audience may have such as being overly argumentative. Further, due to the carefully crafted/phrased arguments and their inherent logic, I expect that my personality would enable me to easily solve problems and convince others that my proposal is the right way to go. Finally, debaters tend to innovate more than taking time to formulate careful plans. This is due to their reliance on their experience and knowledge base. My biggest surprise with the results was that debaters only make up about 3% of the population; making us quite rare.

Table 2: Own Personality Type

My shadow side is the defender personality (ISFJ) (Neris Analytics Limited, 2018). Defenders are quite conservative, altruistic, and supportive people. Unlike debaters, defenders are humble and shy and will rarely express their thoughts; mainly due to their desire to avoid upsetting others. Further, people with this personality always answer the call to a worthy cause if it is within their power. In this regard, they can easily go out of their way to help others and make them happy. Their main weaknesses is their inability to refuse calls for help. In light of this, they are easily taken advantage of (Zarafshani, Sharafi, & Rajab, 2011).

I think I could improve my communication, interpersonal behaviors and my ability to use information by adopting more of the altruistic and empathetic nature of the defenders. This would enable me to use my debater capabilities to develop ideas that are mutually beneficial to all parties and in a way that is acceptable to all. Further, I could improve my personality by seeking ways to improve my abilities to express emotions.

Conclusion

From the foregoing, my decision style can be summarized as logical, rational and innovative. The chief strength of these decision style is the ability to respond effectively in situations that require creativity and where the rote approaches would not apply. However, the downside is that people with this traits can appear insensitive and have weaknesses expressing their emotions. The following recommendations would help me to better improve my areas of weakness.

Recommendation

• Always attempt to communicate my emotions and empathy to other people in words
• Listen more to other people’s views before airing mine
• Always try to arrive at a consensus rather than winning a debate for the sake of it
• Pay more attention to my immediate surroundings to enhance intuition
• Test my hunches regularly to enhance my confidence in my intuitive capabilities
• Change my routines often to find a chance to practice my intuitiveness 

Reference

Azeska, A., & Kevereski, L. (2017). Styles of Decision Making and Management and Dimensions of Personality of School Principals. International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education, 5-20.

Bavolar, J., & Orosova, O. (2015). Decision-making styles and their associations with decision-making competencies and mental health. Judgement and Decision Making, 115-122.

Elayyan, A. (2015). The Impact of Decision Making Styles on Organizational Learning: An Empirical Study on the Public Manufucturing Companies in Jordan. International Journal of Business and Social Sciences, 15-20.

Ivanovska, M., & Geiese, M. (2011). A Logic-based Approach to Decision Making. NIK-2011 conference. Oslo: University of Oslo.

Kim, M.-R., & Han, S.-J. (2014). Relationship between the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Personality Profiling, Academic Performance and Student Satisfaction in Nursing Students. International Journal of Bio-Science and Bio-Technology, 1-12.

Neris Analytics Limited. (2018). 16 Personalities. Retrieved from Neris Analytics Ltd: 

Yang, C., Richard, G., & Durkin, M. (2016). The association between Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and Psychiatry as the Specialty Choice. International Journal of Medical Education, 48-51.

Zarafshani, K., Sharafi, L., & Rajab, S. (2011). Using the Myers-Briggs type indicator (MBTI) in the teaching of entrepreneural skills. International Journal of Science and Technology Education, 67-74.

Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:

Turnitin Report

Formatting

Title Page

Citation

Outline

Place an Order