How Managers Approach Strategic Decisions: Think, See or Do?

Contact Us

Master's in Learning & Organizational Change

1800 Sherman Avenue
Suite 3500
Evanston, IL 60208
Northwestern University

Phone: 847/491-7376

MSLOC Staff In-Person Office Hours - Monday - Thursday 9:30 am - 4:30 pm

MSLOC Staff Remote Office Hours - Friday 9:30 am - 4:30 pm


How Managers Approach Strategic Decisions: Think, See or Do?

Article and Author Information

Bea La O’ (MSLOC 2014) wrote this article in March 2014 for the MSLOC Capstone Research Analysis and Interpretation course. This executive summary is the culmination of a nine-month capstone research project. Bea joined the MS Learning and Organizational Change program as a full-time student in Fall 2012 and served as the MSLOC Career Services Graduate Assistant. She worked at Mondelēz International as a Culture and Engagement Intern where she supported development of a globally consistent and actionable way to measure employee engagement and the employer brand as well as a global strategy to build greater inclusion of the company's rich diversity. Bea was part of an MSLOC / Kellogg School of Management team that took third place in the prestigious 2013 National MBA Human Capital Case Competition. Bea is moving to San Francisco, CA where she will join EY as a Senior Consultant in the Advisory Services Practice for People and Organizational Change. She is passionate about enabling people to imagine and consider new possibilities.


This study seeks to understand how managers make strategic decisions through the lens of three approaches proffered by Mintzberg and Westley (2001): "think-first," procedural rationality, "see-first," insight and intuition, and "do-first," sensemaking. Through interviews with six leaders on strategic decision issues that range from changing the growth strategy of a large healthcare firm to redefining the talent management framework of a large quick service restaurant company, the study finds managers switch between the three approaches over the course of considering a decision issue. It also finds managers manage the inherent tension between "thinking-first," "seeing-first," and "doing-first," and socialize decision issues with stakeholders using "think-first," procedural rationality, and "do-first," sensemaking.

Introduction to the Research Question and Methodology

Introduction to the Research Question

Decisions make organizations. "Every success, every mishap, every opportunity seized or missed is the result of a decision someone made -- or failed to make" (Rogers & Blenko, 2006, p. 3). Seen from the perspective of the individual decision maker, any singular strategic decision involves layers of questions and judgments that the individual decision maker grapples with inside an organizational context, a structure of power and cultural norms. Decision-making in management research began with Simon's (1960) rational model of decision-making which assumed decision-makers were primarily concerned with aligning their choices to their goals. Since then, Langley, Mintzberg, Pitcher, Posada and Saint-Macary (1995) proposed expanding the concept of the decision-maker by recognizing his/her capacity to create, to remember and to listen to his/her subconscious - which leads to this study that explores how managers approach decisions using range of cognitive approaches.

Mintzberg & Westley (2001) claim that "[h]ealthy organizations, like healthy people, have the capacity for...three" (p. 89) decision making approaches: "think-first," "see-first" and "do-first." The authors claim that "[w]hen practicing managers use all three models, they can improve the quality of their decisions" (Mintzberg & Westley, 2001, p. 89). Each approach can be understood through a concept defined in management research literature: "think-first" through procedural rationality; "see-first" through insight and intuition; and "do-first" through sensemaking. The table below describes the essential features of each approach.

Figure 1

(see Appendix: Research Framework)

"Think-First" / Procedural Rationality

Simon (1960) outlined a procedurally rational decision making process that he broke down into three sequential phases: intelligence, design and choice (p. 2). Intelligence involves scanning the environment and identifying opportunities or problems that require a decision (Simon, 1960, p. 2). Design involves developing multiple solutions and analyzing these alternatives (Simon, 1960, p. 2). Lastly, choice, or selection of an action, emerges from the rationale acquired from the process. In their empirical study of strategic decision making processes in the manufacturing industry, Dean and Sharfman (1993) found decision makers used a higher degree of procedural rationality when they possessed clear, quantifiable goals in relation to the decision; and encountered fewer uncertainties, indiscernible outcomes resulting from the decision. In concluding their study, Dean and Sharfman (1993) proposed "...managerial discretion, a manager's belief in his or her ability to choose a course of action is a necessary condition for procedurally rational decision-making" (p. 599). Based on their findings, Dean and Sharfman (1993) suggested that managers' sense of "competitive threat" (p. 590), environmental factors that jeopardize an organization's success, and "external control" (p. 599), pressure from high-authority stakeholders, threaten a manager's sense of discretion and ultimately, the use of procedural rationality.

"See-First" / Insight and Intuition

Insight is the outcome of a change in mental state from confusion to understanding through the "restructuring" (Dominowski & Dallob, 1996, p. 50) of one's mental representation of a problem (Dominowski & Dallob, 1996). Insight is typically experienced as a sudden phenomenon because of the "abrupt transition from one problem representation [to another]" (Dominowski & Dallob, 1996, p. 52). However, these shifts may result from deliberate study of a problem - unlike intuition, which is distinctly characterized as a non-conscious process.

Intuition is a non-conscious process through which judgments arise from the rapid synthesis of environmental stimuli and one's schema, or mental framework (Dane & Pratt, 2007). Dane and Pratt (2007) emphasize that intuiting is not learning, but rather the act of subconsciously accessing previously acquired knowledge. This understanding enables people to recognize patterns and therefore make "holistic associations" (Dane & Pratt, 2007, p. 37). Because of this immediate comprehension of a whole, intuition is faster than rational problem solving which involves analysis of parts of a system.

"Do-First" / Sensemaking

Sensemaking is a social activity in which meaning, or understanding, is derived through cycles of interpretation and action. Weick, Sutcliffe and Obstfeld (2005) describe sensemaking as a continuous cycle between the activities of enactment, selection and retention through which communally held meaning emerges (p. 414). Enactment involves interpretation: noticing anomalies in patterns and organizing these observations into plausible relationships (Weick et al., 2005). Selection involves action: translating the enigma into a communicable form in order to enlist others in the effort of developing understanding (Weick et al., 2005). Weick et al. (2005) emphasize the significance of communication as an action. In reference to the medical field, Weick et al. (2005) argue "sensemaking is as much a matter of thinking that is acted out conversationally in the world as it is a matter of knowledge and technique applied to the world..."(p. 412). Retention occurs when a plausible meaning emerges and its validity is supported by its relationship to existing knowledge (p. 414).

Research Question

  • How do managers use a range of approaches: "think-first," "see-first" and "do-first in making strategic decisions?
  • How do managerial discretion and organizational decision making norms impact the manager's approach?


Qualitative Research

The exploration of managers' experiences and reflections on making strategic decisions necessitated a qualitative approach. I conducted loosely structured, one-hour interviews with six leaders from a diverse set of organizations. I used a responsive interview model in which the "...researcher set the overall subject for the discussion and encourage[d] replies that are detailed and in depth" (Rubin & Rubin, 2012, p. 99).

Interview Protocol (see Appendix: Interview Protocol)


A pre-interview survey was emailed to participants in order to collect demographic data: industry, job title, company size and tenure in current role. It was also used to prepare participants for the conversation. It asked participants to begin thinking about a strategic decision they would be interested and comfortable discussing. It also defined what the researcher meant by "strategic decision." A strategic decision was defined as a decision that "impacts one, or more of the following areas: an important project, one or more of your team's top priorities, your team or firm's resources (people, money, time)."

1-hour Interview

The 1-hour interview conversation was designed to be structured enough to cover the topics I wanted to address, but flexible enough to allow the interview subject to bring up important themes beyond my purview. To achieve this, I combined two interview patterns: having an overall structure divided into 3 main parts, and within one part, allowing the interviewee to lead the flow of conversation (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). This flexibility was important because I did not want to impose my interpretation, biased by my research, onto the subject's description of his/her experience. Two interviews were conducted in person; four via phone.

Profile of Interview Subjects (see Appendix: Interview Subject Profiles)

Because the study sought to explore strategic decisions, senior leaders, who were likely to make such decisions, were interviewed. Three executives (two CEO's and one Executive Director) and three senior managers (two Directors and one Vice President) participated in the study. They worked in a range of industries: financial services, airlines, healthcare, public library, consumer internet, and quick service restaurants; and in a range of firm sizes: from 10 to 1.8 million employees. These leaders' strategic decision issues ranged from defining a company's growth strategy to consolidating dispersed offices to redefining the talent focus of a leadership development program.

Analysis and Results

Analysis Methods

Understanding each subject's experience

First, all conversations were transcribed. Then I listened back to each interview while reading the transcripts to build a solid understanding of each subject's experience and organizational context. The act of listening enabled me to hear the "tension between what people say and the emotion they express" (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). I also read back over each interview several times and tracked each subject's decision issue and how it surfaced; organizational structure and the subject's position within that structure; typical decision making process in the subject's work team, typical approach to conflict resolution in the work team; and subject's confidence level in making the decision. Lastly, I coded each subject's experiences against the "think-first," "see-first," and "do-first" constructs.

Allowing salient themes to emerge across subjects' experiences.

As I listened to and read the interviews, I also used an inductive approach and allowed salient themes to emerge (O'Leary, 2010). For each emergent theme, I looked across all interview responses and compared subjects' experiences as well as organizational contexts.


Managers used a combination of "think-first," "see-first," and "do-first" approaches in making strategic decisions.

Four of the six managers interviewed described using all three approaches. One manager described purposefully avoiding the "see-first" approach in order to preserve the integrity of a "think-first" procedurally rational approach. And one manager did not engage in the "do-first" approach - most likely because the decision issue, the hiring of a professional resource, was not "novel and confusing" (Mintzberg & Westley, 2011, p. 93) and therefore, did not require action to build a clear understanding of the problem.

Three managers described moving fluidly between Mintzberg and Westley's (2001) approaches - they were able to switch between "thinking-first," "seeing-first," and "doing-first" from the moment an issue surfaced until they committed to a course of action. In all three cases, there was an instance where one approach flowed directly from the outcome of another. The table below illustrates this experience.

Figure 2

(See Appendix: Flow Between Approaches, a complete table illustrating movement between three approaches from moment issue surfaced until manager committed to a course of action.)

Managers managed the tension between the different approaches: "think-first," "see-first," and "do-first."

In making their respective decisions, managers recognized how the different approaches could compromise and/or compliment each other. The examples below illustrate how managers avoided or employed certain approaches.

The CEO of a healthcare company resisted the "see-first" approach in order to protect the integrity of the "think-first" approach.

In defining the growth strategy for his company, the CEO described intentionally avoiding sudden judgments. Despite having opinions, he stressed his desire to avoid pre-judging solutions because he said, "If I do, the chance of getting a really good understanding of the alternatives decreases."

The Regional VP of a financial services firm balanced "think-first" procedural rationality with "see-first" intuition.

After an exhaustive review of alternative ways to redefine the types of accounts her team would manage, the Regional VP used her intuition to narrow in on a solution. She described the limits of data, saying...

...the data...did lead us in a new direction to consider factors we haven't considered before, but when it got down to the nitty-gritty of where you draw the line... there are multiple places that you could have made that decision, so I think it came back to intuition, just a feeling.

The Director of Talent Management at an airline company verified his "see-first" intuition through "do-first" sensemaking.

In redefining the talent focus of a leadership development program, the Director of Talent Management described an ongoing internal tension between a sense of intuitively knowing the solution, and pressure from HR organization to gather more input and data from stakeholders. Reflecting on the tension, he said: "I think in my mind I knew that was the direction we needed to go, I just wasn't sure if that's where we were going to end because of all these different data points and...stakeholders."

Managers involved stakeholders through "think-first" and "do-first" conversations.

Managers' engagement of critical stakeholders in the decision making process is unsurprising since all leaders described a decision to change something in their organizations - from a decision to split a company to a decision to consolidate dispersed offices. All managers described the need to involve others to improve their own thinking and build the necessary support for implementing change. While no manager used a "think-first," "see-first," or "do-first approach" exclusively, executives and senior managers presented distinctions in the ways they engaged stakeholders.

Executives described engaging their management teams in "think-first," or procedurally rational conversations.

The CEOs of a large healthcare company and a small consumer internet start-up described presenting their management teams with a clearly identified problem and involving them in open discussions to evaluate alternative solutions or scenarios. Both leaders described an effort to provide a context of clarity in which their respective teams studied the unknown future states of their organizations. For the CEO of the consumer internet start-up, this meant clearly stating her preference to consolidate into one office location and the rationale behind it -- then inviting her team to debate its pro's and con's. For the CEO of the consumer healthcare company, this meant communicating like a "fanatic" about how he would decide on company's growth strategy, and why he decided to split the company. While both CEOs recognized their position to make the ultimate decision, they underscored the importance of involving their management teams in the process.

Senior managers described engaging stakeholders, and being engaged by others, in "do-first," or sensemaking conversations.

Directors of Talent Management in the quick service restaurant and airline industries described heavily involving stakeholders in the decision making process because of their consultative positions at the center of their organizations. One director illustrated his position as the tip of an inverted pyramid where power is at the base, or out in the line, and thus his need to employ influence to push recommendations forward. Both managers described testing ideas with stakeholders in order to surface shared understanding of a decision issue. This testing occurred by playing back what stakeholders were saying, or by prototyping solutions. The managers used these activities to not only refine their understanding of the situation, but also to socialize and sell their recommendations. Describing one motivation to socialize the decision issue, one Director used the metaphor of a political campaign "You spend all this time and energy and money and you get to the end and you'll lose...and that's not a good feeling."

On the flip side, the Regional VP at a financial services firm described how her leader engaged her and her team in a "collaborative white-boarding exercise" to uncover the magnitude of a change. The VP described conversations that involved sensemaking - where people voiced observations and mapped out the relationships between them to surface a shared understanding of the situation. Reflecting on the experience, the VP described the collaboration as "empowering."

Interpretation and Recommendation


Managers who switched between "thinking-first," "seeing-first," and "doing-first" engaged in organizational norms that enabled learning through the negotiation of different points of view.

Having norms that enabled the negotiation of different points of view was not unique to the three firms whose managers switched between Mintzberg and Westley's (2001) approaches. However, these managers richly described organizationally accepted practices: open communication, data analysis and prototyping that enabled them to exchange and reconcile different points of view.

Open Communication

Open communication among the management team of a consumer internet company enabled its CEO to use "do-first" sensemaking and "think-first" procedural rationality. Members of the management team confided in the CEO about the problems their co-located teams were having. Their verbal articulation of their experiences engaged the CEO in sensemaking - tracking patterns of time, productivity and communication between co-located colleagues, and organizing these observations into plausible relationships (Weick et al., 2005). Open communication also enabled the CEO and her management team to engage in procedurally rational conversations in which all the pros and cons of the CEOs recommendation to centralize into one office location were debated. Describing the way her management team communicates the CEO said,

...we have a very argumentative team...that's encouraged. So if you present an idea you're expected to defend it, and...lots of people are going to play devil's advocate and ask lots of questions.

The team's open communication allowed space for the consideration of dissenting views and the analysis of more points of view - a key to "think-first" procedural rationality.

Data Analysis

Unlike the consumer internet company, the Regional VP of a financial services firm described a conflict avoidant culture. However, she described how data analysis resolved potential conflict between competing interests over the decision of how to allocate client accounts.

So there's a little bit of political kind of stuff that people were thinking about what their goals are gonna be...but what was helpful was the data sort of clearly showed, our group is more profitable and grows certain types of accounts faster...but it meant creating a different definition for where an account should be and not based on how much business they do with us today, but based on their annual company revenue...which is not how we've operate so...that was sort of the new paradigm.

Data analysis in the financial services firm was conducted by resources with expertise and access to company-wide information, and was a trusted form of information across stakeholders involved in the decision-making process. Ultimately, the data analysis, a "think-first" procedurally rational approach of modeling and evaluating alternative scenarios led to "see-first" insight, a shared restructuring of the project team's mental representation of the problem (Dominowski & Dallob, 1996).


In redesigning a talent management framework, the Director of Global Talent Management at a quick service restaurant company described how prototyping, or testing ideas, with HR colleagues surfaced key differences between his mental model and those of the end-users.

What we realized is...some of the decisions we made, like for instance, in the definitions that we were using ... were clear to us because we're specialists in the area, but to the lay person...who actually needed to be able to use this framework...things were confusing, or created sort of like a mental conflict with other things in cycle, or whatever.

Prototyping, a "do-first" sensemaking activity, enlisting the end-users in deepening understanding of the issue, led to "see-first" insight, a restructuring of the Director's mental representation of the end-users' needs (Weick et al., 2005; Dominowski & Dallob,1996).

In conclusion, the norms of open communication, data analysis and prototyping enabled the managers' learning by expanding, or even transforming, their respective mental models of the issues at hand.

Managers need room to balance their personal decision-making styles with the decision-making norms of their organizations.

In discussing their strategic decisions, managers expressed a desire to approach issues in a way consistent with their professional and/or moral values. Some managers were able to easily use their preferred mix of "think-first," "see-first," and "do-first" approaches within their organizations, while others struggled. The examples below illustrate a spectrum of situations -- from a CEO who set the tone for his organization based on his own values to a senior manager who felt constrained by a consensus-driven decision-making culture.

The CEO of a healthcare company insisted on using a procedurally rational approach because he believed it was the way to arrive at best solution for his organization. He said:

I want to know what every senior person thinks. I want to know what all the alternatives are. I want to know the pro's and con's and how strongly people feel and based on that I'll make a decision...But not a consensus, but what is the best alternative given all of the dynamics we're dealing with, with 50,000 people.

In a similar concern over the impact of a decision on people's jobs, the Regional VP of a financial services firm relied on an intuitive judgment based on her experience in the organization and the current business climate to, in a sense, do a gut-check on the direction she was taking.

There is a piece there that's just like, ‘Well, what would my gut say?'...just a feeling like when you actually get to that point, you're using the data to support [the decision] you don't feel sick about it."

The intentional use of intuition may seem to contradict Dane and Pratt's (2007) description of a subconscious process of accessing previously acquired knowledge. What it reveals is the VP's awareness of her ability to generate "holistic associations" (Dane & Pratt, 2007, p. 37) from her understanding of the firm. It also reveals she felt she had the leeway to respond emotionally to an issue in an organizational context where feelings are discussed in more rational language.

While both the CEO and VP felt they could use the decision-making approaches they needed, the Director of Talent Management at an airline company felt he had to adjust his personal decision making style to the norms of the HR organization. He commented that this can be frustrating and undermine one's confidence. He described the tension he experienced:

When I'm in a leadership role my philosophical behavior I guess is that I'm paid to make decisions. And I'm paid to make...decisions that may be a tad controversial. The tension is that that's what people say they want out of leadership, at least in HR. But what you're rewarded for is to make sure it's a very collaborative, consensus way of making decisions. So the tension is this is how I think we should do it versus how I'm told to do it.

While the Director's philosophy is in line with the HR organization's espoused belief that HR leaders should be empowered to make decisions that go against the grain, the HR organization rewards the opposite behavior. This contradiction sends the message that there is no room for the Director's personal decision-making style in the HR organization because it is already proven that this kind of decision-making is not rewarded.

"Managerial discretion" (Dean & Sharfman, 1993, p. 599), a manager's sense of freedom in selecting a course of action, impacted how executives involved stakeholders in the decision making process.

Executives with a high sense of "managerial discretion" (Dean & Sharfman, 1993, p. 599) sought out dialog with stakeholders who held differing points of view.

For example, the CEO of the healthcare company, who described having an "infinite amount of flexibility" in selecting the firm's growth strategy, purposefully communicated with stakeholders who held opinions that differed from his own. He said:

I was very sensitive of making sure that the folks that wanted to do it another way had an appreciation of why I thought this made more sense. So the folks that wanted to make acquisitions, it was just sort of explaining to them ... that's not wrong, that's something we could do and it could work, but here's why based on thinking this through why I think this is what we're going to do.

These conversations were rooted in a culture of high trust and communication. The CEO had confidence in the capabilities of his management team and therefore, he not only encouraged them to challenge him, he required them to. Ultimately, he believed he had a "moral responsibility" to give his team honest feedback and continuously set clear expectations.

The executive with a low sense of managerial discretion did not seek out dialog with stakeholders who held differing points of view.

In the process of filling the vacancy of a children's librarian, the Executive Director of a public library felt he had "come to the end of options." In line with Dean and Sharfman's (1993) findings, he sensed he had no options because of a "competitive threat" (p, 590), the slow and limiting civil services process that made it extremely difficult to hire qualified professionals, and "external control" (p. 599), pressure from high-authority stakeholders. Specifically, he felt pressure from the board who had a history of micromanaging whomever occupied the position of Executive Director. In his case, board members wanted him to get their approval before offering the job to a candidate - a decision right allocated to the Executive Director per contract. Ultimately, time and political pressure led the Executive Director to make a job offer without the approval of the board. He said:

...without...involving [the board] to the degree that they felt they should be involved. I involved them and I tried to minimize that involvement for several reasons, the primary one being that it was authority stop the undercutting of my authority.

The lack of trust between the Executive Director and the board, and the contradiction between what the Executive Director's decision rights were on paper versus in the opinions of board members, left the Executive Director continuously rationalizing the scope of his authority. In the end, the Executive Director made a decision that risked his job because he thought it would lead to the best outcome for the library and the community it served. The extreme stress under which he made that decision suggests organizations can and should proactively create organizational contexts that empower managers as they make decisions that ultimately shape the organization.

Implications for Practitioners

The findings of this study suggest practical ideas for a manager seeking 1) to expand the variety of decision-making approaches used in his/her team or organization, 2) to build commitment to a change, and/or 3) to bring out his/her colleagues' strengths in decision-making.

A manager seeking to expand his/her personal, team or organization's decision-making approaches may consider the following ideas.

Reflect on conversations with colleagues. Do they lean towards "think-first" procedural rationality, or "do-first" sensemaking? If so, are there opportunities and potential benefits to using both?

Reflect on existing practices within the team or organization that enable learning through the exchange and negotiation of different points of view. How are these practices being employed in the consideration of decision issues? Are there opportunities to incorporate them in the decision-making processes?

Design meetings that allow for sensemaking. Such conversations require the following attitudes: willingness to share and acceptance of honest opinions, withholding rushing to judgment, and a shared goal of discovery. The benefits are empowerment of participating individuals and commitment to discoveries and principles arrived at during the meeting. Whole systems methods, meetings in which all the voices from an impacted system, this could be an entire organization or a subset of an organization, converge are examples of sensemaking conversations. Likewise, Blessof (2012) says whole systems methods are best used in times of uncertainty requiring the gathering of many points of view to generate understanding.

Build an organizational practice of prototyping or iterating solutions during decision-making processes. Having a norm of prototyping solutions during a decision-making process conditions people to take an attitude of learning during the problem-solving process and not become blindly attached to ideas.

A manager seeking to build commitment to change may consider the following insight.

Give people the opportunity to come to a conclusion both rationally and intuitively. Some interview subjects described an increase in their commitment to an idea after understanding it both intuitively and rationally. One subject said, " could get behind it...because you understood it. It tied back to some kind of intuition that you had and now you had the data to support it."

A manager seeking to bring out the strengths of his/her colleagues in decision-making may consider the following thoughts.

Clarify decision-making rights. Managers are empowered when there is consistency and coherence in the messages they are receiving about their decisions rights. It is important for leaders to communicate what decision they will make, how they will involve others in that process and afterwards, why they made the decision they made.

Allow people room to exercise personal decision-making styles. Perhaps this begins with a conversation about colleagues' natural preferences in approaching decisions and acknowledging the differences that exist.

Looking Forward

How results advance knowledge in the field

While Mintzberg and Westley (2001) were concerned with identifying situations where "thinking-first," "seeing-first," and "doing-first" work best, the study explored if and how managers used all three approaches in the consideration of one issue. The results shed light on how managers combine the use of procedural rationality, insight, intuition and sensemaking. This study also examined how and why decision-makers managed the tension between the different approaches. Exploring managers' motivations for balancing the tension between different approaches contributes to the expansion of the concept of the decision-maker as recommended by Langley, Mintzberg, Pitcher, Posada and Saint-Macary (1995).

Additional questions and next steps to continue work in this area

Future studies in this are could look at the following topics:

  • How middle-managers employ "think-first," "see-first," and "do-first" approaches
  • Explore how managers deal with conflict between their personal decision-making preferences and the decision-making norms of their organizations
  • Explore the connections between change management and sensemaking
  • The impact of organizational culture on an organization's decision-making norms


First, the participant sample did not include managers from mid-sized organizations. Therefore the study only explored dynamics in very large (52,000+ employees) and very small (15 employees) organizations. Second, the issue of organizational culture surfaced in several interviews, but the interview questions and analysis did not explore the connection between organizational culture and decision-making deeply.


Blessof, D. (2012). 441 Whole systems methods for change.

Dane, E., & Pratt, M. G. (2007). Exploring intuition and its role in managerial decision making. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 33-54.

Dean, J. W., & Sharfman, M. P. (1993). Procedural rationality in the strategic decision- making process. Journal Of Management Studies, 30(4), 587-610.

Dominowski, R. L., & Dallob, P. (1996). Insight and problem solving. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), The Nature of Insight (33-62). Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

Langley, A., Mintzberg, H., Pitcher, P., Posada, E., & Saint-Macary, J. (1995). Opening up decision making: The view from the black stool. Organization Science, 6(3), 260-279.

Mintzberg, H., & Westley, F. (2001). Decision making: It's not what you think. MIT Sloan Management Review, 42(3), 89-93.

O'Leary, Z. (2010). The Essential Guide to Doing Your Research Project. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Inc.

Rogers, P. & Blenko, M. (2006). Who has the d? How clear decision roles enhance organizational performance. Harvard Business Review, 84(1), 52-61.

Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.). London: Sage Publications.

Simon, H.A. (1960). The New Science of Management Decision Making. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409-421.


Appendix A - Research Framework

Appendix A

Appendix B - Interview Protocol

Appendix B1

Appendix B2

Appendix C - Interview Subject Profiles

Appendix C

Appendix D - Flow Between Approaches

Appendix D1

Appendix D2

Appendix D3

Contact Us

Master's in Learning & Organizational Change

1800 Sherman Avenue
Suite 3500
Evanston, IL 60208
Northwestern University

Phone: 847/491-7376

MSLOC Staff In-Person Office Hours - Monday - Thursday 9:30 am - 4:30 pm

MSLOC Staff Remote Office Hours - Friday 9:30 am - 4:30 pm