Leadership & Organization Development Journal

Decision Styles — A Perspective

Alan J. Rowe James D. Boulgarides
Article information:
To cite this document:
Alan J. Rowe James D. Boulgarides, (1983),"Decision Styles — A Perspective", Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, Vol. 4 Iss 4 pp. 3 - 9
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb053534
Downloaded on: 12 August 2015, At: 10:54 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 726 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Daewoo Park, (1996),"Gender role, decision style and leadership style", Women in Management Review, Vol. 11 Iss 8 pp.
13-17 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09649429610148737
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF EXETER At 10:54 12 August 2015 (PT)

James D. Boulgarides, (1984),"The Decision Style Inventory : O.D. Applications", Management Research News, Vol. 7 Iss 4
pp. 17-20 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb027850
Ilkka Salo, Carl Martin Allwood, (2011),"Decision-making styles, stress and gender among investigators",
Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, Vol. 34 Iss 1 pp. 97-119 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/13639511111106632

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:463575 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.


Decision Styles
— A Perspective
by Alan J. Rowe and
James D. Boulgarides
California State University, Los Angeles
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF EXETER At 10:54 12 August 2015 (PT)
Introduction
The styles that managers use in making decisions have
been discussed for an extended period starting with
Taylor[1] who proposed a single best style to the com-
pletely flexible managerial styles proposed by Tannen-
baum and Schmidt[2]. Much of the early work was con-
cerned with leadership or managerial styles rather than
decision styles, while Simon[3] and others focused on
decision making and types of decisions. Adorno[4]
covered concepts in authoritarianism and Rokeach[5]
researched the concept of dogmatism. Development of a
pure style model by Harvey et at. [6] led to the development
of a cognitive model by Schroder et al. [7] which examined
Human Information Processing and Problem Solving.
The research conducted by Kilmann and Mitroff[8] used
the Myers Briggs type indicator for the study of decision
making. The Jungian personality types included decision
making as one aspect of managerial behaviour. Research
by Driver[9] utilised a model of decision styles that was
based on his earlier work in human information processing
and cognitive psychology. Other researchers based their
approach to decision styles on task/person variables as the
basis for determining a manager's style.
The Decision Style approach described in this article com-
bines cognitive complexity with the individual's concerns
for task or people. These variables incorporate many of the
factors considered by other models which allows a holistic
approach to decision styles.
One might ask why the concern with decision styles and
how they differ from leadership or managerial styles? To
answer this question, we will examine three different
aspects of decision making. The first is a situational ap-
proach called the four force model. The second deals with
a simplified description of the decision process and the
third is a classification of a number of decision style
models which have been used to date.
The Four Force Model
The four force model provides the contextual variables
that are relevant to decision making. The model considers
LODJ 4,4 1983
four factors for describing the reaction of the decision
maker to the situation. These factors are analogous to the
early work of Lewin[10] in which he examined the relation-
ship between the individual and the group, organisation
and the environment.
The four factors used here include the reaction of the in-
dividual to the work environment, the people in the
organisation, the task or function to be performed and the
personal needs of the individual. (See Figure 1.)
The response of the decision maker to these four forces is
determined, in part, by the individual's decision style. That
is, decision style is intrinsic to the manager and can be
modified depending on the situational factors and the abili-
ty to cope with the requirements or expectations.
A Simplified Version of the Decision Process
A simplified decision process considers the decision maker
as responding to a number of stimuli. The stimuli may be
internally generated by the individual or it may be external-
ly imposed. A diagram of the simplified decision process is
shown in Figure 2.
The first phase of the simplified model is the perception or
filtering of the stimuli. This phase is important when con-
sidering human information processing and information
overload. It is also concerned with perceptual biases and
referent influences. This phase can be considered the In-
formation Style of the manager.
The second phase deals with the cognitive aspects of pro-
blem solving or use and understanding of the information
perceived. This phase incorporates all aspects of negotia-
tion, creative problem solving, heuristics, logical analysis,
interpretation, evaluation and risk taking. Cognition relates
to the individual's ability to handle and process diverse
cues, information load, emotional needs and intuitive
capability.
The third phase of the process deals with the actions that
result from the decisions made. It is in this phase that the
managerial or leadership aspects of decision making are
3
 most overt. A decision that is not acted upon becomes a Background on the Brain
fond wish rather than achievement of the results desired.
The field of cognitive psychology has been concerned with
Much of the literature emphasises this last phase of the
perception, information processing, problem solving,
decision process. The role of power, persuasion, in-
memory, creativity, integration of cues, dogmatic fixa-
fluence, motivation and control are central to this phase.
tions, connation and operant response. A number of in-
Together, the three phases cover what we mean by Deci-
triguing studies have been conducted in perception, infor-
sion Styles — the perception and receptivity to stimuli, the
mation handling and brain structure and functioning. For
ability to handle information and to reach meaningful con-
the purpose of this article, w e will examine only a limited
clusions, the intuition or creativity needed to find workable
number of these studies in order to support the proposition
alternatives and finally the skills needed to make the deci-
that decision styles, as an emerging field, deserves further
sions become reality.
study and application.

With the considerable effort being devoted to the study of

Categorisation of Current Decision Style Models
To analyse the current state of the art and project the
future direction of the field, we need a means of examining
the research and approaches that have been used to date.
A two-by-two matrix is proposed to examine current
models. On the vertical axis is the level of uncertainty of
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF EXETER At 10:54 12 August 2015 (PT)
the left/right hemispheres of the brain, significant findings
are emerging which are relevant to the area of decision
styles. It should be pointed out that the precise physiology
of hemispheric specialisation is not critical to the
understanding of decision styles. Rather, what is most
relevant is that our experimental data support the conten-
tion that there are differences in the way in which the two

the decision, while on the horizontal axis the decision pro-

cess is identified. This is shown in Figure 3.
halves of the brain function. Also, these differences can be
measured and have predictive value in terms of how deci-
sions are made and, in a number of instances, the effec-
tiveness of the decisions. For example, most accounting
students exhibit strict left brain attributes and are good at
doing tasks requiring focus and concentration.

In a study done by Mann[11], he showed that financial

planners are dominantly left brain while strategic planners
are predominantly right brain. In studies conducted by
Rowe[12], he showed that senior executives tend to be
predominantly dual brain and have a high cognitive com-
plexity score on the Decision Style Inventory.

In the validation process for the decision style instrument,

a number of incidents took place which bear on the ques-
tion of hemispheric specialisation of the brain. For exam-
ple, a female manager who had a masters in Sociology and
was in charge of an organisation development department
had a high analytic score. When questioned, she said that
We next consider a number of models that are frequently she had been a mathematics major who was advised to
covered in the literature and that can be fitted into the switch to sociology because women have difficulty in fin-
above categories: ding jobs as mathematicians. Whether, in fact, there was a
true hemispheric specialisation is not the question. The In-
1. Tannenbaum-Schmidt — contingency
ventory score showed that the individual perceived herself
2. Blake-Mouton — normative
in a manner that corresponded with what specialisation
3. Reddin — normative would have been predicted and what the theory claims
4. Vroom-Yetton — normative would be her attributes. A large number of similar in-
5. Hersey-Blanchard — normative cidents occurred during the validation process, giving rise
6. Myers-Briggs — contingency to the acceptance of the concept of brain specialisation
7. Driver-Mock — heuristic based on experimental data.
8. Huber — analytic
An advantage of a psychologically oriented instrument is
9. Rowe-D.S.I — contingency
that it can more readily deal with the entire brain rather
10. Mckenny-Keen — contingency than special functions, such as speech, pointing, smiling
11. Heller — normative or other activities that are readily identifiable. For example,
12. Fiedler — contingency Lundberg[13] describes the creative process as involving
both halves of the brain and not being limited to the right
An examination of the above list shows that many of the half only. In their book, Left Brain — Right Brain, Springer
decision style models can be classified in the normative and Deutsch[14] show that even well defined areas of the
category. Given the application of contingency theory and brain, such as speech, can occur in either half of the brain,
contextual variables along with the research in cognitive depending on whether the individual is right or left hand-
psychology and neurophysiology, it is apparent that a ed. They point out that although there may be indepen-
comprehensive approach is needed to deal effecitvely with dent consciousness in each half of the brain, there are aux-
the complexity of decision making in an organisational iliary pathways in the brain which use cues to make infor-
context. mation available to both hemispheres.

4 LODJ 4,4 1983

 To confound the issue further, brain functions include Description of the Decision Style Inventory
emotional and autonomic responses, as well as thinking
functions. From a systems perspective, it would be Figure 4 shows the Cognitive-Contingency decision style
unrealistic to think that the brain is so compartmentalised model. The vertical axis shows the individual's cognitive
that one half does not in any way communicate with the complexity and the horizontal axis shows the individual's
other half. On the other hand, there does seem to be environmental concerns or values.
evidence which indicates that actual behaviour and actual
The low cognitively complex individual tends to perceive
decision making correspond with one or the other
the environment in terms of few or rigid rules of informa-
hemisphere being dominant. For example, in unpublished
tion processing and has a high need for structure, while
research, Rowe has found that Japanese managers are
the high cognitively complex individual is able to integrate
predominantly right brain which corresponds with dif-
diverse cues and has a high tolerance for ambiguity.
ferences observed in how they plan and their attitudes
toward people and culture. American managers, on the
other hand, tend to be predominantly left brain and focus
more on technical matters and short-range or bottom-line
planning.

Development of the Decision Style Inventory

The Decision Style Inventory traces back to the develop-
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF EXETER At 10:54 12 August 2015 (PT)

ment of the four force mode![15]. The inventory was

designed to measure each of the factors that impinge on
the decision maker and to determine what style was used
by various managers in the conduct of their work. The
work of Driver[9], Heller[16] and Reddin[17] was influential
in helping to identify which aspects of decision making
were most critical. As the inventory evolved, it was tested
on a number of key groups. In addition to the normal
classroom testing, the early inventory was used in ex-
ecutive programmes, with the Young Presidents'
Organisation and in a special study conducted on Navy
Leadership by Rowe et al. [18].

The horizontal dimension of the model deals with the en-

vironment confronting individuals and their reaction to the
differences. A more focused individual will generally prefer
technical or task-oriented environments. On the other
Few individuals c h a n g e hand, a broader individual will tend to prefer the more
social or people-oriented environment. Interestingly, the
their basic styles over time way in which the model is depicted, the technically
oriented individual is what we term the left brain, logical or
analytical person. Whereas, the right half of the model cor-
responds with those individuals who are more inductive in
their reasoning and who think in broad or spatial terms and
are people oriented.

The initial design used three questions for each of the four
factors. The current design uses five questions for each of
the four factors or a total of 20 questions. Over 7,000 in-
dividuals have taken the Decision Style Inventory which
has well over a 90 per cent face validity and over a 70 per
cent test retest reliability. It has been used with a number
of different occupational groups, such as women ar-
chitects, chiefs of police, navy admirals, etc. The instru-
ment is self scoring and takes approximately ten minutes
to complete. There have been a number of longitudinal
studies done with the instrument and the results indicate
that few individuals change their basic styles over time,
although there are shifts in style when there is stress or in-
formation overload. Continuing research indicates that the
decision style approach is a useful way of understanding
managers, their decision making, their problem solving,
their ability to interact with others in the organisation, and
that it is possible to match individuals to work based on
decision style preferences.
A more complete description of the decision style
categories shown in Figure 4 is given below:
1. Directive: These individuals have a low tolerance for
ambiguity and tend to focus on technical problems.
They have a high need for power and prefer tangible to
intrinsic rewards. They emphasise speed and action and
thus use limited information and few alternatives. They
tend to be aggressive and authoritarian and focus inter-
nally to the organisation with short-range and tight con-
trols. They are very effective at achieving results.
2. Analytic: This style is typical of the abstract thinkers
who have a high tolerance for ambiguity and thus use
considerable information and are very careful in the ex-
amination of alternatives. They tend to optimise pro-
blem solutions and enjoy challenges. They often reach
top posts in their companies and are innovative in their
solution to problems. They prefer written reports and
look for variety in their work.

LODJ 4,4 1983 5

 3. Conceptual: Because of their high cognitive complex-
ity and people orientation, they tend to want elaborate
treatment of problems and want to consider many alter-
natives. They are generally broad thinkers who take a
systems perspective and are future oriented. They value
quality and prefer openness and shared goals with
subordinates. They are highly creative and have a high
organisational commitment. They are high achievers
who need praise and recognition. They tend to be very
independent and refuse to be pressured. They prefer
loose control to power and enjoy interacting with
others.
4. Behavioural: This style has a deep concern for their
fellow employees and have a strong need for affiliation.
They are supportive, are good listeners, receptive to
suggestions and communicate easily. They exhibit
warmth and will accept loose control. They prefer
meetings to reports and do not use much data in arriv-
ing at decisions. Their focus tends to be people oriented
with short-range goals.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF EXETER At 10:54 12 August 2015 (PT)
distinguishing characteristics of the groups. For example,
women architects and women engineers differ in their con-
ceptual and behavioural scores, while women law students
also differ from male law students in their conceptual and
behavioural scores.
In another example, a comparison of police chiefs with
engineering executives showed that police chiefs were
typically more analytic and behavioural while engineering
executives were more directive. On the face of it, this is a
surprising finding in that one often assumes that police are
highly directive. On the other hand, the conceptual scores
of both groups were comparable.
A comparison of several groups will be used to illustrate
typical scores. Table I shows a comparison of women
managers and women architects.
Table I. Comparison of Women Managers

and Architects

Directive Analytic Conceptual Behavioural age

Women
Managers 73.5 87.5 74.4 64.2 40.2
n=93
The individual has one or Women
more dominant styles with Architects
n = 244
66.4 94.2 84.8 54.5 35.6

one or more back-up styles

This table shows that the typical women manager is left

brain with a higher directive and behavioural score than
One would not expect managers to fit neatly into any one women architects, who are more analytic and conceptual.
of the categories described above; rather, what our data These are results that one would expect, considering that
show is that the typical individual has one or more domi- the manager's job involves more direction and the ar-
nant styles with one or more back-up styles. Thus, we can chitect's job involves more analysis and creativity.
talk about styles such as left brain/right brain, low or high
cognitive complexity, or other possible patterns which Table II shows a comparison of male engineering
reflect a combination of decision style categories. managers with male managers in a technical organisation
and with a group of male managers from a number of
organisations.
Examples of Decision Styles
An examination of Table II reveals that American
A large number of groups and individuals have taken the managers in general have high analytic scores and are
Decision Style Inventory. Samples of the data that have predominantly left brain. However, a group of male
been collected are shown in the sections which follow.
The first observation is that there is a distribution of deci- Table I I . Comparison among Male Managers
sion style scores for the population as a whole and there
are norms which can be developed for distinct groups. The Directive Analytic Conceptual Behavioural age
approach taken here is to use the mean value as indicative
of a person's style and to consider deviations above the Male
mean as showing dominance or back-up styles. engineering 71.7 94.6 76.4 58.8 47.6
managers
A dominant style is the one used most often. A back-up n = 18
style is used somewhat less frequently but is one with Male
which the individual is comfortable. The below average managers,
technical 78.4 96.2 72.8 52.6 na
scores indicate a lower preference for the particular style
company
and is one which is used less frequently. Interpretation of n = 39
the scores requires a reasonable level of familiarity with the Male
inventory because style patterns influence the significance managers,
of a given score. multiple 72.1 94.6 80.6 52.7 na
companies
Our approach to examining differences among individuals n = 54
and among groups is to use the population norms as a
baseline and to examine deviations from those as the

6 LODJ 4,4 1983

 engineering executives had an analytic score of only 83.0,
which is below the typical male score. On the other hand,
this group had a directive score of 82.9, which means they
were focusing more on results than the typical manager.
There is evidence that high analytics shift to directive
under stress; this has been observed in our data as well.
A comparison of American and Japanese managers is very
revealing. The sample we have includes 21 Japanese
managers who had an average score of 84.4 in conceptual
and 68.5 in behavioural, which would make them
predominantly right brain in contrast to what was shown in
Table II for male American managers.
It provides an entirely-
different perspective on
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF EXETER At 10:54 12 August 2015 (PT)
management and on
decision styles
The final comparison is the relation of females in non-
technical positions with the data in Table I for females in
more technically oriented companies or technical posi-
tions. The socially oriented female has a score of 85 in the
conceptual category and 71 in the behavioural category
and is clearly a right-brain individual. Although this is the
stereotype of a female, it is certainly not the case for those
women working in technical jobs.
Applications of Decision Styles
There are many potential applications of decision styles.
They have been used in many ways such as training in
decision making, for reorganisation in which individuals
were matched to specific jobs, for personnel selection and
development, for career planning and for education and
creativity development.
Perhaps the most exciting prospect for the application of
decision styles is that it provides an entirely different
perspective on management and on decision making. For
example, when covering a case analysis, the problem can
often be explained by applying a decision style analysis.
The majority of subject matter taught in business educa-
tion is oriented to the left brain and tends to ignore the
broader issues that would be more right brain. Looking at
the field of management, each phase can be readily ex-
plained by decision styles. Thus, differences in control,
planning, measurement, motivation or any of the classic
aspects of management are readily explained by applying a
decision style perspective.
In a similar vein, training in an industrial setting is affected
by the decision style of the trainer and the trainees. If we
consider a three-phase process which starts with ideation
leading to formulation and then to internalisation, it is
apparent that decision style plays an important role in the
development process. For example, during the ideation
phase, both the directive and analytic may tend to be
LODJ 4,4 1983
overbearing and not permit the free flow of ideas which a
conceptually oriented individual would generate. The
directive style would have a tendency to cut off the flow of
ideas in order to take action, while the analytic would be so
careful in the examination of ideas that effectively the pro-
cess would be stifled. Each of the other two phases would
be directly affected by the styles of individuals as well as
the interaction among individuals in the group.
Organisaton development would also be amenable to ex-
amination by the use of decision styles. Knowing the deci-
sion style preferences of an individual, one is in a better
position to determine the direction of change and the
likelihood that a change would be effective. This, in part, is
based on the premise that requirements can be specified
for each position and that performance is a function of the
match between those requirements and the decision style
of the individual. Thus, a highly directive foreman might be
a poor candidate for a plant manager's job which requires
broader planning and careful analysis of production re-
quirements. Whereas the foreman focuses on current
needs and direct interaction with the work force, the plant
manager needs a higher tolerance for ambiguity and an
ability to examine many options in order to determine op-
timum plant operation.
Career planning has many of the same requirements as
organisation development. Thus, the concept of matching
decision style with the requirements of the job becomes an
important consideration. A number of studies have been
conducted which have examined the premise that op-
timum performance requires decision styles that fit a given
job and organisational context. Research conducted by
Driver[19], Boulgarides[20], Alawi[21] and Hager[22] all
support the need to match requirements with the style of a
potential incumbent.
Career planning has many
of the same requirements as
organisation development
Decision Style Changes
Flexible managers, who can adapt to changing re-
quirements, meet the needs of many organisations. The
question that naturally arises is whether individuals are
able to change style to fit the situation. There appears to
be three major considerations that determine the in-
dividual's ability to change style. These are:
(1) The decision style pattern of the individual;
(2) The level of stress or information overload, and
(3) The age or maturity of the individual.
If we first examine the decision style, it becomes obvious
that an individual who is dominantly directive would tend
to be rigid and to prefer following rules rather than make
7
 changes. The research by Rokeach[5] supports the posi-
tion that a rigid person cannot adapt and rarely changes.
On the other hand, an individual who has a high tolerance
for ambiguity would tend to be more adaptive because of
the ability to deal with diverse cues and be able to derive
meaningful conclusions from them. Thus, the decision
style pattern would determine the propensity of the in-
dividual for change.
A number of studies have been conducted on the effect of
stress and of information overload on decision style. In
their work on Human Information Processing, Schroder,
et al. [7] developed the U curve which showed that all
styles change their information usage as load is increased.
The shifts in style as a function of stress is hypothesised by
Rowe, et al.[12]. The directive style would tend to explode
or become angry when stressed, whereas the analytic
would be the cool cucumber who would shift to a directive
style when under pressure. The conceptual style would
perform in an erratic fashion attempting to take correct ac-
tion but being unable to do so because of the tendency to
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF EXETER At 10:54 12 August 2015 (PT)
diverge rather than converge on problem solutions. The
behavioural would try to avoid the whole issue when con-
fronted with a stressful situation. Thus, style is a potential
predictor of an individual's behaviour, response to stress
and information overload.
Finally, there have been a number of studies which show
that style changes with the age or maturity of an in-
dividual. Hersey and Blanchard[23], in their life cycle treat-
ment of decision styles, indicate that style shifts or
changes with the age of the individual. This conclusion is
supported by Greiner[24) who showed that older
managers were more considerate than younger ones. In
data obtained by the authors, students' scores in the direc-
tive and behavioural categories tend to differ from more
mature individuals. Younger people have lower directive
scores but higher behavioural scores than managers who
have been working for a number of years. This may be at-
tributable to the fact that younger people lack the self con-
fidence of experienced managers and thus have the need
to be accepted by their peers and managers.
To illustrate the effect of stress on decision style, three ex-
amples are shown in Table III.
Table I I I . Effect of Stress on Decision Style
Professor of Company Company Vice
Business President President
Directive (normal) 83 72 83
Directive (stress) 104 99 92
Analytic (normal) 64 91 108
Analytic (stress) 62 68 89
Conceptual (normal) 103 65 59
Conceptual (stress) 89 57 69
Behavioural (normal) 50 67 50
Behavioural (stress) 45 68 50
It reveals that all three individuals shifted to a much higher
directive style when under stress. The pressure on the Pro-
fessor was related to time demands, while the President
8 LODJ 4,4 1983
and Vice President of the Company shown were under
pressure because of poor sales and the possibility the com-
pany might go bankrupt. Another interesting observation
is the fact that the Professor shifted from a high concep-
tual style to the directive. However, it should be noted that
he had an above average directive score before being put
under pressure, so that it was a strong back-up style which
was readily assumed when needed. The President and
Vice President both had high analytic scores prior to the
onset of pressure. The expected shift in that case is to the
directive when under stress.
The prospect for further
development of decision
styles appears promising
Conclusion
The objective of this article was to show how the decision
style approach could be applied to understanding the
many facets of management. The integrative nature of the
Cognitive-Contingency model incorporates many of the at-
tributes of other decision style models. The experience to
date with the Decision Style Inventory, which is the instru-
ment used to measure the decision styles, is that it is a very
reliable and valid basis for determining decision styles. It
only requires ten minutes to administer and is self scoring.
Acceptance by managers is very high and it has been ap-
plied in a number of companies for training, organisation
development, organisation structuring, position matching,
career planning and for predicting performance of in-
dividuals in various assignments.
The prospect for further development of decision styles
appears promising. As more research is completed and
data become available, the decision style approach should
find even more applications and usefulness as a manage-
ment tool that has high predictive value.
References
1. Taylor, F. W., The Principles of Scientific Management, Harper
and Row, New York, 1947.
2. Tannenbaum, R. and Schmidt, W. H., "How to Choose a Leader-
ship Pattern", Harvard Business Review, March/April 1958.
3. Simon, H. A., The New Science of Management Decision, Harper
and Row, New York, 1960.
4. Adorno, T. et al. The Authoritarian Personality, Free Press, 1950.
5. Rokeach, M., The Open and Closed Mind, Basic Books, New
York, 1960.
6. Harvey, O. J., Hunt, D. and Schroder, H., Conceptual Systems
and Personality Organization, Wiley, New York, 1961.
7. Schroder, H. M., Driver, M. J. and Streufert, S., Human Informa-
tion Processing, Rinehart and Winston, 1967.
8. Kilmann, R. H. and Mitroff, I. I., "Qualitative versus Quantitative
Analysis for Management Science", Interfaces, Vol. 6 No. 2,
February 1976.
9. Driver, M. J. and Mock, T., "Information Processing, Decision
Style Theory and Accounting Information Systems", Accounting
Review. Vol. 50, 1975, pp. 490-508.
 10. Lewin, K., Field Theory and Social Science, Harper, New York,
1951.
11. Mann, R. B., Relationship between Decision Styles of Corporate
Planners and other Planning Executives, PhD thesis, GSBA, USC,
August 1982.
12. Rowe, A. J., Mason, R. 0. and Dickel, K., Strategic Management
and Business Policy, Addison-Wesley, 1982.
13. Lundberg, C. C. and Bigelow, J., "Creativity Training,
Hemispheric Functioning, and Information Processing", Academy
of Management, Colorado Springs, November 1982.
14. Springer, S. P. and Deutsch, G., Left Brain, Right Brain, W. H.
Freeman and Co., San Francisco, 1981.
15. Rowe, A. J., "Making Effective Decisions", Chemical Engineer-
ing, McGraw Hill, September 1974.
16. Heller, F. A., Managerial Decision Making, Tavistock, London,
1971.
17. Reddin, W. J., Managerial Effectiveness, McGraw Hill, New York,
1970.
18. Rowe, A. J., Weingart, S. R. and Provenzano, R. J . , Navy
Leadership and Management Analysis Study, System Develop-
ment Corporation, TM-5835, 15 April 1977.
19. Driver, M. J . , "Career Concepts and Organizational
Development", Academy of Management, San Francisco, August
1978; Driver, M. J. and Rowe, A. J., "Decision-Making Styles: A
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF EXETER At 10:54 12 August 2015 (PT)

New Approach to Management Decision Making", Chapter 6, in

Cooper, C. L. (Ed.), Behavioural Problems in Organizations, Pren-
tice Hall, 1979.
20. Boulgarides, J. D., "Affinity of Decision Styles for Career
Choices", Academy of Management, Portland, 6 April 1979.
21. Alawi, H., Cognitive, Task and Organizational Complexities in
Relation to Information Processing Behaviour of Business
Managers, DBA thesis, GSBA, USC, 1973.
22. Hager, J . , The Feasibility of Using Decision Making Style as a
Criterion for Career Assignments in the US Air Force, DBA thesis,
GSBA, 1977.
23. Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K. H., Management of Organization
Behavior, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1972.
24. Greiner, L. E., "What Managers Think of Participative Manage-
ment", Harvard Business Review, March/April 1973.

LODJ 4,4 1983 9

 This article has been cited by:

1. Kweku-Muata Osei-Bryson, Corlane BarclayDecision Making and Decision Styles of Project Managers: A Preliminary
Exploration Using Data Mining Techniques 259-278. [CrossRef]
2. Jörg H. Mayer, Robert Winter, Thomas Mohr. 2012. Situative Managementunterstützungssysteme.
WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK 54, 319-334. [CrossRef]
3. Jörg H. Mayer, Robert Winter, Thomas Mohr. 2012. Situational Management Support Systems. Business & Information
Systems Engineering 4, 331-345. [CrossRef]
4. Najla Podrug. 2011. Influence of National Culture on Decision-Making Style. South East European Journal of Economics and
Business 6. . [CrossRef]
5. Duysal Askun, Ela Unler Oz, Olcay Bige Aşkun. 2010. Understanding Managerial Work Values in Turkey. Journal of Business
Ethics 93, 103-114. [CrossRef]
6. Maris G. Martinsons, Robert M. Davison. 2007. Strategic decision making and support systems: Comparing American,
Japanese and Chinese management. Decision Support Systems 43, 284-300. [CrossRef]
7. Romie F. Littrell. 2002. Desirable leadership behaviours of multi‐cultural managers in China. Journal of Management
Development 21:1, 5-74. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
8. Darwish A. Yousef. 1998. Predictors of decision‐making styles in a non‐western country. Leadership & Organization
Development Journal 19:7, 366-373. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
9. Daewoo Park. 1996. Gender role, decision style and leadership style. Women in Management Review 11:8, 13-17. [Abstract]
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF EXETER At 10:54 12 August 2015 (PT)

[Full Text] [PDF]

10. Abbas J. Ali, Ahmed A. Azim, Krish S. Krishnan. 1995. Expatriates and host country nationals: managerial values and decision
styles. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 16:6, 27-34. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
11. James D. Boulgarides. 1987. Success Patterns of Professional Women: A Study of 452 Women Architects. Equal Opportunities
International 6:4, 7-9. [Abstract] [PDF]
12. James D. Boulgarides, Moonsong David Oh. 1985. A Comparison of Japanese, Korean and American Managerial Decision
Styles:. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 6:1, 9-11. [Abstract] [PDF]
13. James D. Boulgarides. 1984. A Comparison of Male and Female Business Managers. Leadership & Organization Development
Journal 5:5, 27-31. [Abstract] [PDF]
14. James D. Boulgarides. 1984. The Decision Style Inventory : O.D. Applications. Management Research News 7:4, 17-20.
[Abstract] [PDF]
15. Dr. James D. Boulgarides. 1984. A Profile of Women Architects in the United States. Equal Opportunities International 3:2,
1-9. [Abstract] [PDF]