Julmi, Ch is ian
A icle
When cla i y clouds he iew: In oducing adecision s yle
amewo k o assessing ask- ela ed e ec i eness in
analysis and in ui ion
Schmalenbach Jou nal o Business Resea ch (SBUR)
P o ided in Coope a ion wi h:
Schmalenbach-Gesellscha ü Be iebswi scha e.V.
Sugges ed Ci a ion: Julmi, Ch is ian (2025) : When cla i y clouds he iew: In oducing adecision s yle
amewo k o assessing ask- ela ed e ec i eness in analysis and in ui ion, Schmalenbach Jou nal
o Business Resea ch (SBUR), ISSN 2366-6153, Sp inge , Heidelbe g, Vol. 77, Iss. 2, pp. 267-308,
h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s41471-025-00207-8
This Ve sion is a ailable a :
h ps://hdl.handle.ne /10419/323728
S anda d-Nu zungsbedingungen:
Die Dokumen e au EconS o dü en zu eigenen wissenscha lichen
Zwecken und zum P i a geb auch gespeiche und kopie we den.
Sie dü en die Dokumen e nich ü ö en liche ode komme zielle
Zwecke e iel äl igen, ö en lich auss ellen, ö en lich zugänglich
machen, e eiben ode ande wei ig nu zen.
So e n die Ve asse die Dokumen e un e Open-Con en -Lizenzen
(insbesonde e CC-Lizenzen) zu Ve ügung ges ell haben soll en,
gel en abweichend on diesen Nu zungsbedingungen die in de do
genann en Lizenz gewäh en Nu zungs ech e.
Te ms o use:
Documen s in EconS o may be sa ed and copied o you pe sonal
and schola ly pu poses.
You a e no o copy documen s o public o comme cial pu poses, o
exhibi he documen s publicly, o make hem publicly a ailable on he
in e ne , o o dis ibu e o o he wise use he documen s in public.
I he documen s ha e been made a ailable unde an Open Con en
Licence (especially C ea i e Commons Licences), you may exe cise
u he usage igh s as speci ied in he indica ed licence.
h ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s41471-025-00207-8
Schmalenbach Jou nal o Business Resea ch (2025) 77:267–308
When Cla i y Clouds he View: In oducing a Decision
S yle F amewo k o Assessing Task-Rela ed
E ec i eness in Analysis and In ui ion
Ch is ian Julmi
Recei ed: 30 June 2023 / Accep ed: 11 Janua y 2025 / Published online: 19 Feb ua y 2025
© The Au ho (s) 2025
Abs ac Recen schola ly discussions sugges he po en ial supe io i y o in ui ion
o e analysis in asks wi h high equi ocali y. Howe e , i emains unclea when and
whe he in ui ion is p e e able when bo h unce ain y and equi ocali y a e consid-
e ed. Add essing his gap, he a icle in oduces a amewo k linking he e ec i e-
ness o indi idual decision s yles wi h con igu a ions o unce ain y and equi ocali y,
adop ing an in o ma ion p ocessing pe spec i e. Wi hin his amewo k, in ui i eness
and adap i eness a e ea ed as independen dimensions o decision s yles, associ-
a ing in ui i eness wi h equi ocali y and adap i eness wi h unce ain y in e ms o
e ec i eness. To demons a e he alue o he amewo k, he a icle discusses im-
plica ions o esea ch.
Keywo ds Equi ocali y · Unce ain y · In ui ion · Analysis · Decision s yle ·
Managemen e ec i eness
JEL classi ica ion D81 · D91 · M10
1 In oduc ion
In esea ch, i is conside ed common sense ha he cha ac e is ics o a decision
ask ha e an in luence on whe he he ask should be accomplished a he in ui i ely
o analy ically. One cha ac e is ic o he ask ha esea che s ha e discussed in
his con ex is he unce ain y o he ask- ela ed en i onmen . Because unce ain
decision asks o en do no allow an analy ical de i a ion o a clea ly co ec solu ion,
Ch is ian Julmi
Fakul ä ü Wi scha swissenscha , Leh s uhl ü Be iebswi scha sleh e, insb. O ganisa ion und
Planung, Fe nUni e si ä in Hagen, 58084 Hagen, Ge many
E-Mail: ch is ian.julmi@ e nuni-hagen.de
K
268 Schmalenbach Jou nal o Business Resea ch (2025) 77:267–308
esea che s ha e sugges ed ha in ui ion may be an e ec i e s a egy o dealing wi h
unce ain decision asks (Ago 1986; Gige enze 2008;Pa ikh1994; Sadle -Smi h
and She y 2004). Schola s a gue ha in ui ion helps decision make s o eac imely
and accu a ely o he en i onmen ’s changing s imuli (Eisenha d 1989; Manesh e al.
2022), o in eg a e la ge amoun s o da a and cope wi h incomple e in o ma ion
(Kha i and Ng 2000), and o pe cei e possibili ies ha ha e no been iden i ied
p e iously (C ossan e al. 1999).
Sinnaiah e al. (2023) a gue ha u ilizing in ui ion as a decision s yle can en-
hance o ganiza ional pe o mance, pa icula ly when aced wi h limi ed esou ces
o knowledge. Acco ding o Goldbe g (1990, p. 73), any “ o ecas e has o use in u-
i ion in ga he ing and in e p e ing da a and in deciding which unusual u u e e en s
migh in luence he ou come”.
Con e sely, o he esea che s p opose ha in ui ion may al e unde condi ions
o unce ain y, leading o biased o un eliable decisions. Mos p ominen ly, Kah-
neman and T e sky (1973) obse ed se e al cogni i e biases ha occu in in ui i e
p edic ions in he con ex o unce ain y and p obabili ies. Schi meis e e al. (2020)
emphasize ha , in unce ain en i onmen s, he use o in ui ion can lead o cogni-
i e biases because i is based on incomple e in o ma ion and implici assump ions.
Luoma and Ma ela (2021) gene ally conside in ui ion as an in e io s a egy in
no el o apidly changing en i onmen s. In he con ex o clinical decision making,
Hall (2002) s a es ha clinicians ely on in ui ion pa icula ly in unce ain si ua ions,
despi e his may esul in lowe pe o mance and is suscep ible o cogni i e bias.
To add ess his os ensible inconsis ency and he ongoing discussion on in ui ion
e ec i eness, we p opose inco po a ing equi ocali y as an addi ional c i e ion o un-
ce ain y o assessing he e ec i eness o in ui ion. This co esponds wi h a nascen
end in he li e a u e ha ies in ui ion e ec i eness o equi ocali y. Fo example,
Sonenshein (2007) a gues om a sensemaking pe spec i e ha in ui i e sensemak-
ing enables indi iduals o espond o he a ious in e p e a ions when equi ocali y
is high. Following his pe spec i e, Fishe and Neube (2023) conclude ha when
equi ocali y is high, a pe son mus ely on in ui i e judgmen s because he in o -
ma ion needed o make a a ional-analy ic decision is con using. Fo Julmi (2019),
he e ec i eness o in ui ion inc eases wi h equi ocali y because he analyzabili y
o he p oblem simul aneously dec eases. Likewise, Flo es-Ga cia e al. (2021) pose
ha in ui i e decision making is e ec i e unde condi ions o equi ocali y “because
in ui ion does no ely on ules o cope wi h a p oblem” (Flo es-Ga cia e al. 2021,
p. 4). Howe e , hese app oaches do no examine how di e en cons ella ions o
equi ocali y and unce ain y ela e o he e ec i eness o in ui ion. The only excep-
ion we know o is Julmi’s (2024) ecen a icle on he e ec i eness o in ui ion
in mo al judgmen s. He conside s di e en cons ella ions o mo al unce ain y and
mo al equi ocali y, and iews in ui ion as supe io o analysis in he p esence o
mo al equi ocali y. This app oach has impo an implica ions o he p esen s udy,
bu is limi ed o he mo al domain.
In ligh o his con ex , he aim o his a icle is o de elop a amewo k ha
links he e ec i eness o indi idual decision s yles wi h di e en cons ella ions o
unce ain y and equi ocali y om an in o ma ion p ocessing pe spec i e. Th ough
ou decision s yle amewo k, in e ences can be d awn om he cha ac e is ics o he
K
Schmalenbach Jou nal o Business Resea ch (2025) 77:267–308 269
decision ask o he app op ia e deg ee o in ui i eness inhe en in he indi idual’s
decision s yle. In addi ion, we conside he deg ee o he decision s yle’s adap i e-
ness, which we concep ualize as independen o he deg ee o in ui i eness. Wi hin
ou amewo k, we align di e en decision s yles (conside ing hei le els o in u-
i i eness and adap i eness) wi h dis inc pa e ns o unce ain y and equi ocali y.
Mo e speci ically, we associa e high in ui i eness wi h high equi ocali y and high
adap i eness wi h high unce ain y ega ding he e ec i eness o he decision s yle.
As we will show, he dis inc ion be ween unce ain y and equi ocali y is c ucial in
assessing he app op ia eness o ei he an in ui i e o analy ic app oach o decision
making.
Ou wo k e lec s a heo e ical con ibu ion o esea ch in o in ui ion e ec i e-
ness. Al hough Dane and P a ’s (2007) seminal wo k on in ui ion e ec i eness has
been ci ed mo e han wo and a hal housand imes (acco ding o Google schola ),
almos no discussion has de eloped a ound he co e connec ions o he a icle on
he in e play o in ui ion e ec i eness, ask cha ac e is ics and domain knowledge.
Wi h ou a icle, we would like o e i e his discussion and look a his in e play
om a i pe spec i e. Ou amewo k p oposes se e al new assump ions in his
con ex . Fi s , i implies ha equi ocali y and no unce ain y is a p edic o o in-
ui ion e ec i eness. This explains why he e ec i eness o in ui ion can a y in
high-unce ain y si ua ions, being ei he high o low, depending on he p esence o
equi ocali y. Second, al hough he li e a u e acknowledges ha in ui ion can bo h be
ep oduc i e and adap i e (Akinci and Sadle -Smi h 2012; Hodgkinson and Sadle -
Smi h 2018), his dis inc ion has no ye been sys ema ically applied o he issue
o in ui ion e ec i eness. As will be shown, his dis inc ion is c ucial in de e min-
ing he e ec i eness o ei he analysis o in ui ion o a gi en ask p ope ly. Thi d,
unlike Dane and P a ’s model, ou amewo k no only p edic s when in ui ion
e ec i eness is high bu also when i su passes he e ec i eness o analysis. This
allows o compa a i e analyses o in ui ion and analysis e ec i eness. Fou h, by
demons a ing ha in ui ion can be mo e e ec i e han analysis in ce ain cons ella-
ions, he amewo k con ibu es o he li e a u e by comba ing he s ill widesp ead
belie ha in ui ion is gene ally in e io o analysis (e.g., Ko he e al. 2023). Since
he amewo k de i es cons ella ions in which high in ui i eness is assumed o be
mo e e ec i e han low in ui i eness, he e a e po en ial cogni i e biases i an an-
aly ic app oach is chosen in hese cons ella ions. To illus a e his poin , we de o e
a sec ion o he esea ch implica ions o po en ial cogni i e biases.
Ou a icle is o ganized as ollows. Fi s , building on a dual-p ocess iew, we
de ine he di e ence be ween an in ui i e and an analy ical app oach. Then we
ou line he ele an heo e ical concep s o ou amewo k. F om hese ounda ions,
we p oceed o link ou ypes o decision s yles wi h ou ypes o asks in e ms o
e ec i eness. In he ollowing sec ion, he ask- ela ed e ec i eness o hese ou
decision s yles is illus a ed h ough ou mini case s udies. To demons a e he
alue o ou amewo k, we di ide he sec ion on esea ch implica ions in o h ee
pa s. Fi s , we examine he a ea o s a egic decision making, highligh ing how ou
amewo k add esses and ex ends exis ing con o e sies in his a ea. Second, we
p opose ha u u e esea ch should explici ly in es iga e cogni i e biases ha a ise
du ing analy ical decision making, as opposed o in ui i e decision making. Thi d,
K
270 Schmalenbach Jou nal o Business Resea ch (2025) 77:267–308
we a e explo ing app oaches o es he assump ions o ou amewo k, enhance i s
de elopmen , and implemen i in p ac ical applica ions.
2 A Pa allel-Compe i i e View on In ui ion and Analysis
In ui ion is o en cha ac e ized as he inna e abili y o ac o make decisions adep ly,
de oid o delibe a e conside a ion o al e na i es, wi hou adhe ence o speci ic
ules, and, po en ially, wi hou conscious awa eness (Ha eis and Bille 2013). In
ou app oach, we ollow Dane and P a ’s (2007, p. 33) well-es ablished de ini ion o
in ui ion “as a ec i ely cha ged judgmen s ha a ise h ough apid, nonconscious,
and holis ic associa ions”. In his sense, in ui ion e e s o a o m o “knowing
ha eme ges ou o sel -o ganizing holis ic associa ions” (Adinol i and Loia 2022,
p. 9). Analysis, in con as o in ui ion, is de ined as slow, conscious, and ule-
based delibe a ions. Whe eas in ui i e decisions ollow an o e all imp ession o he
decision ask, analy ic decisions es upon logically decomposing he decision ask
and sequen ially ecombining i s elemen s (Hoga h 2010).
In esea ch, he e is “conside able ag eemen among esea che s” (Rusou e al.
2013, p. 608) and “an eme ging consensus ha a use ul dis inc ion can be made be-
ween wo basic sys ems o in o ma ion p ocessing” (Hodgkinson e al. 2008,p.8).
Al hough such so-called dual-p ocess heo ies come in many la o s, hese iews o
heo ies commonly assume ha human in o ma ion p ocessing is accomplished by
wo subs an ially dissimila , ye complemen a y sys ems: he in ui i e and he ana-
ly ic sys em. In his con ex , he ield o psychology dis inguishes be ween a de aul -
in e en ionis and a pa allel-compe i i e iew (S . E ans 2007,2008).
The de aul -in e en ionis pe spec i e posi s ha he in ui i e and analy ic sys-
ems unc ion sequen ially and in a hie a chical s uc u e. The lowe -le el in ui i e
sys em gene a es judgmen s by de aul , equi ing alida ion o co ec ion by he
highe -le el analy ic sys em o ec i y any inaccu acies. In p ac ical e ms, indi id-
uals end o ini ially depend on in ui i e hinking when making a decision. Sub-
sequen ly, his de aul p ocess may be, bu is no obliga o y o be, assessed by
analy ical easoning o in e en ion i deemed necessa y.
Acco ding o he pa allel-compe i i e iew, he wo sys ems ha e access o dis-
inc o ms o knowledge. The in ui i e sys em d aws on implici knowledge. I
can p ocess a la ge amoun o in o ma ion simul aneously, al hough his kind o
in o ma ion p ocessing is mos ly beyond conscious con ol and o en di icul o
a icula e. In con as , he analy ic sys em is cha ac e ized by explici in o ma ion
p ocessing ha d aws on explici knowledge. I is ule based and ope a es in a se-
quen ial s ep-by-s ep manne . Unlike he in ui i e sys em, he analy ic sys em allows
o a conscious and delibe a e con ol o he sequence and di ec ion o in o ma ion
p ocessing (Baldacchino e al. 2015; Be sch and Glöckne 2010). The concep o
pa allel-compe i i e dual-p ocess heo y o igina es om he no ion o wo ypes
o lea ning, esul ing in wo ypes o knowledge: implici and explici knowledge
(S . E ans 2008). When decision making ollows an analy ical app oach, he aci -
ness o unde lying knowledge is low. In case o in ui i e decision making, aci ness
is high. In be ween, he e exis a ying deg ees o u ilizing bo h ypes o knowledge.
K
Schmalenbach Jou nal o Business Resea ch (2025) 77:267–308 271
Fo example, he e a e decisions p edominan ly d i en by analy ical p ocesses ha ,
o some ex en , inco po a e implici in o ma ion.
This also co esponds o a b oade body o knowledge wi hin in ui ion esea ch
ha acknowledges ha in ui ion u ilizes aci knowledge (De e s 2023; Ha eis and
Bille 2013; Polanyi 1966;P e zandTo z2007; Rebe 1989). Th ough expe ien ial
lea ning, implici knowledge is gained, subsequen ly s o ed in long- e m memo y.
This ese oi o implici knowledge se es as inpu o he implici in o ma ion p o-
cessing in ol ed in in ui i e decision making (Be sch 2008; Be sch and Glöckne
2010; Heims äd e al. 2024;P e zandTo z2007). F om a p ocess iew, in u-
i ion “is he end p oduc o an implici lea ning expe ience” (Rebe 1989, p. 232).
Empi ical esea ch has demons a ed a posi i e co ela ion be ween implici lea n-
ing and in ui i e p e e ence (Woolhouse and Bayne 2000). Addi ionally, a link has
been es ablished be ween implici lea ning and a educed inclina ion o delibe a ion
(Kau man e al. 2010).
Whe eas in “ he ield o psychology he ju y is s ill ou ega ding he ela i e me -
i s o de aul -in e en ionis and pa allel-compe i i e accoun s” (Hodgkinson and
Sadle -Smi h 2018, p. 477), we a o a pa allel-compe i i e iew o a leas ou
easons. Fi s , he de aul -in e en ionis iew seems, due o i s hie a chical s uc-
u e, o o e emphasize he de iciency o in ui ion while simul aneously o e a ing
analysis: Because he in ui i e sys em p oduces e o s, he analy ical sys em mus
in e ene and co ec hem (Adinol i 2021; Baldacchino e al. 2023; Fabio e al.
2024;Julmi2019). Fo example, such a iew is applied in he heu is ics and biases
p og am which ocuses on he de imen al use o in ui ion in decision making (Kah-
neman 2003,2011). Howe e , we wan o include cons ella ions whe e an analy ical
app oach may be mo e e o -p one han an in ui i e app oach. Second, a pa allel-
compe i i e iew is consis en wi h g owing e idence om expe imen al and neu-
ological s udies (Alós-Fe e and S ack 2014; Healey e al. 2015; Howa h e al.
2019; Kuo e al. 2009;Liebe man2007). Thi d, he adop ion o a pa allel-compe -
i i e iew co esponds wi h ecen ends in managemen and o ganiza ion s udies,
whe e he ocus is abou o sligh ly shi om a dominance o de aul -in e en ion-
is accoun s owa ds a pa allel-compe i i e iew (Adinol i 2021; Hodgkinson and
Sadle -Smi h 2018; Kelle and Sadle -Smi h 2019; Luoma and Ma ela 2021;P e o-
ius e al. 2024; Thanos 2023; Zai sa a e al. 2022). Fou h, Hodgkinson and Sadle -
Smi h (2018) poin ou ha a pa allel-compe i i e iew is a be e sui ed o cap u -
ing he in e play o in ui i e and analy ical p ocesses han he de aul -in e en ionis
iew. While he sequen iali y o bo h sys ems in he de aul -in e en ionis iew
only concep ualizes hei in e ac ion in one di ec ion, he pa allel-compe i i e iew
enables he concep ualiza ion o di e en deg ees o mu ual in e ac ion be ween he
wo sys ems, encompassing a ia ions in he ex en o which each sys em is engaged
o in ol ed. In ac , pu e in ui ion o analysis a e ideal ypes a he han eal ypes.
In mos cases, he e is an in e play be ween analysis and in ui ion, e en hough he
emphasis o en is on one side o he o he . Fo example, analysis may suppo he
in ui i e decision make o assess pa ial aspec s o he decision p oblem. On he
o he hand, S . E ans (2010, p. 320) a gues “ ha e en when people a e easoning,
hei ocus may be es ic ed by p econscious in ui i e p ocesses”. In ui ion can play
a signi ican ole in plausible easoning, as indi iduals d aw upon hei pas expe i-
K
272 Schmalenbach Jou nal o Business Resea ch (2025) 77:267–308
ences and implici knowledge o a i e a conclusions ha eel plausible o sensible.
Addi ionally, he pe cep ion o cohe ence, which is essen ial o plausibili y, is inhe -
en ly ied o an in ui i e imp ession (Be sch and Glöckne 2010).Sinceweassume
in ou amewo k ha decision s yles di e in hei deg ee o in ui i eness, a pa al-
lel-compe i i e iew is be e sui ed o ou pu poses. Acco dingly, he amewo k
o be de eloped in he ollowing sec ions is based on a pa allel-compe i i e iew.
3 Theo e ical Concep s o he Decision S yle F amewo k
3.1 Ecological Ra ionali y in Decision Making
Decision making e ec i eness is o en ied o i s ecological a ionali y. The concep
o ecological a ionali y s ems om Simon’s me apho o a ionali y as a pai o
scisso s “whose wo blades a e he s uc u e o he ask en i onmen and he com-
pu a ional capabili ies o he ac o ” (Simon 1990, p. 7). Acco ding o Gige enze
and colleagues, he ecological a ionali y o a decision making app oach e e s o he
deg ee i is adap ed o he s uc u e o he en i onmen (Gige enze 2019; Gige en-
ze and Gaissmaie 2011; Todd and Gige enze 2007). E ec i e decision making
he e o e eme ges om he i be ween he s uc u e o in o ma ion p ocessing o
he indi idual and he s uc u e o in o ma ion in ela ion o a decision p oblem o
ask (Cha e e al. 2018, p. 804).
E en hough Simon (1987,1993) and Gige enze and colleagues (Gige enze
2010; Gige enze and Regie 1996; K uglanski and Gige enze 2011) a e well-
known c i ics o dual-p ocess heo ies, he e is no con adic ion be ween a pa allel-
compe i i e iew o in o ma ion p ocessing and he basic idea o ecological a io-
nali y. F om such a iew, bo h he in o ma ion p ocessing o he in ui i e and he
analy ic sys em can be ecological a ional “i i u ns ou ha he beha io p esc ibed
is well adap ed o i s goals—wha e e hose goals migh be” (Simon 1993, p. 393).
In gene al, e ec i eness a ises when he in o ma ion p ocessing equi emen s om
a ask co espond o he in o ma ion p ocessing capaci ies o he decision make
(Da and Macin osh 1981; Winkle e al. 2015). I implici in o ma ion p ocessing
is be e sui ed o p ocessing ask- ele an in o ma ion han explici in o ma ion p o-
cessing, an in ui i e app oach would be mo e e ec i e (and ice e sa), p o ided he
decision-make has he app op ia e capaci ies. Consequen ly, he ques ion o add ess
is which ask s uc u es align wi h which ype o in o ma ion p ocessing capaci ies.
In o de o app oach his ques ion, we examine h ee es ablished and in e con-
nec ed amewo ks: Pe ow’s (1967,1970) amewo k o he compa a i e analysis
o o ganiza ions, Da and Lengel’s (1986) amewo k o equi ocali y and unce -
ain y on in o ma ion equi emen s and McI e e al.’s (2012,2013)knowledge-in-
p ac ice amewo k. Whe eas he o me wo amewo ks ocus on ask s uc u e
and associa ed in o ma ion cues, he la e ( hi d) amewo k is conce ned wi h he
knowledge s uc u e o indi iduals engaged in accomplishing asks. Addi ionally, we
in oduce a ( ou h) decision s yle amewo k g ounded in he knowledge-in-p ac ice
amewo k, aligning p e e ed decision making beha io wi h ask s uc u es. The
undamen al cha ac e is ics o dimensions o he amewo k will be discussed a
K
Schmalenbach Jou nal o Business Resea ch (2025) 77:267–308 273
he end o he chap e , while he de i ed ypes o decision s yles will be elabo a ed
in he subsequen chap e , in ha mony wi h he espec i e ypes o he o he h ee
amewo ks.
Following he ideas o D i e and Mock (1975) and Macin osh (1981), we as-
sume ha he decision s yle o an indi idual is a cogni i e ai which e ec s he
way in o ma ion is p ocessed o accomplish asks. This iew p oposes “ ha human
in o ma ion p ocessing models should also conside he na u e o he ask aced by
he indi idual as well as he way he indi idual in e ac s wi h he ask” (Macin osh
1981, p. 41), wi h he la e ep esen ing he decision s yle. Al hough decision s yle
is o en ega ded as a ela i ely s able indi idual ai , i is impo an o emphasize
ha decision s yles a e no ixed o unchangeable aspec s o a pe son’s cha ac e . In
esea ch, i is common o assume ha indi iduals ha e me acogni i e con ol o e
choosing be ween analy ical o in ui i e judgmen s (Be sch and Glöckne 2010;Lu-
oma and Ma ela 2021; Salas e al. 2010; Shapi o and Spence 1997; Thompson
e al. 2011). While indi iduals may end o adop a speci ic decision s yle, expe -
imen s e eal ha decision s yles a e lexible and can be in luenced by si ua ional
ac o s (Ayal e al. 2015; Rusou e al. 2013). The decision o whe he o us one’s
in ui ion o analy ical esul s, e en when con adic o y, is a common scena io bo h
wi hin and ou side o ganiza ions (Salas e al. 2010). The same applies o he ques-
ion o whe he o all back on ied-and- es ed solu ions o y some hing new. We
he e o e assume ha he deg ees o in ui i eness and adap i eness can a y wi hin
an indi idual. Ne e heless, while people can lea n o modi y hei decision s yle o
some ex en , such adap a ions may no comple ely o e ide hei p edominan s yle.
Fo example, someone wi h a p edominan ly analy ical s yle migh imp o e hei
in ui i e esponses h ough p ac ice, ye unde c i ical condi ions hey a e s ill likely
o ely mo e on analysis. Hence, while i may be di icul o change he na u e o
a ask i sel , ou amewo k iden i ies wo main app oaches o ensu ing e ec i e-
a ied
un a ied
elbazy
l
ana
unanalyzable
FITTask Cues Decision Knowledge
E ec i eness achie ed by
ma ching in o ma ion p ocessing
equi emen s and capaci ies
unce ain
ce ain
unequi ocal
equi ocal
adap i e
epe i i e
analy ic
in ui i e
unlea nable
lea nable
explici
implici
Decision p oblem
Pe ow (1967) Da and Lengel (1986) McI e e al. (2013)
Fig. 1 Connec ions be ween he amewo ks and hei ela ion o decision making e ec i eness
K
274 Schmalenbach Jou nal o Business Resea ch (2025) 77:267–308
Table 1 Dimensions ac oss amewo ks
Re e ence Fi s di-
mension
De ini ion Second
dimension
De ini ion Au ho
Task Analyzabili y Task analyzabili y e e s o he deg ee o which he e is
an objec i e, compu a ional p ocedu e cu en ly in place
o po en ially a ailable o sol ing a gi en ask.
Va ie y Task a ie y e e s o he numbe o excep ions
encoun e ed in a ask, i.e. he deg ee o which he
ask is pe cei ed as un amilia .
Pe ow
(1967)
In o ma ion
cues
Equi ocali y Equi ocali y e e s o he exis ence o mul iple and
po en ially con lic ing in e p e a ions abou he na u e
and comple ion o a ask and co ela es wi h he deg ee
he ask is ill-s uc u ed.
Unce ain y Unce ain y e e s o he amoun o in o ma-
ion ha is needed o comple e a ask and can
be educed by ga he ing and/o in e p e ing new
in o ma ion.
Da and
Lengel
(1986)
Knowledge Taci ness The aci ness o a p ac ice e e s o he deg ee he nec-
essa y knowledge o accomplish a ask is implici in
na u e.
Lea nabili y The lea nabili y o a p ac ice e lec s he ype and
amoun o e o , s udy, accumula ed comp ehen-
sion, and expe ise equi ed o unde s and ask-
ele an in o ma ion.
McI e
e al.
(2012)
Decision
s yle
In ui i eness Decision in ui i eness is he p opensi y o indi iduals o
make decisions based on implici knowledge wi hin he
in ui i e sys em.
Adap i eness Decision adap i eness pe ains o he endency
and abili y o adjus and h i e in a ying ci cum-
s ances by e ec i ely esponding o changes.
Ou ex en-
sion
K
Schmalenbach Jou nal o Business Resea ch (2025) 77:267–308 281
Decision in ui i eness desc ibes he endency o indi iduals o make decisions
based on he implici knowledge o he in ui i e sys em. The highe he decision
in ui i eness, he g ea e he endency o make decisions based on implici knowl-
edge, and ice e sa. As he in ui i e sys em is based on he p ocessing o implici
in o ma ion and due o he “in ui i e na u e o aci knowledge” in gene al (Nonaka
and Takeuchi 1995, p. 9), he aci ness o he knowledge used is di ec ly ela ed o
decision in ui i eness.
The li e a u e widely acknowledges ha indi iduals di e in hei s yle owa ds
analy ical and in ui i e decision making. Indi iduals wi h a p e e ence o in ui ion
a e assumed o make be e in ui i e decisions, and ice e sa (Alaybek e al. 2022;
Bullini O landi and Pie ce 2020; Phillips e al. 2016; Woolhouse and Bayne 2000).
F om he pe spec i e o dual-p ocess heo y, indi iduals exhibi a ying p e e ences
o ei he using he in ui i e o he analy ic sys em, and he deg ee o which a pe -
son ends o ely on ei he o hese cogni i e sys ems is conside ed an indi idual
di e ences a iable (Salas e al. 2010).
Rega ding Pe ow’s and Da and Lengel’s amewo ks, se e al clues can be
ound in he li e a u e ha sugges a i be ween decision in ui i eness on he one
side and ask analyzabili y and in o ma ion equi ocali y on he o he side. Fo Pe -
ow (1967), he accomplishmen o unanalyzable asks is associa ed wi h expe ience
o in ui ion, whe eas analyzable asks can be accomplished “on a logical, analy ical
basis” (Pe ow 1967, p. 196). Conce ning Pe ow’s ask analyzabili y concep , Nu
(1976) con ends ha high ask analyzabili y co esponds o an analy ical ounda ion
o decision making, while low ask analyzabili y is cha ac e ized by he lack o
such a basis, elying ins ead on in ui ion and expe ience. Simila ly, Da and Lengel
(1986) a gue ha , when asks a e unanalyzable, indi iduals “ ely on judgmen and
expe ience a he han on ules o compu a ional ou ines” (Da and Lengel 1986,
p. 564). Da la e expanded his s a emen o include he aspec o in ui ion, a guing
ha , when analyzabili y is low, “employees ely on accumula ed expe ience, in u-
i ion, and judgmen ” (Da 2021, p. 338). Mo eo e , Wi hey e al. (1983) a gue ha
decisions based on in ui ion and expe ience play an impo an ole in unanalyzable
asks, while high analyzabili y is sui ed o he applica ion o a logical-analy ical p o-
cedu e. Thus, when asks can be decomposed and sol ed in a s ep-by-s ep manne
(high analyzabili y), e ec i e decisions can be eached by analy ically execu ing
a se o ules and sequences. When asks a e ela i ely non-decomposable (low
analyzabili y), in ui ion may p o e e ec i e as i allows holis ically app oaching
a ask.
In addi ion, Da and Lengel s a e ha equi ocal si ua ions a e “ill-de ined o he
poin whe e a clea answe will no be o hcoming” (Da and Lengel 1986, p. 557).
In he in ui ion li e a u e, he s uc u edness o a ask— anging om well-de ined
asks (high s uc u edness) o ill-de ined asks (low s uc u edness)—is a widely
accep ed c i e ion o de e mine he app op ia eness o an in ui i e app oach in ligh
o a gi en ask. The less a ask is s uc u ed, he mo e in ui ion becomes c ucial
(Adinol i 2021; Dane and P a 2007;Julmi2019; Rusou e al. 2013; Shapi o and
Spence 1997). We he e o e assume ha a high le el o decision in ui i eness is bes
sui ed o p ocessing equi ocal in o ma ion.
K
282 Schmalenbach Jou nal o Business Resea ch (2025) 77:267–308
Al hough he ela ionship be ween in ui i eness and equi ocali y has ha dly been
in es iga ed empi ically o da e, ini ial s udy esul s suppo he assump ions dis-
cussed he e. Fo ins ance, Rusou e al. (2013) ha e demons a ed h ough expe -
imen s ha in ui ion is mo e e ec i e han analysis in poo ly s uc u ed asks,
whe eas he opposi e is ue o well-s uc u ed asks. In ano he expe imen al
se ing, Fellnho e and Deng (2024) ound ha in uns uc u ed en i onmen s like
c owd unding, whe e emo ional aspec s play a signi ican ole, in ui ion can be
mo e e ec i e, os e ing gende equali y among in es o s. Fu he mo e, Adje id
e al. (2023) show in hei longi udinal s udy ha he e ec i eness o clinical da a
analy ics in ela ion o pa ien expe ience quali y is lowe in hospi als dealing wi h
complex cases cha ac e ized by high le els o equi ocali y. This sugges s ha he
e ec i eness o an analy ical app oach (whe e in ui i eness is low) dec eases wi h
inc easing equi ocali y.
We sugges ha decision s yles also di e in hei deg ee o adap i eness. Wi h
he e m decision adap i eness, we e e o he endency and abili y o an indi idual
o adjus and h i e in a ying ci cums ances by e ec i ely esponding o changes.
Like decision in ui i eness, decision adap i eness desc ibes a con inuum om low
o high adap i eness. In mos adap a ions, he e is a e e ence o he pas , and in mos
epe i ions, he e is some deg ee o a ia ion (Ba on 1988), wi h a ious deg ees o
adap i eness wi hin he con inuum (S e nbe g e al. 2002).
In hei s udy, Fasolo e al. (2003) show ha indi iduals wi h highe openness o
expe ience and easoning abili ies exhibi mo e adap abili y in hei decision mak-
ing. Since new expe iences gene a e implici knowledge and he easoning abili y
equi es analy ical skills, his inding sugges s ha he adap i eness o decisions can
be concep ualized as independen o hei in ui i eness. The s udy u he e eals
ha be ween-subjec s di e ences in adap i eness emain s able ac oss a ious asks.
This unde lines he impo ance o ma ching he ype o in o ma ion o be p ocessed
wi h he decision s yle in e ms o adap i eness. When he adap i eness o a decision
is low, he decision is me ely a ep oduc ion o p e ious solu ions, i.e. indi iduals
end o make decisions in a epe i i e s yle. In case adap i eness is high, he indi-
idual seeks o c ea i ely de elop new solu ions o mee he ac ual equi emen s o
he decision ask.
We hus assume ha i is no su icien o look a analy ical e sus in ui i e
decision making alone o make claims abou hei ecological a ionali y. F om ou
pe spec i e, indi iduals wi h a highly adap i e decision s yle a e p esumed o align
well wi h asks cha ac e ized by high a iabili y. On he o he hand, indi iduals
wi h a low adap i eness in hei decision s yle a e p esumed o be sui able o asks
cha ac e ized by low a iabili y. This is also in line wi h Pe ow’s amewo k. Fo
him, a iabili y is a lack o s abili y. When a iabili y is high, “con inual adjus men ”
o accomplish asks is necessa y, whe eas asks o low a iabili y “can be ea ed in
a s anda dized [i.e. non-adap i e] ashion” (Pe ow 1967, p. 197).
As a consequence o he pos ula ed independence o he in ui i eness and adap-
i eness o a decision s yle, in ui ion can be a highly adap i e p ocess bu may also
be a ep oduc ion o p e iously acqui ed lea ning pa e ns. This aligns wi h li e a u e
ecognizing ha in ui ion has bo h he capaci y o ep oduce es ablished solu ions
and o syn hesize elemen s o gene a e inno a i e solu ions (Akinci and Sadle -
K
Schmalenbach Jou nal o Business Resea ch (2025) 77:267–308 283
Smi h 2012; Glöckne and Wi eman 2010; Gobe and Chassy 2009; Sleesman e al.
2024). In si ua ions ha a e un amilia and unique, indi iduals wi h an in ui i e, bu
no an adap i e decision s yle may o e ly ely on es ablished solu ions ha wo ked
in he pas bu no longe do. On he o he hand, indi iduals wi h an in ui i e and
adap i e decision s yle may ail o show he necessa y consis ency in asks wi h
low a iabili y. Likewise, an analy ical app oach can consis o bo h he simple ap-
plica ion o exis ing ules (low adap i eness) and he complex ans e o a la ge
amoun o explici in o ma ion o a new si ua ion (high adap i eness). Thus, and
analogously o he amewo ks discussed, ou ypes o decision s yles can be de-
i ed om he wo dimensions o decision in ui i eness and decision adap i eness.
We speci y hese in he ollowing chap e and discuss hem in connec ion wi h he
dimensions o asks, in o ma ion cues and knowledge in oduced in his chap e .
4 Types o Decision S yles and Thei Task-Rela ed E ec i eness
4.1 A Reduc ionis Pe spec i e o Fi
In he ollowing, he a icle de elops a amewo k on decision making ha is in
line wi h he ou lined models o ask cha ac e is ics, in o ma ion cues and knowl-
edge s uc u e. By conside ing pe spec i es on ask cha ac e is ics and knowledge
s uc u e, he amewo k akes in o accoun he demand ha “ he elemen s o a psy-
chological heo y o decision making mus include a conce n o ask s uc u e, he
ep esen a ion o he ask, and he in o ma ion p ocessing capabili ies o he o -
ganism” (Einho n and Hoga h 1981, p. 61). Ou amewo k ollows a educ ionis
pe spec i e o i (as opposed o a holis ic pe spec i e). This pe spec i e is based
on he assump ion ha he i be ween cons uc s (such as in o ma ion cues and
decision s yle) can be concep ualized in e ms o pai wise coalignmen among he
indi idual dimensions o he cons uc s (Venka aman and P esco 1990).
F om he dimensions o decision in ui i eness and adap i eness, we de i e ou
ypes o decision s yles (Sche m e al. 2016): (1) mechanis ic decision s yle (low
adap i eness, low in ui i eness), (2) e idence-based decision s yle (high adap i e-
ness, low in ui i eness), (3) habi ual decision s yle (low adap i eness, high in u-
i i eness), (4) imp o isa ional decision s yle (high adap i eness, high in ui i eness).
In line wi h he pa allel-compe i i e iew, he amewo k assumes ha di e en
ypes o decision s yles d aw on di e en ypes o knowledge. Figu e 2depic s ou
decision s yle amewo k.
In acco dance wi h he discussed amewo ks, he ou ypes a e ea ed as ex-
eme posi ions on a con inuum. In p ac ice, he a ious decision s yles encompass
a spec um ha elies bo h on he analy ic and in ui i e sys ems o di e en ex en s,
esul ing in decisions ha can be cha ac e ized as mo e o less adap i e. Fo ex-
ample, a highly in ui i e decision s yle may s ill conside explici in o ma ion and
p ocess hem holis ically, jus as analy ical decision s yles may conside in ui i e
judgmen s as disc e e a iables and p ocess hem sequen ially (Julmi 2024). As we
will show, each o he ou decision s yles can be aligned wi h di e en deg ees o
unce ain y and equi ocali y. Ou amewo k p o ides insigh s in o hose ask cha -
K
284 Schmalenbach Jou nal o Business Resea ch (2025) 77:267–308
low high
y nia ecn
U
low high
Equi ocali y
Mechanis ic
decision s yle
is based on explici se s o
ules ha co e all po en ial
cases o a decision p oblem
E idence-based
decision s yle
p o icien ly u ilizes explici
knowledge o ecombine
ules in a p oduc i e way
Imp o isa ional
decision s yle
meaning ully links exis ing
pa e ns and uniquely applies
hem o he cu en con ex
Habi ual
decision s yle
elies on implici knowledge
and uses amilia aspec s o
ep oduce pa e ns
Repe i i e decision making
Adap i e decision making
gnikamnoisiced
laci yl
a
nA
In ui i e decision making
Fig. 2 E ec i eness o decision s yles in ela ion o unce ain y and equi ocali y
ac e is ics ha bes sui a speci ic decision s yle (and ice e sa). The cen al idea
unde sco es he impo ance o ensu ing ha decision app oaches align ha moniously
wi h he di e se o ganiza ional con ex s hey aim o se e. We will now discuss he
ou ypes o decision s yle in mo e de ail.
4.2 Mechanis ic Decision S yle
A mechanis ic decision s yle e e s o an app oach o decision making cha ac e ized
by a sys ema ic and ule-based p ocess ha ollows es ablished p ocedu es wi h
minimal de ia ion. Indi iduals inclined owa d his s yle end o s ic ly adhe e
o unequi ocally p ede ined ules, p ocedu es, o algo i hms, and hey “p e e o
wo k unde o ganiza ional a angemen s which ea u e well unde s ood ules, clea
epo ing lines and sho spans o con ol” (Macin osh 1981, p. 40). The s yle is
cha ac e ized by a eliance on explici in o ma ion, ea ed as empla es o decision
making, and in ol es p ocessing a ela i ely low olume o in o ma ion. Those who
lean owa d his s yle ind s anda dized decisions easily manageable, and indi iduals
equipped wi h su icien ask- ela ed explici in o ma ion can eadily make such
decisions. In his sense, he decision making p ocess is mos ly ca ied ou in a manne
akin o a mechanical o p ede e mined sys em.
An example o a mechanis ic decision s yle is obse ed in choices like accep ing
o declining a loan o e , whe e he decision s ages a e well-documen ed and should
be s ic ly ollowed in a eplicable manne , aligning wi h he inhe en p edisposi ion
o indi iduals owa d his p e-s uc u ed decision s yle. Ano he example is wi h-
d awing money a a bank coun e . The bank elle checks whe he he cus ome ’s
accoun balance and c edi a ing a e su icien . I his is he case, he employee
hands o e he money. The ask is easy o lea n and lea es no oom o in e -
p e a ion (Macin osh 1981). The de i a ion o he op imal o de quan i y, which
K
Schmalenbach Jou nal o Business Resea ch (2025) 77:267–308 285
minimizes he p oblem o s ocking oo many o oo ew p oduc s, is also an ins ance
o a se ing ha ma ches a mechanis ic decision s yle. He e, he op imal solu ion
can be unequi ocally de e mined, while esea ch has shown ha in ui i e in en o y
decisions lead o human e o s and biases (Yamini 2021). In such se ings, in ui ion
is an in e io s a egy, which a bes coincides wi h he op imal solu ion.
In sec o s like manu ac u ing, a mechanis ic decision s yle is assumed o be highly
e ec i e. Conside a p oduc ion line whe e asks a e well-de ined, and each s ep is
p e-s uc u ed. Employees ollow s anda dized p ocedu es, elying on explici ules
and clea guidelines. This app oach ensu es e iciency and consis ency in ou pu .
Fo ins ance, in quali y con ol p ocesses, he use o p ede e mined c i e ia and sys-
ema ic checks allows o eliable and eplicable decision making. The mechanis ic
decision s yle’s e ec i eness lies in i s abili y o s eamline ope a ions, minimize
e o s, and main ain a high le el o p edic abili y in ou comes (Choi and Lee 2003).
Mo eo e , in si ua ions equi ing ule adhe ence, he mechanis ic decision s yle
is ideal, pa icula ly o compliance p oblems. Fo ins ance, when o ganiza ions se
clea ules o codes o conduc , indi iduals wi h his decision s yle end o excel.
In such scena ios, whe e he e’s no oom o in e p e a ion o mo al equi ocali y,
his s yle ensu es ha indi iduals con o m o es ablished guidelines e o lessly. Fo
ins ance, legal compliance p og ams bene i om he s aigh o wa d app oach o
his decision s yle, os e ing p edic abili y in employee beha io and add essing
con o mi y challenges associa ed wi h ule compliance (Julmi 2024).
A well-known expe imen al se ing ha ma ches a mechanis ic decision s yle is
he so-called “Linda-p oblem” (T e sky and Kahneman 1983). In he associa ed
expe imen , es pe sons mus decide which o he ollowing wo s a emen s is mo e
p obable: (A) Linda is a bank elle , o (B) Linda is a bank elle and is ac i e in he
eminis mo emen . Al hough he co ec solu ion (A) can be unequi ocally de i ed
om he ule o p obabili y heo y ha a subse canno be mo e likely han a la ge
se ha includes he subse , mos pe sons in ui i ely chose (B). Such a conjunc ion
allacy can also be ound in o ganiza ional se ings. Take, o example, a p ojec
manage who mus assess wo p esen ed po en ial isks associa ed wi h a p oduc
launch: (A) The p oduc launch will ace signi ican supply chain delays, and (B) The
p oduc launch will ace signi ican supply chain delays and inc eased egula o y
sc u iny. Al hough inco ec , he p ojec manage may in ui i ely assess (B) as mo e
p obable because i pain s a mo e i id and comp ehensi e pic u e o po en ial
issues. In such se ings, in ui i e decision s yles a e a misma ch, as in ui i e ou comes
a bes coincide wi h he op imal solu ion.
To summa ize, he mechanis ic decision s yle is assumed o be e ec i e when
bo h unce ain y and equi ocali y a e low. Explici ules, p ocedu es and s anda ds
p o ide a ixed and objec i e body o knowledge which indi iduals can easily lea n
o make p ope decisions. The e is no oom o in e p e a ion. Cause and e ec
ela ions be ween decisions and ou comes a e clea and eliable. As excep ions
occu only occasionally, decisions can be p e-s uc u ed in an easy- o- ollow way.
K
286 Schmalenbach Jou nal o Business Resea ch (2025) 77:267–308
4.3 E idence-Based Decision S yle
Like he mechanis ic decision s yle, he e idence-based decision s yle elies on ex-
plici se s o ules. Howe e , in his decision s yle, hese ules a e no simply ollowed
o make a p e-s uc u ed decision. Ins ead, indi iduals exhibi ing his s yle combine
and connec exis ing ules in an adap i e manne . This adap i e app oach esul s in
decisions ha align wi h exis ing knowledge bu a e unique in hei ecombina ion.
While he indi idual s eps o decision making emain comp ehensible o ou side s,
he app oach showcases he skill ul u iliza ion o a comp ehensi e and domain-
speci ic body o explici knowledge, which is open o u he ex ensions. McI e
e al. (2013, p. 601) cha ac e ize he unde lying knowledge o such an app oach as
“10,000h o s udy”; whe eas he aci ness o seized knowledge is low, “ he amoun
o in o ma ion is as , and new in o ma ion is o en needed bo h o i new wo k
condi ions and o accommoda e excep ions du ing execu ion”.
Aligned wi h Min zbe g’s pe spec i e, he e idence-based decision s yle holds
pa icula signi icance in oles cha ac e ized as “complex, in ol ing di icul , ye
speci ied skills and sophis ica ed eco ded bodies o knowledge—jobs essen ially
p o essional in na u e” (1979, p. 99). These include, o example, doc o s, lawye s
o enginee s. Fu he mo e, he e idence-based decision s yle is in eg al o he con-
empo a y e olu ion o e idence-based managemen , which
is abou making decisions h ough he conscien ious, explici and judicious use
o he bes a ailable e idence om mul iple sou ces by: asking an answe able
ques ion; acqui ing esea ch e idence; app aising he quali y o he e idence;
agg ega ing he e idence; applying he e idence in decision making, and as-
sessing he ou comes o he p e ious s eps (Rynes and Ba unek 2017, p. 239).
P o essional jobs, as de ined by Min zbe g, necessi a e a p edominan eliance on
analysis. The complex and specialized na u e o hese oles demands a sys ema ic
app oach o p oblem-sol ing, wi h igo ous analysis aking he lead. While in u-
i ion may ha e a suppo i e ole, i should be conside ed a supplemen a he han
a p ima y d i e . The in icacies o p o essional jobs unde sco e he impo ance
o p ecision and eliabili y ha analy ical me hods b ing. Simul aneously, adap i e
decision making becomes impe a i e, accommoda ing he unique demands o each
si ua ion.
Da (2021) con ends ha asks in enginee ing and accoun ing, despi e hei high
a ie y, also exhibi high analyzabili y, allowing o sys ema ic b eakdown in o man-
ageable componen s. E en hough enginee ing and accoun ing asks may in ol e
a wide ange o elemen s, hey s ill allow o sys ema ic analysis and can be ap-
p oached me hodically. Fo example, in enginee ing, designing a complex sys em
may in ol e a ious componen s, each wi h unique ea u es. Despi e his a ie y, en-
ginee s can apply analy ical me hods o b eak down he design p ocess in o speci ic
s eps, ensu ing a sys ema ic app oach o p oblem-sol ing. Simila ly, in accoun ing,
inancial ansac ions and s a emen s can a y in complexi y and na u e. Despi e his
a iabili y, accoun an s can employ analy ical amewo ks and s anda dized p oce-
du es o analyze and p ocess inancial da a sys ema ically, main aining a s uc u ed
and o ganized app oach o hei asks. In such asks, analy ical me hods p o ide
K
Schmalenbach Jou nal o Business Resea ch (2025) 77:267–308 287
a sys ema ic and objec i e amewo k o b eaking down complex p oblems in o
manageable s eps. This sys ema ic analysis ensu es a ho ough unde s anding o un-
de lying con ingencies and in e ac ions, educing he eliance on subjec i e judgmen
o in ui ion. In con as , an in ui i e app oach may lack he p ecision and s uc u ed
p ocess needed o handle he di e se elemen s and in icacies in ol ed in hese asks.
The e o e, an analy ical app oach is conside ed mo e app op ia e o main aining
accu acy and eliabili y in decision making wi hin he ealms o enginee ing and
accoun ing. A he same ime, adap i e decision making is a o ed o e epe i i e
decision making because o he high a ie y inhe en in hese asks. Adap abili y
enables p o essionals o add ess he di e se and e ol ing na u e o challenges in
enginee ing and accoun ing, accommoda ing changes in ci cums ances o unique
aspec s o each si ua ion. This lexibili y is c ucial o na iga ing he complexi ies
o asks ha in ol e a b oad ange o elemen s, making adap i e decision making
mo e e ec i e han a igid, epe i i e app oach.
Building upon hese a gumen s, we posi ha e idence-based decision s yles
demons a e e ec i eness in si ua ions cha ac e ized by high unce ain y bu low
equi ocali y. In high unce ain y scena ios, whe e excep ions a e equen and ask-
ele an in o ma ion unde goes cons an change, an adap i e app oach ha enews
and ecombines in o ma ion is c ucial. In such con ex s, mechanis ic decision s yles
a e expec ed o be ine ec i e, as hei igidi y hinde s he p ocessing o new in o ma-
ion and adap a ion o a dynamic en i onmen . Howe e , e ec i eness is a ibu ed
o e idence-based decision s yles only when, in addi ion, equi ocali y is low. In
con ex s whe e mul iple o con lic ing in e p e a ions a e possible, p ima ily ely-
ing on explici and unequi ocal in o ma ion becomes p oblema ic. This is because,
in si ua ions open o a ious alid in e p e a ions, a o ing one in e p e a ion o e
equally alid al e na i es can dis o he decision ask.
4.4 Habi ual Decision S yle
In he habi ual decision s yle, indi iduals exhibi a p e e ence o elying on im-
plici knowledge and making decisions based on well-es ablished pa e ns ing ained
h ough expe ience. The decision-make adep ly eplica es pa e ns om ea lie si -
ua ions, seamlessly applying hem in he cu en con ex . Decisions e o lessly
eme ge om implici knowledge, allowing o ins an esponses wi hou he need o
addi ional in o ma ion. Wi h a ocus on amilia i y a he han uniqueness, indi id-
uals emb acing his s yle con iden ly lean on ing ained habi s and pas expe iences
o guide hei decisions. Because simila decisions ha e been made o e and o e
again in he pas , hey can be execu ed in an au oma ic ashion ha is beyond con-
scious con ol (Be sch 2008). Al hough he unde lying knowledge is mos ly aci ,
i can be acqui ed “by ec ea ing and ehea sing he expe iences needed o gain
his know-how. Lea ning akes place by doing and is based on expe iencing wha
wo ks and wha doesn’ and ec ea ing ac i i ies h ough epe i ion” (McI e e al.
2013, p. 601). Fo example, he decisions o ashion e aile s abou how o deal wi h
cus ome s a e supposed o be highly epe i i e, bu should mos ly ely on acqui ed
implici knowledge ha includes he ecogni ion o he cus ome s’ iden i ica ion
K
288 Schmalenbach Jou nal o Business Resea ch (2025) 77:267–308
wi h a b and and a quali a i e unde s anding o hei associa ed li es yle (Cu che
and Ach el 2017).
The no ion o in ui ion as habi s la gely s ems om Simon, ecognizing he alue
o habi ual pa e ns in decision making (Simon 1987,1997). Fo Simon, in ui ion
“enables he expe ’s apid ecogni ion o and esponse o si ua ions ha a e ma ked
by amilia cues, and he eby gi e access o la ge bodies o knowledge assembled
h ough aining and expe ience” (Simon 1997, p. 331). F om his pe spec i e, habi
becomes in e nalized h ough epea ed expe ience, mani es ing as unconscious and
au oma ic esponses o si ua ional cues.
Da (2021) p o ides se e al examples o asks wi h low a iabili y and low an-
alyzabili y ha ma ch an habi ual decision s yle: S eel u nace enginee s pe sis in
blending s eel elying on in ui ion and expe ience; pa e n make s in enowned ash-
ion houses like Louis Vui on o Za a adep ly ans o m ough designe ske ches in o
ma ke able ga men s; eams o w i e s o ele ision se ies such as Game o Th ones
o This is Us skill ully ansla e concep ual ideas in o compelling s o ylines. These
asks in ol e a no able deg ee o equi ocali y, sugges ing a lack o clea , objec i e
in o ma ion o p ede e mined p ocedu es. While hese asks may no be inhe en ly
associa ed wi h unce ain y in he adi ional sense, hei equi ocal na u e equi es
a decision making app oach ha leans owa ds in ui ion a he han s ic analysis.
Gi en he equi ocal na u e o hese asks, an in ui i e decision making app oach
becomes essen ial. This app oach elies on he aci knowledge and expe ience o
indi iduals in ol ed in hese c ea i e p ocesses. Fu he mo e, a epe i i e decision
s yle, a he han an adap i e one, is sui able o such asks. In con as , an adap i e
decision s yle may in oduce a iabili y ha could comp omise he eliabili y and
consis ency equi ed in hese p ocesses. Repe i ion, based on accumula ed knowl-
edge and success ul pas p ac ices, p o ides a s able ounda ion o decision making
in hese asks, making a a he epe i i e s yle mo e a o able o achie ing consis-
en and success ul ou comes.
The e o e, ou amewo k sugges s ha he habi ual decision s yle is e ec i e
when unce ain y is low, bu equi ocali y is high. Due o he low unce ain y, he
indi idual wi h such a decision s yle can easily all back on p e ious expe ience. The
con ex emains s able, so he e is no need o al e ou ines o conside new aspec s.
A he same ime, he si ua ion is ill-s uc u ed and can ha dly be o malized. The
decision make hus equen ly aces in o ma ion cues ha a e equi ocal and need
o be adequa ely in e p e ed in a holis ic manne .
4.5 Imp o isa ional Decision S yle
An imp o isa ional decision s yle is cha ac e ized by i s adap abili y, c ea i i y, and
he abili y o make apid decisions in messy and unp edic able si ua ions. Decision-
make s u ilizing his s yle emb ace equi ocali y and a e com o able na iga ing un-
ce ain y. This decision making app oach elies on he indi idual’s expe ience and
in ui ion, allowing o spon aneous solu ions wi hou s ic adhe ence o p ede e -
mined ules, ex ensi e planning, o habi ual pa e ns.
We use he e m imp o isa ional decision s yle o conside adap i e aspec s o
in ui ion in decision making. This is in line wi h he li e a u e iewing in ui ion as
K
Schmalenbach Jou nal o Business Resea ch (2025) 77:267–308 289
a de ining aspec o imp o isa ion (Fishe and Ba e 2019; Leybou ne and Sadle -
Smi h 2006; Mülle 2011; Roux-Du o and Vidaille 2003). Fo example, Ha ch
de ines imp o isa ion as “in ui ion guiding ac ion upon some hing in a spon aneous
bu his o ically con ex ualized way” (Ha ch 1997, p. 181). In imp o isa ion, he
decision make p ocesses implici in o ma ion in an adap i e way. The ocus is on
knowledge abou how o ind unique solu ions in he sense o “imp o isa o y ca-
pabili ies” (Leybou ne and Sadle -Smi h 2006, p. 483), as opposed o exploi ing
exis ing knowledge in he habi ual decision s yle. Simila ly, schola s d aw dis inc-
ions be ween echnical c a and c ea i e c a . Technical c a p ima ily elies on
app en iced know-how, e lec ing a habi ual decision s yle, while c ea i e c a leans
mo e on alen and adap i i y, aiming o excep ional ou comes and embodying an
imp o isa ional decision s yle (K oezen e al. 2021).
An ins ance whe e he imp o isa ional decision s yle is pa icula ly sui able in
o ganiza ions is c isis managemen . In si ua ions ma ked by high equi ocali y, whe e
he eali y o a c isis can be apidly shi ing and challenging o de ine, and in he ace
o unce ain y, whe e he un olding e en s a e unknown and unp edic able, decision-
make s need o adap swi ly. Fo example, du ing a cybe secu i y b each o a na u al
disas e , he inhe en mul i ace edness and unp edic abili y demand an imp o isa-
ional app oach. Indi iduals employing his decision s yle can na iga e h ough he
equi ocali y and unce ain y by elying on hei expe ience and in ui ion. Howe e ,
hey a e also capable o c ea i ely o mula ing on- he-spo solu ions, acknowledging
ha he eali y o he c isis migh e ol e apidly, and s ic adhe ence o p ede ined
ules o de ailed planning may no align wi h he dynamic na u e o he un olding
e en s. The adap abili y and com o wi h equi ocali y in he imp o isa ional deci-
sion s yle make i pa icula ly e ec i e in managing c ises whe e he unknown and
apidly changing ci cums ances equi e quick and c ea i e esponses.
The amewo k om McI e e al. indica es ha he imp o isa ional decision
s yle may be ese ed o indi iduals wi h unique alen , such as scien i ic geniuses
o amous a is s. They p o ide he example o “compe en leade s who know in-
s inc i ely how o di use dys unc ional con lic while main aining eamwo k and
collabo a i e ela ionships” (McI e e al. 2012, p. 96). We may no ully endo se
ha iewpoin , bu we ecognize ha achie ing e ec i eness in an imp o isa ional
decision s yle o en demands an in ui i e mas e y. On he one hand, exis ing pa e ns
a e meaning ully linked and applied o he cu en con ex in a unique way. On he
o he hand, new expe iences lead o new pa e ns ha may e en con adic exis ing
pa e ns. In nego ia ions, o example, he pa ies y o iden i y amilia pa e ns,
while a he same ime hese a e ela ed o he ac ual si ua ion in a lexible way,
since he mo i es and in en ions o he o he s a e p ecisely no appa en om wha
has been explici ly s a ed.
We p opose ha he imp o isa ional decision s yle is e ec i e in a con ex ha is
unp edic ably equi ocal (Col ille e al. 2012). As excep ions equen ly occu , i is
no su icien o ep oduce p e ious solu ions. A habi ual decision s yle neglec s he
changing and new aspec s o he decision making con ex , ea ing new p oblems
wi h old solu ions ha wo ked in he pas bu no longe do (B unsson and B un-
sson 2017). Al hough habi ual decision making is as and e o less, i can be qui e
maladap i e (Alaybek e al. 2022). An e idence-based decision s yle should be ine -
K
290 Schmalenbach Jou nal o Business Resea ch (2025) 77:267–308
ec i e as well because i is based on explici ac s ha do no co espond o he ill-
s uc u ed na u e o he ask. Only an imp o isa ional decision s yle mee s he ask-
ela ed equi emen o conside new solu ions in a holis ic and con ex -sensi i e way.
Howe e , while he imp o isa ional decision s yle o e s agili y and adap abili y, i
may no be sui able o all si ua ions, pa icula ly hose equi ing a mo e s uc u ed
o e idence-based app oach. The e ec i eness o his s yle depends on he decision
ask and he decision-make ’s abili y o na iga e complexi y while emb acing he
spon anei y inhe en in he decision making p ocess.
5 Illus a ion o he F amewo k Th ough Fou Mini Case S udies
To illus a e he p oposed i be ween decision s yles and ask cha ac e is ics, his
chap e p esen s ou p o o ypical asks, each co esponding o one decision s yle in
ou amewo k in e ms o e ec i eness.
5.1 Case 1: The Compliance Task
S . Al onzo In es men s, a leading inancial se ices i m, places a high p io i y on
adhe ence o compliance p inciples. Due o he sensi i e na u e o inancial ans-
ac ions and he egula o y en i onmen , ensu ing compliance wi h es ablished ules
and egula ions is c i ical. To s eamline his p ocess, he company has a dedica ed
compliance ask o ce ha e iews and app o es all ansac ions. The compliance
ask in ol es e iewing inancial ansac ions o ensu e hey adhe e o egula o y e-
qui emen s and in e nal company policies. The ask equi es p ecision, consis ency,
and a s ic adhe ence o p ede ined ules and p ocedu es. Any de ia ion om hese
ules can esul in se e e penal ies o he company.
In such an en i onmen , he mechanis ic decision s yle p o es o be he mos
e ec i e. The na u e o compliance asks demands s ic adhe ence o p ede ined
ules o ensu e accu acy and consis ency. A sys ema ic and ule-based app oach
minimizes e o s and ensu es ha all ansac ions mee he equi ed compliance
s anda ds. While he e idence-based s yle b ings aluable adap abili y and con ex
conside a ion, i in oduces a iabili y and can be ime-consuming. The habi ual
s yle, al hough as , lacks he necessa y accu acy and consis ency, making i less
sui able o asks equi ing s ic compliance. In en i onmen s whe e adhe ence o
compliance p inciples is c i ical, a mechanis ic decision s yle is he mos e ec i e
app oach. This s yle ensu es ha all egula o y and policy equi emen s a e me icu-
lously ollowed, he eby sa egua ding he o ganiza ion agains po en ial compliance
b eaches.
5.2 Case 2: The Accoun ing Task
Apos ophe Wo ldwide, a la ge mul ina ional company, deals wi h a wide ange o
inancial ansac ions and s a emen s ha a y g ea ly in complexi y and na u e. This
a iabili y in oduces a high le el o unce ain y, bu he unde lying inancial p in-
ciples and egula o y equi emen s emain clea and well-de ined. To handle hese
K
Schmalenbach Jou nal o Business Resea ch (2025) 77:267–308 297
as , hwa ing heu is ic impulses and emb acing cogni i e con lic when making
decisions was shown o educe cogni i e bias.
Beyond heu is ic p ocessing, esea ch has only ecen ly s a ed o iden i y cases in
which cogni i e biases a e caused by analy ical hinking (Ayal e al. 2015; Macphe -
son and S ano ich 2007; Rusou e al. 2013; Wong e al. 2008), al hough “ he e is
ample e idence o show ha e en e o ul, pe sis en , and highly conscious and
con olled a emp s o sol e logical p oblems can p oduce s ong biases” (Fiedle
and . Sydow 2015, p. 154). A p o o ypical example o an analysis bias is wha
Ha is and Tayle (2019) ha e labeled he su oga ion sna e. The e m su oga ion
e e s o he endency o cogni i ely eplace s a egy wi h me ics. As a esul , peo-
ple lose sigh o he company’s s a egy and ins ead ocus on he me ics designed
o ep esen i . Whils his c ea es analy ical cla i y, he holis ic iew o he s a egy
ge s los . Ma ch (1978, p. 603) has al eady poin ed ou ha his is p oblema ic:
Whe e con adic ion and con usion a e essen ial elemen s o he alues, p e-
cision mis ep esen s hem. The mo e p ecise he measu e o pe o mance, he
g ea e he mo i a ion o ind ways o sco ing well on he measu emen index
wi hou ega d o he unde lying goals. And p ecision in objec i es does no
allow c ea i e in e p e a ion o wha he goal migh mean.
To p e en su oga ion, Ha is and Tayle (2019) ecommend loosening he con-
nec ion be ween me ics and incen i es, employing mul iple me ics, and in ol ing
indi iduals in s a egy o mula ion. In ou in e p e a ion, o mi iga e cogni i e bias,
hey p opose main aining equi ocali y o allow o a mo e imp o isa ional and,
consequen ly, mo e e ec i e engagemen wi h he s a egy.
In gene al, ou amewo k allows ecognizing cons ella ions in which an ana-
ly ical app oach is exposed o an inc eased isk o cogni i e biases compa ed o
an in ui i e one. In examining habi ual and imp o isa ional decision s yles and he
p o o ypical cases 3 and 4 ( e ail ask and c isis managemen ask), we ha e gi en
se e al examples whe e an analy ical app oach is ine ec i e and, in his sense, sub-
jec o g ea e cogni i e bias when compa ed o an in ui i e app oach. In his way,
he assump ions o he amewo k oppose he belie ha sys ema ic e o s only occu
when people make in ui i e decisions (ins ead o analy ic ones).
Ne e heless, he e ec i eness o habi ual and imp o isa ional decision s yles
wa an close examina ion, as decision e ec i eness in condi ions o high equi -
ocali y depends no only on he deg ee o in ui i eness bu also on he deg ee o
adap i eness. Fo example, he su oga ion sna e highligh s a cogni i e bias ha
may eme ge ei he h ough analy ical decision making o in ui i e decision making
cha ac e ized by low adap i eness. While exis ing esea ch has ex ensi ely ca a-
loged cogni i e biases ied o in ui i e decision making (see, o example, Kahne-
man 2011), we ad oca e o u u e s udies o wo k on a compa able axonomy o
cogni i e biases associa ed wi h he sho comings o analy ical decision making.
Howe e , such e o s should also accoun o he le el o unce ain y in asks, em-
phasizing he ole o adap i eness as a c i ical ac o in luencing whe he a decision
s yle is likely o cause cogni i e biases o no . In some asks, a habi ual decision
s yle may be mo e likely o cause cogni i e bias as compa ed o an imp o isa ional
decision s yle, and ice e sa. I is he e o e no su icien o compa e an in ui i e
K
298 Schmalenbach Jou nal o Business Resea ch (2025) 77:267–308
and an analy ic decision s yle in a gi en ask wi hou e e ence o decision s yle’s
adap i eness.
6.3 Tes ing, Enhancing and Applying he F amewo k
Wi h ou wo k, we call on u u e esea ch o empi ically es he p edic ions o ou
amewo k. In pa icula , we u ge esea che s o in es iga e he ela i e e ec i eness
o he ou decision s yles unde a ying le els o unce ain y and equi ocali y. In
addi ion, he concep ualiza ion o ou amewo k gi es ise o u he in e es ing
esea ch ques ions. As we ha e ou lined ea lie , ou amewo k p oposes wo key
s a egies o ensu ing decision making e ec i eness. The i s s a egy in ol es
selec ing indi iduals whose decision s yle and co esponding knowledge base sui s
he demands o a pa icula ask. This app oach ocuses on iden i ying people whose
endencies, expe ise, and cogni i e pa e ns align wi h he equi emen s o a ask.
The second s a egy in ol es adap ing a pe son’s decision s yle so i aligns mo e
closely wi h he needs o he ask, an app oach ha can be acili a ed h ough
aining p og ams, men o ship, o s uc u ed eedback loops. Al hough his ou e
may equi e a g ea e in es men o ime and esou ces, i enables o ganiza ions o
de elop in e nal alen and os e e sa ili y among eam membe s. Wi hin hese wo
b oad s a egies, esea ch could examine he o ganiza ional and con ex ual condi ions
unde which i is mo e p uden o selec an indi idual wi h a p eexis ing s yle sui ed
o he ask e sus a emp ing o adap someone al eady in place. This migh in ol e
assessing he ex en o which u gency, aining cos s, and an indi idual’s inhe en
adap abili y in luence he likelihood o success ul ou comes.
An addi ional a ea o u u e esea ch conce ns he a iabili y in indi iduals’ de-
cision s yle p e e ences. While some indi iduals s ongly a o a single decision
making app oach, o he s display g ea e lexibili y, using mul iple s yles o show-
ing no dominan p e e ence. In wo ecen s udies, Bakken e al. (2024) ound ha
indi iduals who s ongly a o ed ei he an in ui i e o an analy ic cogni i e s yle
we e ou pe o med by hose who held a s ong p e e ence o bo h s yles o hose
wi h no clea p e e ence o ei he . Howe e , hese s udies p ima ily ocus on he
in ui i e–analy ic dis inc ion. Ex ending his pe spec i e, ou amewo k allows o
a b oade examina ion o decision making e ec i eness ac oss a ious s yles. Such
in es iga ions p omise o p o ide a mo e comp ehensi e unde s anding o how mul-
iple decision s yles in e ac and in luence ask pe o mance.
Mo eo e , we would like o b ie ly discuss a ask ype o , mo e p ecisely, a p ob-
lem ype ha ex ends ou amewo ks scope: wicked p oblems. The e m ‘wicked
p oblem’ in manage ial decision making is de ined as a complex, in ac able chal-
lenge ha de ies adi ional p oblem-sol ing app oaches (Hoga h 2001; McMillan
and O e all 2016). The dis inc i e cha ac e is ic o wicked p oblems wi h ega d o
ou amewo k is ha he le el o unce ain y is so high ha i me ges wi h equi ocal-
i y, blu ing hei dis inc ion (Julmi 2024). Acco ding o Raadschelde s and Whe sell
(2018, p. 1132), wicked p oblems “a e unique, in ol e many di e en s akehold-
e s, conce n issues o which he causes a e unce ain, and can only be esol ed
pa ially and empo a ily since changing ime and con ex will demand con inuous
adap a ion o policy”. Adequa e coping wi h wicked p oblems in ol es conside ing
K
Schmalenbach Jou nal o Business Resea ch (2025) 77:267–308 299
he b oade social-ecological con ex , co-e olu iona y dynamics, and ans o ma i e
change, a he han ocusing solely on decision making e ec i eness (G ewa sch
e al. 2023). While he e is no doub ha a decision s yle sui able o wicked p ob-
lems should be cha ac e ized by high adap i eness, he ques ion o a sui able deg ee
o in ui i eness canno be answe ed unambiguously om he amewo k. In line wi h
Julmi’s (2024) a gumen s, we assume ha elying solely on in ui ion is ine ec i e
in wicked p oblems, as he p oblem- ele an en i onmen lacks adequa e alidi y.
Tha is, he en i onmen lacks he necessa y causal and s a is ical s uc u e, p e en -
ing he p o ision o ep esen a i e se s o cases essen ial o he de elopmen o
in ui i e skills (Kahneman and Klein 2009). Con e sely, an excess o uno ganized
explici in o ma ion could po en ially o e load he in o ma ion p ocessing capaci y
o he analy ical sys em, necessi a ing a holis ic app oach o in o ma ion p ocess-
ing (P e z 2011). Mo eo e , in wicked p oblems, “ he e a e no ‘solu ions’ in he
sense o de ini e and objec i e answe s” (Ri el and Webbe 1973, p. 155). Wicked
p oblems o en demand in e p e i e e alua ions and an in eg a ed conside a ion o
a ious in e p e a ions, unde sco ing he ongoing signi icance o adap i e in ui ion
in assessing such complex issues. Hence, i appea s ha nei he a s ic ly e idence-
based no an en i ely imp o isa ional decision s yle p o es e ec i e in handling
wicked p oblems. Ra he , a blend o adap i e analysis and adap i e in ui ion seems
essen ial o some ex en . Fu u e esea ch could in es iga e how bo h e idence-based
and imp o isa ional decision s yles pe o m in ackling wicked p oblems o expand
ou amewo k by p oposing a new hyb id s yle ha me ges he wo.
Al hough we posi ion ou wo k as a heo e ical con ibu ion o esea ch, we also
ecognize i s signi ican p ac ical ele ance. Fi s , ou amewo k p o ides a s uc-
u ed app oach o de e mining how a speci ic decision ask should be e ec i ely
app oached. To de e mine he s uc u e o a ask, manage s could apply speci ic c i-
e ia o assess he deg ees o unce ain y and equi ocali y inhe en in a ask. Fo in-
s ance, McCaskey (1982) o e s a se o indica o s ha can help e alua e a p oblem’s
le el o equi ocali y, such as he p esence o mul iple o con lic ing in e p e a ions
o he same in o ma ion o ambigui y ega ding he na u e o he p oblem i sel . By
applying hese c i e ia, manage s can enhance he e ec i eness o decision making
p ocesses, bo h p oac i ely and e ospec i ely, ensu ing decisions a e be e aligned
wi h he na u e o he ask (Julmi 2018). Second, he amewo k can also se e as
a aluable s a ing ool by helping o ganiza ions align indi iduals wi h asks ha
ma ch hei capabili ies and decision s yles. By assessing an indi idual’s capaci ies,
knowledge, and p e e ed decision s yle, o ganiza ions can ensu e ha each ask is
assigned o pe sonnel equipped o handle i e ec i ely and con iden ly. This a ge ed
alignmen can lead o mo e success ul ask comple ion and enhanced o ganiza ional
pe o mance. Thi d, ou amewo k d aws a en ion o he de elopmen o implici
knowledge and s a egies o managing equi ocali y o imp o ing in ui i e decision
making. P ac i ione s can enhance implici knowledge h ough hands-on expe ience
and on- he-job lea ning (Salas e al. 2010). Fu he mo e, hey can imp o e hei abil-
i y o handle equi ocali y h ough aining in ambigui y ole ance (Neill and Rose
2007), mind ulness, and bo h/and hinking (Smi h e al. 2012). In ligh o hese
p ac ical implica ions, u u e esea ch could expand on hese poin s by de eloping
a mo e de ailed and nuanced me hodology o applying ou amewo k in o ganiza-
K
300 Schmalenbach Jou nal o Business Resea ch (2025) 77:267–308
ional se ings. Such ad ancemen s would u he b idge he gap be ween heo e ical
insigh s and p ac ical u ili y, enhancing he amewo k’s ele ance and applicabili y
in eal-wo ld con ex s.
7Conclusion
Ou amewo k implies ha unce ain y alone is no a p edic o o he e ec i eness
o a decision s yle ha is high in in ui i eness. Ins ead, he e ec i eness o such
a s yle is ied o equi ocali y. In unanalyzable decision asks, he indi idual is con-
on ed wi h equi ocal cues ha call o an in ui i e app oach building on implici
in o ma ion p ocessing. This is consis en wi h Dane and P a ’s (2007) p oposi ion
ha he ela ionship be ween unce ain y and in ui ion e ec i eness is media ed by
he s uc u edness o he ask as he la e is associa ed wi h equi ocali y he e. The
mo e he decision make is con on ed wi h equi ocal cues, he less he ask can
be sol ed analy ically, and he mo e in ui ion becomes e ec i e. In con as , a deci-
sion s yle ha is low in in ui i eness is assumed o be p e e able when unce ain y
is unequi ocal. Howe e , when unce ain y and equi ocali y co-occu , in o ma ion
p ocessing equi emen s ma ch wi h he imp o isa ional decision s yle which is bo h
adap i e and in ui i e.
The a icle has shown ha he dis inc ion be ween unce ain y and equi ocal-
i y is c ucial in assessing he app op ia eness o ei he an in ui i e o an analy ic
app oach. Fu he mo e, i highligh s ha he e is no a single in ui i e o analy ic
s yle; ins ead, i is essen ial o also conside he ex en o which he decision s yle in
ques ion exhibi s adap i eness. Thus, he in oduced amewo k is designed o help
esea che s assess he e ec i eness o decision s yles in a speci ic ask. F om ou
poin o iew, he p esen ed app oach has a high explana o y powe wi h espec
o he inconsis ency o e ec i eness unde unce ain y ou lined a he beginning.
Fo example, he in ui i e biases obse ed by Kahneman and T e sky (1973)in he
con ex o unce ain y can be explained by he ac ha he au ho s ocus on well-
s uc u ed asks whe e he e is an unequi ocal co ec solu ion (i.e. equi ocali y is
low). Acco dingly, a mechanis ic decision s yle would be assumed o be mo e e -
ec i e compa ed o decision s yles wi h a high deg ee o in ui i eness. In he case
o clinical decisions conside ed by Hall (2002), we assume ha clinical p ac ice is
p o essional in he sense Min zbe g p oposed. We he e o e hypo hesize ha , despi e
high unce ain y, he e is li le equi ocali y and clinical decisions ma ches wi h an
e idence-based decision s yle. In con as , hose app oaches ha iew in ui ion as
bene icial in he p esence o unce ain y conside si ua ions cha ac e ized by bo h
high unce ain y and high equi ocali y.
In he end, we also see a p ac ical alue in ou heo e ical a gumen s. In o ga-
niza ions, in ui ion s ill lacks legi imacy compa ed o analysis. To gain o main ain
legi imacy, decision make s o en ha e o a ionalize hei in ui i e decisions pos -
hoc. As B unsson and B unsson (2017, p. 65) pu i : “We e decision make s o e e
o hei in ui ion o hei eelings, hey would p obably be g ee ed wi h ei he com-
passion o con emp ”. Bu when e en success ul en ep eneu s like Je Besos o
S e e Jobs ha e epea edly emphasized he unique alue o in ui ion, why should in-
K
Schmalenbach Jou nal o Business Resea ch (2025) 77:267–308 301
ui ion no be a legi ima e way o making decisions wi hin o ganiza ions in p ac ice?
To suppo his hough , ou amewo k allows decision make s and o ganiza ions
o analy ically jus i y he e ec i eness o in ui ion.
Acknowledgemen s Many hanks o Ewald Sche m and Flo ian Lindne o hei in aluable con ibu ions
h ough coun less, ye always ui ul discussions on in ui ion e ec i eness and o hei pi o al ole in
de eloping he decision s yle amewo k. His bea e!
Funding This esea ch did no ecei e any speci ic g an om unding agencies in he public, comme cial,
o no - o -p o i sec o s.
A ailabili y o da a and ma e ials No applicable.
Decla a ions
Con lic o in e es C. Julmi decla es no con lic o inancial o non- inancial in e es s ha a e di ec ly o
indi ec ly ela ed o he wo k.
E hical s anda ds E hics app o al and consen o pa icipa e: No applicable. Consen o publica ion:
No applicable.
Open Access This a icle is licensed unde a C ea i e Commons A ibu ion 4.0 In e na ional License,
which pe mi s use, sha ing, adap a ion, dis ibu ion and ep oduc ion in any medium o o ma , as long as
you gi e app op ia e c edi o he o iginal au ho (s) and he sou ce, p o ide a link o he C ea i e Com-
mons licence, and indica e i changes we e made. The images o o he hi d pa y ma e ial in his a icle
a e included in he a icle’s C ea i e Commons licence, unless indica ed o he wise in a c edi line o he
ma e ial. I ma e ial is no included in he a icle’s C ea i e Commons licence and you in ended use is no
pe mi ed by s a u o y egula ion o exceeds he pe mi ed use, you will need o ob ain pe mission di ec ly
om he copy igh holde . To iew a copy o his licence, isi h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.
0/.
Re e ences
Adinol i, Paola. 2021. A jou ney a ound decision-making: Sea ching o he “big pic u e” ac oss disci-
plines. Eu opean Managemen Jou nal 39(1):9–21.
Adinol i, Paola, and F ancesca Loia. 2022. In ui ion as eme gence: B idging psychology, philosophy and
o ganiza ional science. F on ie s in Psychology 12:787428.
Adje id, Id is, Co ey M. Angs , Sa De a aj, and Nicholas Be en e. 2023. Does analy ics help esol e
equi ocali y in he heal hca e con ex ? Con as ing he e ec s o analyzabili y and di e en ia ion.
Jou nal o he Associa ion o In o ma ion Sys ems 24(3):882–911.
Ago , Wes on H. 1986. The logic o in ui ion: how op execu i es make impo an decisions. O ganiza-
ional Dynamics 14(3):5–18.
Akinci, Cinla, and Eugene Sadle -Smi h. 2012. In ui ion in managemen esea ch: a his o ical e iew.
In e na ional Jou nal o Managemen Re iews 14(1):104–122.
Alaybek, Balca, Yi Wang, S. Dalal Reeshad, Saman ha Dub ow, and Louis S.G. Boeme man. 2022. The
ela ions o e lec i e and in ui i e hinking s yles wi h ask pe o mance: a me a-analysis. Pe sonnel
Psychology 75(2):295–319.
Alós-Fe e , Ca los, and F i z S ack. 2014. F om dual p ocesses o mul iple sel es: Implica ions o eco-
nomic beha io . Jou nal o Economic Psychology 41:1–11.
Ayal, Shaha , Zoha Rusou, Dan Zakay, and Guy Hochman. 2015. De e minan s o judgmen and decision
making quali y: he in e play be ween in o ma ion p ocessing s yle and si ua ional ac o s. F on ie s
in Psychology 6:1088.
Bakken, Bjø n T., Ma hias Hansson, and Tho ald Hæ em. 2024. Challenging he doc ine o “non-dis-
ce ning” decision-making: in es iga ing he in e ac ion e ec s o cogni i e s yles. Jou nal o Occu-
pa ional and O ganiza ional Psychology 97(1):209–232.
K
302 Schmalenbach Jou nal o Business Resea ch (2025) 77:267–308
Baldacchino, Leonie, Deniz Ucbasa an, Lau e Caban ous, and Andy Locke . 2015. En ep eneu ship e-
sea ch on in ui ion: a c i ical analysis and esea ch agenda. In e na ional Jou nal o Managemen
Re iews 17(2):212–231.
Baldacchino, Leonie, Deniz Ucbasa an, and Lau e Caban ous. 2023. Linking expe ience o in ui ion and
cogni i e e sa ili y in new en u e idea ion: a dual-p ocess pe spec i e. Jou nal o Managemen
S udies 60(5):1105–1146.
Ba on, F ank. 1988. Pu ing c ea i i y o wo k. In The na u e o c ea i i y: con empo a y psychological
pe spec i es, ed. Robe J. S e nbe g, 76–98. Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess.
Baze man, Max H., and Dan A. Moo e. 2012. Judgmen in manage ial decision making, 8 h edn., Chich-
es e : Wiley.
Benne , Robe H. 1998. The impo ance o aci knowledge in s a egic delibe a ions and decisions. Man-
agemen Decision 36(9):589–597.
Be sch, Tilmann. 2008. The na u e o in ui ion and i s neglec in esea ch on judgemen and decision
making. In In ui ion in judgemen and decision making, ed. Henning Plessne , Co nelia Be sch, and
Tilmann Be sch, 3–22. New Yo k, London: E lbaum.
Be sch, Tilmann, and And eas Glöckne . 2010. In ui ion in judgmen and decision making: ex ensi e hink-
ing wi hou e o . Psychological Inqui y 21(4):279–294.
B own, John S., and Paul Duguid. 2001. Knowledge and o ganiza ion: a social-p ac ice pe spec i e. O -
ganiza ion Science 12(2):198–213.
B unsson, Ka in, and Nils B unsson. 2017. Decisions: he complexi ies o indi idual and o ganiza ional
decision-making. Chel enham: Edwa d Elga .
Bullini O landi, Ludo ico, and Paul Pie ce. 2020. Analysis o in ui ion? Re aming he decision-making
s yles deba e in echnological se ings. Managemen Decision 58(1):129–145.
Caban ous, Lau e, and Jean-Pascal Gond. 2011. Ra ional decision making as pe o ma i e p axis: explain-
ing a ionali y’s É e nel Re ou . O ganiza ion Science 22(3):573–586.
Calab e a, Giulia, Ge da Gemse , and Nachoem M. Wijnbe g. 2017. The in e play be ween in u-
i ion and a ionali y in s a egic decision making: a pa adox pe spec i e. O ganiza ion S udies
38(3–4):365–401.
Ca son, S ephen J., Anoop Madhok, and Tao Wu. 2006. Unce ain y, oppo unism, and go e nance: he
e ec s o ola ili y and ambigui y on o mal and ela ional con ac ing. Academy o Managemen
Jou nal 49(5):1058–1077.
Cha e , Nick, Teppo Felin, Da id C. Funde , Ge d Gige enze , Jan J. Koende ink, Joachim I. K uege , De-
nis Noble, Samuel A. No dli, Mike Oaks o d, Ba y Schwa z, Kei h E. S ano ich, and Pe e M. Todd.
2018. Mind, a ionali y, and cogni ion: an in e disciplina y deba e. Psychonomic Bulle in & Re iew
25(2):793–826.
Choi, Byounggu, and Heeseok Lee. 2003. An empi ical in es iga ion o KM s yles and hei e ec on
co po a e pe o mance. In o ma ion & Managemen 40(5):403–417.
Choi, Ellen, Lieke L. en B ummelhuis, and Hannes Le oy. 2024. Hones y is no always he bes pol-
icy: The ole o sel -es eem based on o he s’ app o al in quali ying he ela ionship be ween leade
anspa ency and ollowe oice. Jou nal o Leade ship & O ganiza ional S udies 31(2):192–210.
Cla ke, Ian, and William Mackaness. 2001. Managemen ‘in ui ion’: an in e p e a i e accoun o s uc-
u e and con en o decision schemas using cogni i e maps. Jou nal o Managemen S udies
38(2):147–172.
Col ille, Ian, And ew D. B own, and Annie Pye. 2012. Simplexi y: Sensemaking, o ganizing and s o y-
elling o ou ime. Human Rela ions 65(1):5–15.
Co in, Je ey G., Dennis P. Sle in, and Michael B. Heeley. 2001. S a egic decision making in an in ui i e
s. echnoc a ic mode: s uc u al and en i onmen al conside a ions. Jou nal o Business Resea ch
52(1):51–67.
C is o a o, Ma eo, Pie L. Gia dino, Ricca do Camilli, and I o H is o . 2024. Unde s anding beha -
io al s a egy: a his o ical e olu iona y pe spec i e in “managemen decision”. Managemen Decision
62(13):426–455.
C ossan, Ma y M., W. Lane Hen y, and Rode ick E. Whi e. 1999. An o ganiza ional lea ning amewo k:
om in ui ion o ins i u ion. Academy o Managemen Re iew 24(3):522–537.
Cu che , Leanne, and Pamela Ach el. 2017. ‘Doing he b and’: Aes he ic labou as si ua ed, ela ional
pe o mance in ashion e ail. Wo k, Employmen and Socie y 31(4):675–691.
Da , Richa d L. 2021. O ganiza ion heo y & design, 13 h edn., Bos on: Cengage.
Da , Richa d L., and Robe H. Lengel. 1986. O ganiza ional in o ma ion equi emen s, media ichness
and s uc u al design. Managemen Science 32(5):554–571.
K
Schmalenbach Jou nal o Business Resea ch (2025) 77:267–308 303
Da , Richa d L., and No man B. Macin osh. 1981. A en a i e explo a ion in o he amoun and equi -
ocali y o in o ma ion p ocessing in o ganiza ional wo k uni s. Adminis a i e Science Qua e ly
26(2):207–224.
Da , Richa d L., and Ka l E. Weick. 1986. Towa d a model o o ganiza ions as in e p e a ion sys ems.
Academy o Managemen Re iew 9(2):284–295.
Dane, E ik, and Michael G. P a . 2007. Explo ing in ui ion and i s ole in manage ial decision making.
Academy o Managemen Re iew 32(1):33–54.
Dean, James W., J ., and Ma k P. Sha man. 1993. P ocedu al a ionali y in he s a egic decision-making
p ocess. Jou nal o Managemen S udies 30(4):587–610.
Dean, James W., J ., and Ma k P. Sha man. 1996. Does decision p ocess ma e ? A s udy o s a egic
decision-making e ec i eness. Academy o Managemen Jou nal 39(2):368–396.
De e s, Jü gen. 2023. Analy ics and in ui ion in he p ocess o selec ing alen . Be lin, Bos on: De G uy e .
D i e , Michael J., and Theodo e J. Mock. 1975. Human in o ma ion p ocessing, decision s yle heo y, and
accoun ing in o ma ion Sys ems. The Accoun ing Re iew 50(3):490–508.
Einho n, Hillel J., and Robin M. Hoga h. 1981. Beha io al decision heo y: p ocesses o judgemen and
choice. Annual Re iew o Psychology 32(1):53–88.
Eisenha d , Ka hleen M. 1989. Making as s a egic decisions in high- eloci y en i onmen s. Academy o
Managemen Jou nal 32(3):543–576.
Eisenha d , Ka hleen M. 1998. S a egic decision making as imp o isa ion. In S a egic decisions,ed.
Vassilis Papadakis, Pa ick Ba wise, 251–257. Bos on: Sp inge .
Elbanna, Said, and Yasi Fadol. 2016. The ole o con ex in in ui i e decision-making. Jou nal o Man-
agemen & O ganiza ion 22(5):642–661.
Fabio, Rosa A., Dalila Ve zì, and Amelia Gangemi. 2024. A con ibu e o he de aul -in e en ionis and
pa allel accoun s in deduc i e easoning: The e ec o decisional s yles on logic and belie . The
Jou nal o Gene al Psychology 151(2):209–222.
Fasolo, Ba ba a, Ra aella Misu aca, and Ga y H. McClelland. 2003. Indi idual di e ences in adap i e
choice s a egies. Resea ch in Economics 57(3):219–233.
Fellnho e , Ka ha ina, and Yu Deng. 2024. In es o in ui ion p omo es gende equali y in access o ewa d-
based c owd unding. En ep eneu ship Theo y and P ac ice 48(2):675–718.
Fiedle , Klaus, and Momme . Sydow. 2015. Heu is ics and biases: beyond T e sky and Kahneman’s
(1974) judgmen unde unce ain y. In Cogni i e psychology: e isi ing he classic s udies,ed.
Michael W. Eysenck, Da id G oome, 146–161. London: SAGE.
Fishe , Colin M., and F ank J. Ba e . 2019. The expe ience o imp o ising in o ganiza ions: a c ea i e
p ocess pe spec i e. Academy o Managemen Pe spec i es 33(2):148–162.
Fishe , G eg, and Emily Neube . 2023. E alua ing en u es as and slow: sensemaking, in ui ion, and
delibe a ion in en ep eneu ial esou ce p o ision decisions. En ep eneu ship Theo y and P ac ice
47(4):1298–1326.
Flo es-Ga cia, E ik, Jessica B uch, Magnus Wik o sson, and Ma s Jackson. 2021. Decision-making ap-
p oaches in p ocess inno a ions: an explo a i e case s udy. Jou nal o Manu ac u ing Technology
Managemen 32(9):1–25.
Fo bes, Daniel P. 2007. Reconside ing he s a egic implica ions o decision comp ehensi eness. Academy
o Managemen Re iew 32(2):361–376.
F ed ickson, J.W. 1984. The comp ehensi eness o s a egic decision p ocesses: ex ension, obse a ions,
u u e di ec ions. Academy o Managemen Jou nal 27(3):445–466.
F ed ickson, James W., and Te ence R. Mi chell. 1984. S a egic decision p ocesses: comp ehensi eness
and pe o mance in an indus y wi h an uns able en i onmen . Academy o Managemen Jou nal
27(2):399–423.
Gige enze , Ge d. 2008. Gu eelings: Sho cu s o be e decision making. London: Penguin.
Gige enze , Ge d. 2010. Pe sonal e lec ions on heo y and psychology. Theo y & Psychology 20(6):733–743.
Gige enze , Ge d. 2019. Axioma ic a ionali y and ecological a ionali y. Syn hese 3(2):20.
Gige enze , Ge d, and Wol gang Gaissmaie . 2011. Heu is ic decision making. Annual Re iew o Psychol-
ogy 62:451–482.
Gige enze , Ge d, and Te y Regie . 1996. How do we ell an associa ion om a ule? Commen on Sloman
(1996). Psychological Bulle in 119(1):23–26.
Glöckne , And eas, and Cilia Wi eman. 2010. Beyond dual-p ocess models: a ca ego isa ion o p ocesses
unde lying in ui i e judgemen and decision making. Thinking & Reasoning 16(1):1–25.
Gobe , Fe nand, and Philippe Chassy. 2009. Expe ise and in ui ion: a ale o h ee heo ies. Minds and
Machines 19(2):151–180.
K
304 Schmalenbach Jou nal o Business Resea ch (2025) 77:267–308
Goldbe g, Philip. 1990. The many aces o in ui ion. In In ui ion in o ganiza ions, ed. Wes on H. Ago ,
62–77. Newbu y Pa k: SAGE.
Go inda ajan, Vijay. 2016. Planned oppo unism: using weak signals o spu inno a ion. Ha a d Business
Re iew 94(5):54–61.
G ewa sch, Syl ia, S e e Kennedy, and P a ima Bansal. 2023. Tackling wicked p oblems in s a egic man-
agemen wi h sys ems hinking. S a egic O ganiza ion 21(3):721–732.
Gua ana, C is iano L., and Mo ela He nandez. 2016. Iden i ied ambi alence: when cogni i e con lic s can
help indi iduals o e come cogni i e aps. The Jou nal o Applied Psychology 101(7):1013–1029.
Hall, Ka he ine H. 2002. Re iewing in ui i e decision-making and unce ain y: he implica ions o medi-
cal educa ion. Medical Educa ion 36:216–224.
Hammond, Kenne h R., Robe M. Hamm, Jane G assia, and Tam a Pea son. 1987. Di ec compa ison o
he e icacy o in ui i e and analy ical cogni ion in expe judgmen . IEEE T ansac ions on Sys ems,
Man, and Cybe ne ics 17(5):753–770.
Ha is, Michael, and Bill Tayle . 2019. Don’ le me ics unde mine you business. Ha a d Business Re-
iew 97(9–10):62–69.
Ha eis, Ch is ian, and S ephen Bille . 2013. In ui i e expe ise: heo ies and empi ical e idence. Educa-
ional Resea ch Re iew 9:145–157.
Ha ch, Ma y J. 1997. Jazzing up heo y o o ganiza ional imp o isa ion. In Ad ances in s a egic manage-
men , Vol. 14, ed. James P. Walsh, Anne S. Hu , 181–191. G eenwich: JAI P ess.
Hayashi, Alden M. 2001. When o us you gu . Ha a d Business Re iew 79(2):59–65.
Healey, Ma k P., and Ge a d P. Hodgkinson. 2017. Making s a egy ho . Cali o nia Managemen Re iew
59(3):109–134.
Healey, Ma k P., Timo Vuo i, and Ge a d P. Hodgkinson. 2015. When eams ag ee while disag eeing:
e lexion and e lec ion in sha ed cogni ion. Academy o Managemen Re iew 40(3):399–422.
Heims äd , Maximilian, Tomi Koljonen, and Kaspe T. Elmhold . 2024. Expe ise in managemen esea ch:
a e iew and agenda o u u e esea ch. Academy o Managemen Annals 18(1):121–156.
Hodgkinson, Ge a d P., and Eugene Sadle -Smi h. 2018. The dynamics o in ui ion and analysis in man-
age ial and o ganiza ional decision making. Academy o Managemen Pe spec i es 32(4):473–492.
Hodgkinson, Ge a d P., Nicola J. Bown, A.J. Maule, Kei h W. Glais e , and Alan D. Pea man. 1999. B eak-
ing he ame: an analysis o s a egic cogni ion and decision making unde unce ain y. S a egic
Managemen Jou nal 20(10):977–985.
Hodgkinson, Ge a d P., Janice Langan-Fox, and Eugene Sadle -Smi h. 2008. In ui ion: a undamen al
b idging cons uc in he beha iou al sciences. B i ish Jou nal o Psychology 99(1):1–27.
Hoga h, Robin M. 2001. Educa ing in ui ion. Chicago: Uni e si y o Chicago P ess.
Hoga h, Robin M. 2010. In ui ion: a challenge o psychological esea ch on decision making. Psycho-
logical Inqui y 21(4):338–353.
Howa h, S ephanie, Simon Handley, and Cla e Walsh. 2019. The logic sense: explo ing he ole o execu-
i e unc ioning in belie and logic-based judgmen s. Thinking & Reasoning 25(4):416–448.
Julmi, Ch is ian. 2018. Managemen jensei s de Ra ionali ä : In ui i e En scheidungen und de en Re lex-
ion mi de FIRS -Ma ix. Con olling 30(3):39–46.
Julmi, Ch is ian. 2019. When a ional decision-making becomes i a ional: a c i ical assessmen and e-
concep ualiza ion o in ui ion e ec i eness. Business Resea ch 12(1):291–314.
Julmi, Ch is ian. 2024. Analysis and in ui ion e ec i eness in mo al p oblems. Jou nal o Business E hics
191:179–193.
Kahneman, Daniel. 2003. Maps o bounded a ionali y: psychology o beha io al economics. The Ame i-
can Economic Re iew 93(5):1449–1475.
Kahneman, Daniel. 2011. Thinking, as and slow. New Yo k: Fa a , S aus and Gi oux.
Kahneman, Daniel, and Ga y Klein. 2009. Condi ions o in ui i e expe ise. A ailu e o disag ee. Ame i-
can Psychologis 64(6):515–526.
Kahneman, Daniel, and Amos T e sky. 1973. On he psychology o p edic ion. Psychological Re iew
80(4):237–251.
Kau man, Sco B., Colin G. Deyoung, Je emy R. G ay, Luis Jiménez, Jamie B own, and Nicholas Mack-
in osh. 2010. Implici lea ning as an abili y. Cogni ion 116(3):321–340.
Kelle , Josh, and Eugene Sadle -Smi h. 2019. Pa adoxes and dual p ocesses: a e iew and syn hesis. In e -
na ional Jou nal o Managemen Re iews 21(2):162–184.
Kha i, Na esh, and H.A. Ng. 2000. The ole o in ui ion in s a egic decision making. Human Rela ions
53(1):57–86.
K
Schmalenbach Jou nal o Business Resea ch (2025) 77:267–308 305
Ko he , Philipp, Dominik K. Kanbach, Sascha K aus, and Paul Jones. 2023. The ole o managemen in
os e ing analy ics: he shi om in ui ion o analy ics-based decision-making. Jou nal o Decision
Sys ems 32(3):600–616.
Kou e os, Xenophon, Ma k Vonde embse, and Jayan h Jaya am. 2005. In e nal and ex e nal in eg a ion
o p oduc de elopmen : he con ingency e ec s o unce ain y, equi ocali y, and pla o m s a egy.
Decision Sciences 36(1):97–133.
Kowalczyk, Ma in, and Pe e Buxmann. 2014. Big da a and in o ma ion p ocessing in o ganiza ional
decision p ocesses. Business & In o ma ion Sys ems Enginee ing 6(5):267–278.
K oezen, Jochem, Da ide Ra asi, Innan Sasaki, Monika ˙
Zeb owska, and Roy Suddaby. 2021. Con-
igu a ions o c a : al e na i e models o o ganizing wo k. Academy o Managemen Annals
15(2):502–536.
K uglanski, A ie W., and Ge d Gige enze . 2011. In ui i e and delibe a e judgmen s a e based on common
p inciples. Psychological Re iew 118(1):97–109.
Kuo, Wen-Jui, Tomas Sjös öm, Yu-Ping Chen, Wang Yen-Hsiang, and Chen-Ying Huang. 2009. In ui ion
and delibe a ion: wo sys ems o s a egizing in he b ain. Science 324(5926):519–522.
Lee, Jung W., Hal G. Rainey, and Young H. Chun. 2010. Goal ambigui y, wo k complexi y, and wo k
ou ineness in ede al agencies. The Ame ican Re iew o Public Adminis a ion 40(3):284–308.
Lewis, Michael. 2017. The undoing p ojec : a iendship ha changed ou minds. New Yo k: No on.
Lewis, Ma ianne W., and Wendy K. Smi h. 2014. Pa adox as a me a heo e ical pe spec i e: sha pening he
ocus and widening he scope. The Jou nal o Applied Beha io al Science 50(2):127–149.
Leybou ne, S ephen, and Eugene Sadle -Smi h. 2006. The ole o in ui ion and imp o isa ion in p ojec
managemen . In e na ional Jou nal o P ojec Managemen 24(6):483–492.
Liebe man, Ma hew D. 2007. Social cogni i e neu oscience: a e iew o co e p ocesses. Annual Re iew
o Psychology 58:259–289.
Luoma, Jukka, and F ank Ma ela. 2021. A dual-p ocessing iew o h ee cogni i e s a egies in s a egic
decision making: In ui ion, analy ic easoning, and e aming. Long Range Planning 54(3).
Macin osh, No man B. 1981. A con ex ual model o in o ma ion sys ems. Accou ing, O ganiza ions and
Socie y 6(1):39–53.
Macphe son, Robyn, and Kei h E. S ano ich. 2007. Cogni i e abili y, hinking disposi ions, and ins uc-
ional se as p edic o s o c i ical hinking. Lea ning and Indi idual Di e ences 17(2):115–127.
Manesh, Mohammad F., Giulia Flamini, Damiano Pe olo, and Rocco Palumbo. 2022. A ound o dancing
and hen one mo e: embedding in ui ion in he balle o en ep eneu ial decision making. In e na-
ional En ep eneu ship and Managemen Jou nal 18(2):499–528.
Ma ch, James G. 1978. Bounded a ionali y, ambigui y, and he enginee ing o choice. The Bell Jou nal o
Economics 9(2):587–608.
Ma ch, James G. 1994. P ime on decision making: How decisions happen. New Yo k: Simon & Schus e .
McCaskey, Michael B. 1982. The execu i e challenge: managing change and ambigui y. Bos on: Pi man.
McI e , De ick, Cyn hia A. Lengnick-Hall, Ma k L. Lengnick-Hall, and Indu Ramachand an. 2012. In-
eg a ing knowledge and knowing: a amewo k o unde s anding knowledge-in-p ac ice. Human
Resou ce Managemen Re iew 22(1):86–99.
McI e , De ick, Cyn hia A. Lengnick-Hall, Ma k L. Lengnick-Hall, and Indu Ramachand an. 2013. Un-
de s anding wo k and knowledge managemen om a knowledge-in-p ac ice pe spec i e. Academy
o Managemen Re iew 38(4):597–620.
McMillan, Cha les, and Je ey O e all. 2016. Wicked p oblems: u ning s a egic managemen upside
down. Jou nal o Business S a egy 37(1):34–43.
Min zbe g, Hen y. 1979. The s uc u ing o o ganiza ions. Englewood Cli s: P en ice-Hall.
Min zbe g, Hen y, Du u Raisinghani, and And e Theo e . 1976. The s uc u e o “uns uc u ed” decision
p ocesses. Adminis a i e Science Qua e ly 21(2):246–275.
Min zbe g, Hen y, B uce W. Ahls and, and Joseph Lampel. 1998. S a egy sa a i: a guided ou h ough
he wilds o s a egic managemen . Uppe Saddle Ri e : P en ice-Hall.
Mülle , Da id. 2011. An ecedences and de e minan s o imp o isa ion in i ms. P oblems and Pe spec i es
in Managemen 9(4):117–130.
Na ayanan, V.K., J. Zane Lee, and Benedic Kemme e . 2011. The cogni i e pe spec i e in s a egy: an
in eg a i e e iew. Jou nal o Managemen 37(1):305–351.
Neill, S e n, and G ego y M. Rose. 2007. Achie ing adap i e ends h ough equi ocali y: a s udy o o ga-
niza ional an eceden s and consequences. Jou nal o Business Resea ch 60(4):305–313.
Nicolai, Alexande T., and Da id Seidl. 2010. Tha ’s ele an ! Di e en o ms o p ac ical ele ance in
managemen science. O ganiza ion S udies 31(9/10):1257–1285.
K
306 Schmalenbach Jou nal o Business Resea ch (2025) 77:267–308
Nonaka, Ikuji ¯
o, and Hi o aka Takeuchi. 1995. The knowledge c ea ing company: how Japanese companies
c ea e he dynamics o inno a ion. New Yo k: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess.
Nu , Paul C. 1976. Models o decision making in o ganiza ions and some con ex ual a iables which
s ipula e op imal use. Academy o Managemen Re iew 2(1):84–98.
Nu , Paul C. 2002. Making s a egic choices. Jou nal o Managemen S udies 39(1):67–96.
Papadakis, Vassilis M., Spy os Lioukas, and Da id Chambe s. 1998. S a egic decision-making p ocesses:
he ole o managemen and con ex . S a egic Managemen Jou nal 19(2):115–147.
Pa ikh, Jagdish. 1994. In ui ion. The new on ie o managemen . Ox o d, Camb idge: Blackwell Business.
Pe ow, Cha les. 1967. A amewo k o he compa a i e analysis o o ganiza ions. Ame ican Sociological
Re iew 32(2):194–208.
Pe ow, Cha les. 1970. O ganiza ional analysis: a sociological iew. London: Ta is ock.
Phillips, Wendy J., Jenni e M. Fle che , An hony D.G. Ma ks, and Donald W. Hine. 2016. Thinking s yles
and decision making: A me a-analysis. Psychological Bulle in 142(3):260–290.
Polanyi, Michael. 1966. The aci dimension. London: Rou ledge & Kegan Paul.
P e o ius, Ca ianne, Ma yam Raza ian, Ka in Eling, and F ed Lange ak. 2024. When a ionali y mee s
in ui ion: a esea ch agenda o so wa e design decision-making. Jou nal o So wa e: E olu ion and
P ocess 36(9):.
P e z, Jean E. 2011. Types o in ui ion: in e en ial and holis ic. In Handbook o in ui ion esea ch,ed.
Ma a Sinclai , 17–28. Chel enham: Edwa d Elga .
P e z, Jean E., and Ka h yn S. To z. 2007. Measu ing indi idual di e ences in a ec i e, heu is ic, and
holis ic in ui ion. Pe sonali y and Indi idual Di e ences 43(5):1247–1257.
Pu nam, Linda L., and Ri ch L. So enson. 1982. Equi ocal messages in o ganiza ions. Human Communi-
ca ion Resea ch 8(2):114–132.
Quinn, Robe E. 1988. Beyond a ional managemen : mas e ing he pa adoxes and compe ing demands
o high pe o mance. San F ancisco: Jossey-Bass.
Raadschelde s, Jos C.N., and T a is A. Whe sell. 2018. Concep ualizing he landscape o decision making
o complex p oblem sol ing. In e na ional Jou nal o Public Adminis a ion 41(14):1132–1144.
Rebe , A hu S. 1989. Implici lea ning and aci knowledge. Jou nal o Expe imen al Psychology: Gen-
e al 118(3):219–235.
Ri el, Ho s W.J., and Mel in M. Webbe . 1973. Dilemmas in a gene al heo y o planning. Policy Sciences
4:155–169.
Rönnbe g Sjödin, Da id, Johan F ishamma , and Pe E. E iksson. 2016. Managing unce ain y and equi -
ocali y in join p ocess de elopmen p ojec s. Jou nal o Enginee ing and Technology Managemen
39:13–25.
Roux-Du o , Ch is ophe, and Bénédic e Vidaille . 2003. The di icul ies o imp o ising in a c isis si ua-
ion. In e na ional S udies o Managemen & O ganiza ion 33(1):86–115.
Rusou, Zoha , Dan Zakay, and Ma ius Ushe . 2013. Pi ing in ui i e and analy ical hinking agains each
o he : he case o ansi i i y. Psychonomic Bulle in & Re iew 20(3):608–614.
Rynes, Sa a L., and Jean M. Ba unek. 2017. E idence-based managemen : ounda ions, de elopmen ,
con o e sies and u u e. Annual Re iew o O ganiza ional Psychology and O ganiza ional Beha io
4(1):235–261.
Sadle -Smi h, Eugene, and E ella She y. 2004. The in ui i e execu i e: Unde s anding and applying ‘gu
eel’ in decision-making. Academy o Managemen Execu i e 18(4):76–91.
Salas, Edua do, Michael A. Rosen, and Debo ah DiazG anados. 2010. Expe ise-based in ui ion and deci-
sion making in o ganiza ions. Jou nal o Managemen 36(4):941–973.
Samba, Codou, Pooya Tabesh, Ioannis C. Thanos, and Vassilis M. Papadakis. 2021. Me hod in he mad-
ness? A me a-analysis on he s a egic implica ions o decision comp ehensi eness. S a egic O gani-
za ion 19(3):414–440.
Sche m, Ewald, Ch is ian Julmi, and Flo ian Lindne . 2016. In ui i e e sus analy ische En scheidungen
– Übe legungen zu si ua i en S immigkei . In Nachhal iges En scheiden, ed. Heinz Ahn, Ma cel
Cle mon , and Raine Sou en, 299–318. Wiesbaden: Sp inge .
Schi meis e , Elna, Anne-Louise Göh ing, and Philine Wa nke. 2020. Psychological biases and heu is ics
in he con ex o o esigh and scena io p ocesses. Fu u es & Fo esigh Science 2(2):e31.
Schwenk, Cha les R. 1995. S a egic decision making. Jou nal o Managemen 21(3):471–493.
Shapi o, S ewa , and Ma k T. Spence. 1997. Manage ial in ui ion: a concep ual and ope a ional ame-
wo k. Business Ho izons 40(1):63–68.
Simon, He be A. 1987. Making managemen decisions: he ole o in ui ion and emo ion. Academy o
Managemen Execu i e 1(1):57–64.
Simon, He be A. 1990. In a ian s o human beha io . Annual Re iew o Psychology 41:1–19.
K
