PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 10122425

An operational decision-making model for the cognitively sensing-thinking manager.

Abstract

Whereas all managers face decision-making situations, not all managers discharge the decision-making process in the same manner. Individuals possess different personalities that influence how they gather and process information and subsequently make decisions. Research has reported a link between personality type and a preferred cognitive decision-making style. ST personalities prefer structured methods to resolve problems. For ST managers, a three-dimensional decision-making models is proposed. The model is based on the decision-making process initiated by Dewey and evolved by theorists and practitioners over time. Unique to the model is the institution of a second dimension of operational categories. Thus, the decision process is not conducted within a vacuum but within a context defined by the problem to be resolved. A further degree of thoroughness is achieved by unfolding the categorical dimension into sub-categories and conducting the decision-making process at that level. Several additional managerial tools exist that are compatible with the ST cognitive style and that facilitate an effective and efficiency decision process. What does this mean for the practicing health information manager? The manager's first step is to identify his or her personality type. The popularity of the MBTI as an organizational and career counseling tool has received wide acceptance across industries, including health care. The MBTI can be obtained, administered, scored, and interpreted only by trained personnel. Such individuals may be found in human resource and staff development departments; career centers and seminars; and vocational-technical schools, community colleges, and universities.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J J Lynch. 1992. An operational decision-making model for the cognitively sensing-thinking manager.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10122425/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

How can we increase translation of research into practice? Types of evidence needed.

This review summarizes key factors that have interfered with translation of research to practice and what public health researchers can do to hasten such transfer, focusing on characteristics of interventions, target settings, and research designs. The need to address context and to utilize research, review, and reporting practices that address external validity issues-such as designs that focus on replication, and practical clinical and behavioral trials-are emphasized. Although there has been increased emphasis on social-ecological interventions that go beyond the individual level, interventions often address each component as if it were an independent intervention. Greater attention is needed to connectedness across program levels and components. Finally, examples are provided of evaluation models and current programs that can help accelerate translation of research to practice and policy.

Decision Making, Organizational↗