The average adult makes 33,000 to 35,000 decisions every day. Many are small and conducted with little to no forethought, such as the decision to brush your teeth or take a shower before going to work. Some are huge and life-changing, such as the decision to buy a new home or get married. Most decisions are somewhere in between, like choosing where to have lunch or how to answer an email. With so many decisions every day, understanding how they are made will allow marketers to influence consumer decision-making by appealing to their hearts and minds.
Our personal and preferred process for establishing decisions is known as “decision styles.” Most people have a dominant decision-making style and a common method in the way they approach choices. Some of these decision-making methods are more productive than others. For example, in some situations if you write out multiple pros and cons lists, you might be wasting time overthinking instead of trusting your gut. Gathering all relevant data before making a choice is great when you have concrete, accurate information at your fingertips but less helpful when the available data is vague.
So, what are the four main styles, how do consumers use them, and how can marketers leverage this understanding for more impactful communications? Let’s dig in.
The Four Main Styles Defined:
According to the Rowe and Boulgarides Decision Style Theory (DST), decision-making styles work along two axes. The vertical axis is Cognitive Complexity, which relates to an individual’s ability to perceive the world around them. Some individuals can see shades of nuance and better tolerate ambiguity whereas others prefer clear structure. The horizontal axis is Value Orientation, which refers to the decision-makers’ priorities and whether they are naturally more focused on thinking or doing. People who value technical (task-based) outcomes tend to decide by considering which options will lead to the best measurable results or are more action oriented. Those who prefer social outcomes, like group harmony, are more likely to ask stakeholders what they think and focus on guiding the group toward consensus or are more idea oriented. Combining these two continuums creates four decision-making styles:
1. Directive decision-making:
Directive decision-makers prefer a high level of structure and make decisions based on technical outcomes. When considering possible courses of action, they focus on their own knowledge: their gut feeling, past experiences, and whether the existing procedures fit the outcomes they’re considering.
Advantages of directive decision-making:
- This method is fast, as directive decision-makers don’t usually seek extra data or consider external input.
- The process is low effort, which reduces decision fatigue.
- The process is simple, making it easy to evaluate after the fact.
- Accountability for the final decision is clear.
Disadvantages of directive decision-making:
- Solutions may be unrealistic if the decision-maker is disconnected from present realities.
- Outcomes tend to be conventional.
- Due to the lack of external input, the decision-maker may base solutions on incomplete information.
- The decision-maker runs the risk of oversimplifying complex situations.
2. Analytic decision-making:
Analytic decision-makers prefer a low level of structure and make decisions based on technical outcomes. They collect large volumes of data from diverse sources, then pore over the data to evaluate every solution before settling on one.
Advantages of analytic decision-making:
- It’s detail-oriented, so analytic decision-makers can notice things others may not.
- The high volume of information involved makes predictions more accurate.
- The decision-maker goes in with few biases and preconceptions.
- It considers unconventional options.
Disadvantages of analytic decision-making:
- It consumes time and energy.
- Managing extensive amounts of information can be stressful for the decision-maker.
- It relies on the existence of relevant data collected in similar situations.
- It can lead to analysis paralysis.
- It’s a risk-averse approach.
3. Behavioral decision-making:
Behavioral decision-makers prefer an elevated level of structure and make socially oriented decisions. They map out a few courses of action, seek feedback from various sources, and try to build a consensus regarding the best path. Leaders with this approach tend to favor a consultative management style.
Advantages of behavioral decision-making:
- It incorporates diverse opinions and experiences.
- The decision-maker remains humble and open to persuasion.
- People feel listened to and included in the decision process.
- There’s collective ownership of the decision and more buy-in from stakeholders.
Disadvantages of behavioral decision-making:
- It takes time to build a consensus.
- The decision-maker needs to be able to resolve conflict adequately rather than just override it.
- The decision-maker can focus too much on keeping everyone happy.
4. Conceptual decision-making:
Conceptual decision-makers prefer a low level of structure and make socially oriented decisions. Rather than providing stakeholders with a predetermined set of possible outcomes (as in behavioral decision-making), conceptual decision-makers set up brainstorming sessions with stakeholders to seek and develop creative solutions.
Advantages of conceptual decision-making:
- It tackles problems at their root, avoiding short-term fixes.
- It encourages creative problem-solving and thinking outside the box.
- The diversity of input can lead to unexpectedly innovative solutions.
- It allows for calculated risks.
- It prioritizes big-picture thinking.
- It usually includes careful consideration of ethical issues.
Disadvantages of conceptual decision-making:
- It’s time-consuming.
- It can be difficult to translate theory into practice.
- It can be hard to evaluate the results, as there are many moving parts and impacts at various levels.
As marketers, understanding these styles, and more importantly, understanding your specific audience’s preferred style will allow you to craft more focused messaging that will lead your audience in a positive direction towards your brand or product. The inherent challenge here is knowing your audience’s preferences ahead of time. While some products and services will naturally orient themselves to audiences with a particular style or preference, most will involve audiences across the full spectrum of styles. As such, it’s recommended to craft messaging that speaks to each of the main styles and lets the consumer “choose their own adventure” to find the right mix of benefits that matches their personal decision-making preferences.