Professor Krumboltz worked up a decision-making model, commonly used in business schools, though usually not associated with him in particular - 1. problem-definition; 2. desired outcome; alternative solutions; 4. alternative consequences; 5. outcome-checking; 6. decision-making - with step 7 ("Generalizing the decision-making process to new problems") usually being ignored (Krumboltz & Hamel, 1980, p. 6). It is interesting how bridging one decision-making process was not considered important enough in business schools to be included in the next decision (and, in my opinion, sadly not surprising).
Initially developed for career decision-making - also known as CDM - this decision-making process is known as Krumboltz's rational decision model, usually referred acronymed as DECIDES (Krumboltz & Hamel, 1980). The idea is we work systematically through the following seven steps to aid us in making complex career decisions. The steps are (Krumboltz & Hamel, 1980):
- Define the problem: first we have to understand that we need to make a decision. We must begin by clearly stating the problem, and be SMART (Doran, 1981) about it, by including specific dates, times, and resources to finalise our decision by (Krumboltz & Hamel, 1980).
- Establish an action plan: we work out what specific actions we need to do so we can reach a decision. This is likely to include budgeting time and resources for each step of the process (Krumboltz & Hamel, 1980).
- Clarify values: we need to check that the problem definitions aligns to our personal values, which we are going to use as criteria to judge all our alternatives against. We rank our values in order of importance to us, so we can consider where we will and where we won't compromise (Krumboltz & Hamel, 1980).
- Identify alternatives: how we compile our list of all possible choices or options available to us - we need at least two - but we should think as widely as possible (Krumboltz & Hamel, 1980).
- Discover probable outcomes: we measure each alternative against our values. We try to stand in the space of each alternative and try to imagine what each option would be like (Krumboltz & Hamel, 1980).
- Eliminate alternatives systematically: we compare all alternatives against one another, narrowing them down until the one that best satisfies our values is left (Krumboltz & Hamel, 1980).
- Start action: we need to remember that a decision is not final until we put it into action. We need to now take steps to action our chosen alternative - for example, submitting university applications, or signing an apprenticeship contract (Krumboltz & Hamel, 1980).
The DECIDES model is designed to be flexible, so we can evaluate a range of quite complex inputs. By breaking this up into steps, we can go back and do bits again. So - for example - if we find our values lack clarity while we are identifying alternatives, we step back to the "Clarify values" stage and do that bit again (Krumboltz & Hamel, 1980).
This is an old model, but a goodie.
Sam
References:
Doran, G. T. (1981). There's a S.M.A.R.T. way to write managements' goals and objectives. Management Review, 70(11), 35-36.
Krumboltz, J. D., & Hamel, D. A. (1980, August). The Effect of Decision Training on Career Decision-Making Competence (No. ARITR487). US Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA124139.pdf
* NotebookLM was used to create the graphic accompanying this post
















