. Implementing leadership decisions Marcus Selart Norwegian School of Economics Abstract In this chapter it is demonstrated that the way in which leaders implement a decision largely depends on the nature of it, that is, whether it is strategic or not. Leaders must be as open as possible and not withhold information from the persons involved in the process. Therefore, they should distribute as much relevant information as possible to meeting participants before a meeting. At the same time, they must be able to steer the process. It is not unusual for there to be a separation between the formulation and implementation of a strategic decision. Often, it is the top leadership that formulates the decision problem and the middle managers that implement its solution. For this reason, it is relatively common that the top leadership signals that the implementation has been successful as soon as the middle managers begin to report positive results. This can sometimes happen even though most of the implementation is incomplete. However, there are also cases where the top leaders rule out certain implementation processes as failures when in fact they prove later on to be successful. A common problem in organizations is that leaders often inherit the task of implementing decisions that past leaders have made. In order to succeed with an implementation, leaders must understand the importance of the process. They must communicate their vision clearly, evaluate and monitor continuously, and allow interested parties to participate actively in the process. They should also understand that what at first may look like a failure, at a later stage may prove to be a success. Different types of decision implementations In order to implement a decision it normally implies that some form of change is executed in relation to the situation. Often, changes of various kinds create resistance in organizations. It is therefore important that leaders focus on the factors that are essential in order to achieve a desirable result. How leaders choose to implement a decision usually varies from situation to situation. There are two main factors that influence how the process will be executed. These are the size of the strategic problem and the time horizon. The implementation of decisions that have relatively small effects requires a completely different approach than the implementation of decisions that implies major changes and an extensive use of resources. In some cases, the entire organizational structure is changing. An organization that is in a state of crisis requires a completely different implementation philosophy than an organization that is about to undertake changes in its product range. In the first case it is important to act quickly, while in the other a long and gradual process is more appropriate. Based on the dimensions of strategic problem and time horizon, Hrebiniak and Joyce (1984) have defined four basic types of decision implementations. The first type is referred to as evolutionary implementation and is used when the strategic decision is negligible and the time horizon for implementation is relatively long. This kind of implementation often involves relatively day-to-day and routine management decisions. The plans developed are therefore quite simple. An example of such a decision is when a leader implements local decisions aimed at improving the company's or entity's performance or safety. Evolutionary implementations do not usually imply substantial changes in business strategy or core work processes. Usually these changes are seen as realignments or differences over time in how things should be handled. The second type is referred to as managed implementation and takes place when the strategic decision is marginal, while the time available to implement it is limited. Often, the issue concerns minor changes in the surroundings of the firm that the management wants to adapt to as quickly as possible. As the situation is relatively stable, the leader has the opportunity to focus on the individual problem area without other areas or tasks suffering. The third type is referred to as sequential implementation and is used when the strategic decision is large and the time horizon for its implementation is long. In order to make the implementation successful the management must focus on a number of different areas and the relationship between them. As the time horizon is long, it is possible to analyze the underlying structures of the problems. Based on these analyses it is possible to design the chronological order of the various implementation measures. The fourth type is referred to as complex implementation and is used when the strategic decision is significant and the time horizon is short. In such a situation, the leadership of an organization is forced to make decisions that significantly affect each other and then implement them. However, it is usually not sufficient to identify the various dependent relationships through a formal planning process. In order to ensure the necessary coordination and the full understanding it requires the use of different groups, and other forms of direct communication. Complex implementation processes are necessary in a lot of different contexts. A typical example is when the environment of an organization becomes more complex and turbulent (Roos, Von Krogh, & Roos, 1994, Heller, 1998). How to develop and follow an implementation plan Most managerial decisions are worthless if they cannot be translated into action. One problem is that many leadership meetings do not result in solutions or recommendations, but only in a lot of free discussions. Also, all decisions that are made do not necessarily lead to implementation. One major reason for this is that the division of responsibilities is often unclear. Making decisions can often be easier than getting them implemented. There are several important dimensions of an implementation (Nobel, 1999). These include the execution of a strategic plan, the allocation of resources, and the control and governance of the decision making process. When a strategic decision has been made, it is absolutely critical that the organization's resources follow it. In case a strategic decision is made without money, skills, equipment and other resources following it, the decision will develop into a clean paper product. Hence, the allocation of resources shows the direction of the organization's operational strategy. This is especially important if an organization finds itself in a situation characterized by scaling or down-sizing. The organization must then make clear what units are ultimately going to maintain its competitiveness. One area that is especially sensitive to resource reductions is R&D, as the development of new products or new technology is relatively time-consuming. However, it is not only the internal allocation of resources that is relevant. The amount of the expected return that will go to strategic reinvestments is also of great importance for the business. As a rule, investors, managers, and employees are always interested in getting their share of the pie (Roos, Von Krogh, & Roos, 1994; Heller, 1998). One of the most important resources in the organization is its employees. How these are organized is therefore of great importance for how well one succeeds in implementing a strategic decision. An important aspect is how the work is divided between groups and employees within a system. There is much research revealing a strong link between strategy, structure and efficiency. In order to ensure effective implementation, it is important that the number of levels in a hierarchy is kept as low as possible. As the number of levels increases the communication tends to be more complicated (Roos, Von Krogh, & Roos, 1994; Heller, 1998). A leader must in addition be focused on the employees' values. Employees use their value systems in order to create an opinion of the implementation process. This is largely an individually and socially constructed process in which values play a crucial role. Therefore, in reality leaders only have a limited ability to quickly modify or transform employee values. In order to transform decisions into action it requires that the decision maker makes a number of operational decisions in addition to the basic one. This means that a leader must focus on developing implementation plans as soon as the final decision is made. This work can start when a smaller number of options remain in the decision process. However, it is good if a leader is confident about what decision will be made before he or she begins to create action plans. There are a number of different models for the implementation of a decision. Perhaps the simplest model is that you disconnect the old solution when the new one is connected. The problem with this model is that there is no safety net built. You simply bet everything on one card. A second model provides for gradually implementing the decision until the last part is implemented. Here you can walk up gently and evaluate step by step. In a third model, the decision is implemented in a distinct environment as a test case. When everything is working correctly in this environment the solution can be executed in the rest of the organization. In a fourth model the old and the new solution are tested simultaneously. This is a relatively safe but costly solution (Roos, Von Krogh, & Roos, 1994; Heller, 1998). It is important that leaders involve others in creating an implementation plan for the made decisions. It is often useful to consult people with relevant expertise in the field. All involved in the process must have understood the decision and the reasons behind it. This can be acquired using a so-called briefing session. In such a session the leader of the team explains the circumstances which led to the decision and what measures can be made in order to make the decision effective. With the help of the team the leader analyzes the overall task and determines what measures will be implemented. It is also important that the team decides when the decision will be implemented. Each activity must have a beginning and an end date. A plan should specify different breakpoints where different activities can be evaluated and modified. It should also clarify how others who have a stake in the project continuously will be informed. In addition, feedback systems can be built up enabling the environment to provide comments on the implementation of the decision (Roos, Von Krogh, & Roos, 1994; Heller, 1998). Many decisions are so complex that it is difficult for leaders to fully implement them themselves. Needless to say, a leader can arrange meetings. However, it requires a whole team to, for example, introduce a new product. This is due to the number of tasks and the extensive work. These tasks can be divided into categories and delegated to various members of the team. In this way distributed planning works effectively. The individual team members should be given the mandate to act independently and be personally responsible for the delegated tasks. They should also be given a responsibility to contribute their share to the implementation of the overall decision. The team leader's role is to ensure that responsibilities are clear and can be monitored. It is also good if the leader receives feedback from team members on the governance so that it is performed correctly (Roos, Von Krogh, & Roos, 1994; Heller, 1998). When a leader is building a project team, it is important for him or her to include people with different backgrounds, skills and experience. The objectives must be known to all the members and also shared by all. Despite this, the leader should continuously work with the relationships within the team. The leader's task is to make the rules clear to everyone. These rules should center around the following issues (Thompson, 2008): 1. When the team will meet. 2. Where the team will meet. 3. What questions should be addressed during the meetings. 4. How the team will work. 5. How decisions will be made and followed up. In addition, the team's activities must be evaluated regularly (Thompson, 2008). The role of the leader is changed when a team is created. This means that monitoring, facilitation, and control are part of the role. The main task of the leader is to let the team work independently, and ensure that both individuals and teams work in an appropriate manner. It is important to remember that individual differences in a team are there to create synergies. The leader must ensure that team members understand and recognize that their individual differences are considered to be strengths (Thompson, 2008). A vital part of the decision process is to inform all those involved in it. It is important that all involved participants understand why the decision was made and what the alternatives were. A leader must also be prepared to specify the consequences of the decision for each individual. In the information phase the leader must be responsive to questions and suggestions from those involved in the process. It is imperative for a leader to be as honest as possible when he or she communicates a decision to staff members. A leader should try not to withhold information. Everyone must be informed and not just a few. In traditional organizations, decisions are sometimes made behind closed doors and very little information is disseminated. This has the disadvantage that rumors are easily created and spread. Normally the result is that the employees become anxious and experience insecurity, which in turn can lower morale. Sometimes a leader may have to withhold certain information, even if it is positive in nature. There may be security reasons for this. However, many times it is counterproductive to withhold negative information. In case a leader is forced to withhold certain information he or she should tell the people involved when they can expect to receive more details (Roos, Von Krogh, & Roos, 1994; Heller, 1998). When you call for a meeting, it is good if you can distribute the agenda and other relevant information in advance to meeting participants. This will save you time. It is often advantageous if the number of participants can be minimized as much as possible. The leader should during the meeting be focused on a limited number of issues which are linked to the implementation of the decision. This requires a streamlining of the work process. Open critical discussions are not useful in this phase. Each issue should be treated carefully. The leader must ensure that all necessary data relating to the decision is included in the discussion. It is good if as many participants as possible can be involved in solving the problems (Roos, Von Krogh, & Roos, 1994; Heller, 1998). The decisions made at the follow-up meetings should result in an action agenda. Different participants can be responsible for ensuring that the agenda is kept. Follow-up meetings are just as important as the initial discussions and should therefore be given the same status. Any planned action is then given a deadline and the leader, or one of the participants, must make sure that the times are kept. The action agenda should be reviewed at every meeting. Discrepancies, changes and delays must be explained in detail. In addition, necessary decisions must be made. Sometimes, a follow-up meeting may indicate that the original decision must be changed. In such a case, one should not hesitate to do this (Roos, Von Krogh, & Roos, 1994; Heller, 1998). It is important that the implementation of a decision is followed up regularly, either at natural breaking points or at specific intervals. A leader must constantly test the sustainability of the original decision. This is especially important when an individual decision affects an entire project. Sometimes it may require drastic action steps to get a project back on track. Such measures may result in a substantial rewriting of the action plan. Therefore, it is always good to develop contingency plans in case the main plan is not working. At each breaking point the leader should ask whether or not to proceed with the project. Regardless of whether a decision has succeeded or failed, it should be evaluated after it has been implemented (Roos, Von Krogh, & Roos, 1994; Heller, 1998). To evaluate an implementation plan When a decision is evaluated you should ask yourself whether or not it should have been made once again if you were able to move back in time. If not you should go through the decision and change the parts that do not work. This may imply that you have to invest additional capital or change the staffing structure. For example, it is not unusual that a complete product concept may need to change as a result of an evaluation meeting. (Roos, Von Krogh, & Roos, 1994; Heller, 1998). In the evaluation of a decision, it may be found that it is malfunctioning or has become a victim of events. Also, it may sometimes happen that the leader has to change a decision that someone else has made. At such times it is important to be diplomatic. The organization and its members' best must always be put first. If a decision is threatening the organization's financial situation the leader should act promptly. In such a situation he or she should talk with all persons involved in the implementation of the decision. Should the problem be impossible to solve it should be considered to restart the entire decision process (Roos, Von Krogh, & Roos, 1994; Heller, 1998). By the use of evaluation and control a leader can ensure that the strategic decisions will be implemented in a satisfactory manner. It is important to follow up the developments to adapt to the required overall objectives. However, it can be difficult to establish good assessment criteria or standards to establish if an implementation of a decision has been effective or not. When choosing criteria, it is important to note that with the help of these the leader can measure whether the plan gives satisfactory results. The leader should also ensure that the choice of the criteria results in that the implementation process itself works (Roos, Von Krogh, & Roos, 1994; Heller, 1998). Traditionally, quantitative criteria have been used for evaluating the effectiveness of an implementation. Typical examples of such criteria consist of profits, share prices, returns on equity, market shares, sales growth, production costs, etc. The results obtained on these parameters may well be compared with the results of the same from previous years. Comparisons can also be made with current competitor performance on these parameters. This makes it possible to gain both an idea of the development over time and of the relative position one has established. When selecting evaluation criteria, it is not the number that makes a difference. If too many criteria are chosen, this may lead to a lack of focus on the criteria that are truly critical for the organization's activities. The leader should therefore seek to define a number of critical success factors. It is important that these are not only defined but also integrated in the planning itself. In this way it becomes easier to determine quantitative and specific standards. In addition, critical values should be defined. These values express the weakest performance level with which an organization can live without a comprehensive reassessment of the decision being necessary. When one makes use of quantitative criteria, it is important to note that these are by no means neutral or absolute. For instance, it can happen that changes in the external environment result in a criterion no longer being relevant. It is therefore important that leaders constantly monitor that the criteria used are really critical for the organization's ability to achieve success. In addition, it is important to take into account to what degree long term or short term results are to be evaluated. This can have an impact on what factors are considered critical (Roos, Von Krogh, & Roos, 1994; Heller, 1998). How to measure the success of strategic decisions According to a study conducted by Nutt (1986) the success of an implemented decision is defined in three ways. The most common definition relates to whether the strategic objectives have been achieved or not. Another common definition is based on key informants' perception of the implementation. A third definition takes the cost-benefit analysis as a point of departure for determining whether an implementation has been successful or not. In order to gauge whether a strategic decision has been successful or not an important precondition is that an action alternative has been chosen and implemented. The implementation of a decision often means that the leader detects obstacles, gaps and errors that have been overlooked in the choice between alternatives. The problem is that techniques such as scenarios, simulation and sequential implementation only provide limited information of the processes themselves. In addition, a leader cannot use the techniques to take away the uncertainty completely. In order to succeed with their strategic decisions, leaders must often commit themselves to the use of certain resources to ensure that the implementation is successful. Reversing such commitments is often costly for the organization. It is therefore important for leaders to focus on the factors most likely to have the potential to affect whether the strategic decision is successful or not. This should be done before the organization commits itself to follow a course of action that is difficult or impossible to fulfill. In many cases measures have to be taken in the implementation of a decision which aim to correct perceived defects and shortcomings. In case a leader fails to implement a decision alternative he or she must immediately begin to search for a new one and this is often costly for the organization. For this reason it is very important for the organisation to make as informed decisions as possible (Harrison, 1999). According to Harrison, it is important that a strategic decision is compatible with established business methods to be able to achieve success. There is usually an advantage if one is able to follow policies, procedures, and already established practices. This will make it easier to succeed with the strategic decisions. This is especially important if a leader wants to implement a strategy designed to reduce costs (Barney, 2007). It is also important that the "timing" is right. Often there is an optimum timing for each strategic decision. Time is therefore a critical variable for all strategic decisions. A leader should also ensure that he or she has access to optimal amounts of relevant information before making a strategic decision. In this context, the relevance of the information is more important than the maximization of its volume. It is also positive if the leader has the opportunity to influence the decision as much as possible. For this reason, it can be useful if the top executive team can follow up the strategic decision. Regarding the implementation of the decision, it is important that the leader understands the link between risk and reward. It has, among other things, proved that leaders who fail to identify and evaluate risks in general have difficulties to reach success with their strategic decisions. These leaders usually also have a problem clarifying for themselves what risks they are willing to accept. It is important that all those involved in the implementation understand the reasons for why the decision was made, who are going to implement it and what other implications the strategic decision has brought with it (Harrison, 1999). It is not unusual that there is a separation between the formulation and implementation of a strategic decision. Often, it is the top leadership that formulates the decision while it is the middle managers that implement it (Nobel, 1999). When a strategic decision is to be implemented, it is therefore common that the middle managers are given the task of translating the strategic objectives to the everyday worklife conditions (Whittington, 2003; Balogun & Johnson, 2004). This is accomplished by establishing operational plans based on a short term perspective. In addition, the middle managers translate the strategic goals to individual goals and ensure that activities are started up in support of the top leadership initiatives (Floyd & Wooldridge, 1992, 1997). It is fairly common for the top leadership to signal that the implementation of a strategic decision has been successful when the middle managers start to report positive results. This can sometimes happen even if most of the implementation is unfinished. One consequence of this is that an implementation success is perceived differently depending on who you ask in an organization (Pettigrew, 1998). There are several factors that can hinder a successful implementation. First, the knowledge that decision makers have access to when making the decision may be inadequate. The decision makers may not have an enough good understanding of what measures are necessary to implement the decision. Secondly, it may be that the resources the decision makers have access to are inadequate. A variant of this problem is that you have sufficient access to resources, but that you receive these at the wrong time in the process. Thirdly, the decision makers may be met with resistance from key groups that makes it difficult to implement their plans (Bryman, 1996). All this implies that almost exactly the same decision can be made in two roughly similar organizations operating in the same branch with two completely different implementation processes. Often, an important difference lies in how quickly an organization is willing to implement the decision (Hickson & Miller, 1992). It is impossible to get away from the fact that the evaluation of a decision is subject to interpretation. This is particularly true for complex decisions whose results can only be detected months or years later. A practical problem is that leaders' decisions are difficult to separate from their values. For instance, it is usual that leaders are weighting various performance dimensions differently. When a decision has many consequences the criteria used to evaluate it depend on what consequences are highlighted. Different leaders may emphasize different implications differently. The time factor is also important. In the late 1950'ies the development of a specific computer at IBM was regarded as a leadership failure because of the high development costs. Ten years later, the same leadership concluded that the development of this particular computer was the best investment they had ever made. Experience also shows that it can often take three to five years to get a company back on track after a serious crisis. During this time, other factors may influence the process. For this reason, it is sometimes difficult to figure out the causes which actually brought about the effects. Another consequence is that the leaders who have made a decision necessarily are not the same as those who have to live with the consequences. Decisions can often be rather vague and thus allow for different interpretations. This can imply that those who are implementing them do not really know what to do or what is expected of them. Since information is transmitted from one individual or group to another, it is very easy that the meaning of the content changes. However, it happens that those who are to implement the decisions do not understand what to do, even if the directives are clearly articulated. In such situations they are forced to "translate" the decisions to practical action. Often, such translations take the form of reinterpretations which can lead to quite different implementations from what was intended in the original decision (McCall & Kaplan, 1990; Nadler & Tushman, 1990; Bryman, 1996). Leaders often get the task of implementing the decisions of others. In these situations, it is not unusual that they may receive criticism for the results that they have not given rise to. To determine whether the implementation of a decision has been successful or not can therefore often be a matter affected by negotiation and impression management. Leaders who have been involved in making a decision increasingly tend to regard the implementation as a success compared with those who have not been involved. It is therefore not always the case that evaluations of an implemented decision are entirely based on a process that is founded on facts and driven by continuous objective analyses (McCall & Kaplan, 1990; Nadler & Tushman, 1990; Bryman, 1996). Factors that make the decision implementation a failure or a success Many leaders are aware of how to act in order to succeed in implementing a decision. Yet these leaders often experience disappointments and setbacks in the implementation process. A first step towards success is therefore to create an understanding of why the implementation does not succeed in relation to the needs and goals that have been established. According to Ulrich (1997), the following factors contribute to a decision implementation failure: 1. A lack of connection to the strategy. 2. The implementation is seen as a gimmick or a "quick fix". 3. A short term perspective is used. 4. Political realities undermine the implementation. 5. Grandiose expectations. 6. An inflexible change design. 7. A lack of implementation leadership. 8. A lack of measurable results. 9. A fear of the unknown. 10. A lack of ability to mobilize commitment and responsibility in support of the implementation. The famous organization researcher J.P. Kotter (1996) has also identified a number of factors likely to negatively affect the implementation of decisions: 1. A too weak perception of the implementation as necessary and important. 2. A lack of a coalition that takes the lead and follow up the implementation. 3. An underestimation of the power of a meaningful, clear and inspiring vision. 4. A sub-communication of the vision in words and deeds. 5. An allowance of different events to block the new vision and thereby impeding the implementation. 6. The failure to create short-term and visible results and forgetting to mark these. 7. A tendency to stop the implementation process too early with the explanation that it has been successful. 8. An underestimation of the importance of anchoring the implementation in the organizational culture. In his book, Why Decisions Fail, Paul C. Nutt presents a thorough analysis of what often goes wrong when the implementation of a decision fails. A reflection he makes is that a leader or a team often has trouble handling the persuasion aspect. The leader or the team often gathers a number of arguments to support a particular line of action and then seek evidence from experts that underpin them. In addition the leader or the team develops a strategy for how the implementation best should be sold in. If difficulties arise when it comes to pitching the arguments, it is not unusual for the leader or the team to try to dramatize what can be gained by various demonstrations. This fails too often. One problem is that the leader or the team often overestimates the benefits of trying to persuade others. Persuasion is often regarded as a low-risk strategy. When you have convinced yourself with the help of some arguments, you often assume that there should be as easy to convince others. Unfortunately, the failure arises when you cannot convince others with the help of your best arguments. Leaders and teams often put down too much time and energy to document that a decision is right without simultaneously acquiring acceptance from the key people involved in it. When people have something to lose in an implementation process, persuasion is often a poor method (Nutt, 2002). Another problem that managers and teams face when they are about to implement decisions relates to charters and regulations. Often this problem centers on the regulation of who is going to implement the decision. This regulation is often done without consulting the people affected by the changes that the decision inevitably will bring about. In order to issue such a regulation, leaders and teams must make use of their position power within the organization. However, leaders and teams often overestimate their power and underestimate the resistance that the involved parties are able to mobilize. To succeed as a leader, you have to build up social credit in the form of trust and goodwill that can easily be exchanged for fast action. Nutt (2002) describes a case in which a top leader was interested in implementing a new IT system at one of his departments as a pilot project. When none of the department heads volunteered to undertake the mission, one of them was ordered to test the new system. As a result, people at the concerned department in various ways attempted to sabotage the new system by putting in incorrect data, while they at the same time used their old system. The basic problem that leaders and teams face is that their use of position power to carry out the implementation of a decision undermines their social credit in the form of trust and goodwill (Nutt, 2002). There are also a number of studies that have identified key factors which are important for the successful implementation of a decision (Tichy, 1983; Kanter et al., 1992; Jacobs, 1994; Drucker, 1995). From these studies, Ulrich (1997) has identified the following key factors for a successful implementation: 1. Anchorage of the implementation. It is important to have a sponsor or someone who owns and leads the implementation initiative. It is also positive if every member of the team at some point may be in charge of the implementation. 2. Providing an understanding of why the implementation is needed. It is important that the people involved understand why the implementation is necessary and that the need for the implementation is perceived as stronger than the resistance that may exist. It is also important for the leader to ensure that the implementation is linked to the business objectives and outcomes. 3. Creating a vision. It is good if the leader or the team can formulate the outcomes that are desirable as a result of the implementation. The vision must be linked to values and needs so that an active responsible citizenship could be created. 4. Mobilizing commitments. It is important to identify, involve, and convince the principal "owners" of the implementation initiative. In case there is a resistance to the implementation it must be overcome and all participants must actively commit themselves and take responsibility. 5. Changing systems and structures. The leader and the team should make use of personnel management tools to ensure that the implementation of the decision is built into the organization's infrastructure. Such tools can relate to staffing, personnel development, rewards, organizational design, communication, etc. Many times, both leadership functions and roles need to be renewed when a major decision is being implemented. 6. To monitor the implementation progression. It applies to leaders and teams to define methods to measure and demonstrate the success of the implementation. In addition, leaders and teams can try to draw as much attention to the implementation as possible. 7. To get the implementation to persist. The leader and the team must ensure that the implementation is carried out by the use of established plans for each phase. In addition, accountabilities and responsibilities must be sorted out. Also, an environment conducive to learning based on action and reflection should be established. Both the allocation of responsibilities and deadlines are important. According to research conducted by Nutt (2002) leaders and teams should use intervention as a method to position the implementation as early as possible in the decision process. Many decision makers assume that the reasons they have for acting are obvious to others. Unfortunately, it is often the case that key stakeholders are completely unaware of these reasons, or perhaps think that they are not so important. Sometimes they even wonder if there is a hidden agenda at work, even if this is not the case. A good way to convince key stakeholders is to compare the organization's performance with that of other more successful organizations through benchmarking. The next step is to show what standards these organizations work with and what makes them successful. You can then network with the key stakeholders and explain the new standards, documenting achievements and focus on ideas that might work. You should also let as many key stakeholders as possible participate in the decision process. You can for example create a special task force group where they are included. This means that the key stakeholders will share the power when it comes to both making the decision and implementing it. There are many who think that there actually is an ethical imperative tied to letting key stakeholders be involved in the decision process. In order to make the method successful, it is important that the key stakeholders involved are provided with tasks that are perceived as relevant to their interests. It is important to create motivation. It is also important that trust can be established between all parties involved and that there is no unduly questioning of each other's views. One reason why it is important to let the key stakeholders be involved in the implementation process is that business life in general has become increasingly complex. Modern leaders do not know all the interests that the key stakeholders have. Moreover, it is less likely that the key stakeholders will try to undermine the implementation if they are allowed to play an active role in the process as early as possible. Involving key stakeholders in the process also means that they are likely to perceive their role as more interesting and meaningful (see for instance Kotter, 1996; Quinn, 1980; Hrebeniak, 2005). An important point is to strike a balance between the commitment of the key stakeholders and the range of tasks that the work group will be responsible for. One can only expect a limited commitment from key stakeholders if a group receives unlimited tasks. If the tasks of a group are limited, it is natural that the key stakeholders can be involved to a higher extent (Nutt, 2002). It is important to remember that an overly participatory implementation process is risking to interfere negatively with everyday activities (Harrison & Freeman, 2004). The use of consultants in the implementation of decisions It is not uncommon for an organization to hire consultants in connection with the implementation of strategic decisions. Often, the consultant plays the role of an expert, and can be likened to a "company doctor" who is consulted in order to help a client. Hiring external consultants has several advantages. The first is that external consultants often have a more free approach to the organization than those who work in it. Employees in an organization often develop what is usually called "blind spots". This means that there are certain things that you cannot see because you are so used to them. External consultants are not hampered by these blinkers and therefore often arrive at accurate diagnoses more easy. The second advantage is that external consultants are often specialists in the fields of organization and leadership. These skills are generally missing among leaders and employees in the organization. This fact implies that the consultants are often in a better position to diagnose the situation and find the right solutions to the problems. Thirdly, it is often easier for external consultants to take a holistic approach to the organization. Often, employees see problems and solutions from their perspective, which often makes them place great emphasis on problems and solutions that are directly related to what they are working with on a daily basis. In addition, external consultants' use of analytical tools force them to consider more elements in the organization (Schein, 1987; Ginsberg & Abrahamson, 1991; Neill & Mindrum, 2000; Jacobsen, 2008). Many large consulting firms routinely prepare reports that contain overviews and action recommendations. Often, these reports also include proposals that focus on how the consulting firm would like to implement these recommendations. The proposals often specify actions, timetables and costs associated with the implementation of the decision. It is often not so difficult for a client to persuade leading consulting firms to produce reports of this nature. For most larger projects the lion part of the resources are linked to the implementation phase and not to research and survey work. Therefore, it may sometimes occur that consulting firms undertake to make this kind of work more or less for free, in the hope of also getting contracted on the implementation part. When a client asks for an implementation plan, this normally implies that the consultant's preliminary work is perceived as serious (Stroh & Johnson, 2006). A close link is often established between the consultants and the formal leadership. This means that consultants seldom create deeper relationships with everyone in the organization, but mainly with the key decision makers. On occasion, it happens that the consultants themselves are part of the formal leadership. This is a trend that is becoming more common in the implementation of strategic decisions. In this context, it is often little difference between the consultants and the formal leadership (Jacobsen, 2008). This has some negative consequences. Symbolic decision making There are many cases where the primary purpose of making a decision is not to implement it. The point of making such decisions is often that the leadership of an organization wants to reveal their ability to act or express their opinion. In these situations, decision makers are primarily interested in the symbolic or expressive aspects of the decision. They are usually less interested in following up this kind of decisions on a concrete level. Symbolic decisions are therefore designed to gain legitimacy by showing a willingness to carry some things through without necessarily intending to implement them. These decisions must be distinguished from the purely instrumental, which aim to solve concrete problems. It is easy to perceive the symbolic decisions as something negative. However, the use of symbols can have strong effects on the organization's functioning. An organization is to a greater extent characterized by common perceptions than by formal structures. These perceptions have to be created and sustained. The symbolic decisions signal in what way the leadership desires that the organization should develop. In this way, the symbolic decisions express the core organizational values in a simple and straightforward manner. Therefore, these decisions do not seldom have a motivating power inside the organization. When leaders outline visions for the organization, not unexpectedly, this has a motivating effect on staff. Since visions are often both vague and hard to reach, they are in possession of a highly developed symbolic side. Through this similarity with visions, symbolic decisions may also serve as interpretations of what has happened in the past (Podsakoff et al., 2000, Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006). Conclusions How a leader chooses to implement a decision heavily depends on the decision in nature, that is, if the leader is dealing with a strategic, tactical or operational decision. Another important factor is the time horizon that the leader is working with. The first thing a leader should do is to develop a plan for how he or she intends to implement the decision. In this context it is important to be clear about what resources are needed to carry out the implementation and how the leader intends to involve others in the process. Often it may be expedient to create a team that works together to implement the decision. The leader should also create an action agenda for each meeting, specifying the responsibilities of each person. It is important for the leader to be as open as possible and not try to withhold information from the persons involved in the process. For instance, the leader should distribute as much relevant information as possible to meeting participants before a meeting. At the same time, one must be able to steer the process. For this reason, open critical discussions should be banned during the meetings. The implementation plan that has been created must be evaluated and monitored regularly. This is most easily done by working with critical evaluation criteria. A common way to determine whether an implementation has been successful is to focus on the achievement of the strategic objectives. It is also common to inform oneself about how the key stakeholders have perceived the process. Thirdly, a cost-benefit analysis can be used as a starting point for deciding whether the implementation has been successful or not. It is not unusual that there is a separation between the formulation of a decision and the implementation of it. Often, it is the top leadership which formulates the decision and the middle managers that implements it. For this reason, it is relatively common that the top leadership is signaling that the implementation has been successful when the middle managers begin to report the positive results. This can sometimes happen even though most of the implementation is unfinished. However, there are also cases where top leaders judge certain implementation processes as failures and where it later is found that these projects have been successful. A problem in organizations is that leaders often inherit the task of implementing decisions that past leaders have made. There are many factors that can make the implementation of a decision fail. One major reason is that the leader or the team does not really take the task seriously. Often, they simply do not understand how important the task is. Another important reason is that leaders fail to communicate with the people that is most concerned by the process. For example, a clear vision may be lacking. Also, interested parties may not have been allowed to participate actively in the process. A third important reason is that the leader or team take out the victory in advance and overestimate the progress being made. In order to succeed with an implementation, it is necessary to understand the importance of the process, communicate the vision clearly, evaluate and monitor continuously, and allowing interested parties to participate actively in the process. Leaders should also understand that what at first may look like a failure at a later stage may prove to be a success. It is not uncommon for the leadership to hire external consultants when they are about to implement a decision. There are several reasons for this. First, consultants generally have a more free approach to the organization than those who work in it, and therefore can see some things that employees cannot see. Often, consultants from leading firms are also specialists in organization and leadership which makes it easier for them to diagnose the situation and to find the right solutions to the problems. Major consulting firms are working routinely to develop action steps, timelines and cost estimates associated with the implementation of a decision. It is not always the case that leaders are really interested in that the decisions they have made should be implemented. These decisions are often referred to as symbolic. Often, the purpose of symbolic decisions is that the leadership wants to document their ability to act or express their opinion in general. The symbolic decisions signal in which way the leadership desires the organization to be developed. In this way, leaders can easily and in a readily understandable manner express the core values of the organization. Checklist 1. Why is it important to create an implementation plan? How should you as a leader work with such a plan? 2. How does you as a leader manage and control an implementation process? 3. Why can it sometimes be a good thing to let a team be responsible for the implementation of a decision? 4. How can one determine whether the implementation of a decision has been successful or not? What problems can be found in this connection? 5. What can make the implementation of a decision fail? 6. Why is it sometimes useful to hire external consultants when to implement a decision? For what kind of decision is this recommedable? 7. What are the pros and cons of symbolic decision making? References Abrahamson, E. (1996). Management fashion. Academy of Management Review, 21, 254-285. Ackoff, R. L. (1970). A concept of corporate planning. New York: Wiley Adair, J. (2007). The art of creative thinking. London: Kogan Page. Agor, W. H. (1991). The logic of intuition: How top executives make important decisions. In J. Henry (Ed.), Creative management. London: Sage Publications. Ahlstrom, D., & Bruton, G. D. (2008). International management: Strategy and culture in the emerging world. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning. Allwood, C.M., & Selart, M. (2010). Decision Making: Social and Creative Dimensions. Dordrecht: Springer. Allwood, C. M., & Selart, M. (2001). Social and creative decision making. In Allwood, C. M., and Selart, M. (Eds.), Decision Making: Social and Creative Dimensions. Boston/Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Alvesson, M. (1989). Ledning av kunskapsföretag. Stockholm: Norstedts förlag. Alvesson, M. (2002). Understanding organizational culture. London: Sage Publications. Amabile, T. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview – Harper Collins Ancona, D. G., & Nadler, D. A. (1989). Top hats and executive tales: Designing the executive team. Sloan Management Review, 3, 19-28. Anderson, L. E., & Balzer, W. K. (1991). The effects of timing on leaders' opinions on problem-solving groups. Group and Organizational Management, 16, 86-101. Argyris, C. (1991). Teaching smart people how to learn. Harvard Business Review, 69, 99109. Aronson, J., Cohen, G., & Nail, P. R. (1999). Self-affirmation theory: An update and appraisal. In E. Harmon-Jones and J. Mills (Eds.), Cognitive dissonance: Progress on a pivotal theory in social psychology. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. Bacharach, S. B., et al. (1995). Strategic and tactical logics of decision justification: Power and decision criteria in organizations. Human Relations, 48, 447-488. Balogun, J., & Johnson, G. (2004). Organizational restructuring and middle management sensemaking. Organization Studies, 26, 1573-1601. Baltes, P. B., & Smith, J. (1990). Toward a psychology of wisdom and its ontogenesis. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Wisdom: Its nature, origins, and development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Baltes, P. B., & Staudinger, U. M. (2000). A metaheuristic (pragmatic) to orchestrate mind and virtue toward excellence. American Psychologist, 55, 122-136. Bantel, K. A., & Jackson, S. E. (1989). Top management and innovations in banking: Does the composition of the top team make a difference ? Strategic Management Journal, 10, 107-112. Barker, J. R. (1993). Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 408-438. Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99-120. Barney, J. B. (2007). Gaining and sustaining competitive advantage. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Baron, J. (1993). Morality and rational choice. Dordrecht/Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Bartholome, F. (1989). Nobody trusts the boss completely: Now what? Harvard Business Review, 67, 135-142. Bass, B. M. (1990). Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. New York: Free Press. Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52, 130-139. Bates, C. S. (1985). Mapping the environment: An operational environmental analysis model. Long Range Planning, 18, 97-107. Bazerman, M. H. (2006). Judgment in managerial decision making. New York: Wiley. Beach, L. R. (1997). The psychology of decision making: People in organizations. London: Sage Publications. Bennis, W. G., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The Strategies for Taking Charge. New York: Harper & Row. Beu, D. S., & Buckley, M. R. (2004). This is war: How the politically astute achieve crimes of obedience through the use of moral disengagement. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 551-568. Bigelow, J. (1992). Developing managerial wisdom. Journal of Management Inquiry, 1, 143153. Blake, C. (2008). The Art of Decisions: How to Manage in an Uncertain World. London: Prentice Hall. Blennberger, E. (2007). Etik & Ledarskap (Ethics and Leadership). Malmö: Liber. Boal, K. B., & Hooijberg, R. (2001). Strategic leadership research: Moving on. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 515-549. Bradford, D. L., & Cohen, A. R. (1984). Managing for Excellence: The Guide to developing High Performance Organizations. New York: Wiley. Browne, M. (1993). Organizational decision making and information. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Brunsson, N. (1982). The irrationality of action and action rationality: Decisions, ideologies, and organizational actions. Journal of Management Studies, 19, 29-44. Brunsson, N. (1985). The irrational organization: Irrationality as a basis for organizational action and change. New York: Wiley. Brunsson, N. (1989). The organization of hypocrisy: Talk, decisions, and action in organizations. Chichester: Wiley. Brunsson, N. (2007). The consequences of decision making. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bryman, A. (1996). Leadership in organizations. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, and W.R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of Organization Studies. London: Sage Publications. Camerer, C. F., & Ho, T. H. (2001). Strategic learning and teaching. In S. J Hoch, H. C. Kunreuther, and R. E Gunther (Eds.), Wharton on Making Decisions. New York: Wiley. Camerer, C., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2004). Neuroeconomics: Why economics needs brains. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 106, 555-579. Camerer, C., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2005). Neuroeconomics: How neuroscience can inform economics. Journal of Economic Literature, 42, 9-64. Campbell, R. J. (1989). Human resource development strategies. In K. N. Wexley (Ed.), Developing human resources. Washington DC: Bureau of National Affairs. Cannella, A. A., & Monroe, M. J. (1997). Contrasting perspectives on strategic leaders. Toward a more realistic view of top managers. Journal of Management, 23, 213-237. Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Tannenbaum, S. I., Salas, E., & Volpe, C. E. (1995). Defining competencies and establishing team training requirements. In R. A. Guzzo and E. Salas (Eds.), Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations. San Francisco: JosseyBass. Chao, G. T., Walz, P. M., & Gardner, P. D. (1992). Formal and informal mentorship. A comparison on mentoring functions contrasted with non-mentored counterparts. Personnel Psychology, 45, 619-636. Child, J. (2001). Trust – The fundamental bond in global collaboration. Organizational Dynamics, 29, 274-288. Christensen, S. L., & Kohls, J. (2003). Ethical decision making in times of organizational crisis: A framework for analysis. Business and Society, 42/3, 328-358. Cialdini, R. B. (1993). Influence: Science and practice. New York: Harper Collins Publishers. Clore, G. L., Wyer, R. S., Dienes, B., et al (2001). Affective feelings as feedback: Some cognitive consequences. In L. L. Martin and G. L. Clore (Eds.), Theories of mood and cognition: A user's handbook. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 1-25. Cooper, A. C., Woo. C. Y., & Dunkelberg, W. C. (1988). Entrepreneurs' perceived chances for success. Journal of Business Venturing, 3, 97-109. Coyle, G. (2004). Practical strategy: Structured tools and techniques. Harlow: Prentice Hall. Cyert, R. N., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Daft, R. L., & Weick, K. E. (1984). Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems. Academy of Management Review, 9, 284-295. Dahrendorf, R. (1959). Class and class conflict in industrial society. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Dane, E., & Pratt, M. G. (2007). Exploring intuition and its role in manegerial decision making. Academy of Management Review, 32, 33-54. Daniels, K. (2008). Affect and information processing. In G. P. Hodgkinson and W. H. Starbuck (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organizational decision making. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Das, T. K., & Teng, B. S. (1999). Cognitive biases and strategic decision processes: An integrative framework. Journal of Management Studies, 36, 757-778. Day, D. V. (2000). Leadership development: A review in context. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 581-613. Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate Culture: The Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life. Harmondsworth: Penguin. De Bono, E. (1971). Lateral thinking for management. New York: McGraw-Hill. Debons, A., King, W. K., Mansfield, U., & Shirey, D. L. (1981). The information profession: Survey of an emergent field. New York: Dekker. De Leede, J., Nijhof, A. H. J., Fisscher, O. A. M. (1999). The myth of self-managing teams: A reflection on the allocation of responsibilities between individuals, teams, and the organization. Journal of Business Ethics, 21, 203-216. Dollinger, M. J. (1984). Environmental boundary spanning and information processing effects on organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 351-368. Donnellon, A. (1996). Team talk: Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Dotlich, D. L., & Cairo, P. C. (1999). Action coaching: How to leverage individual performance for company success. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Dreher, G. F., & Ash, R. A. (1990). A comparative study of mentoring among men and women in managerial, professional, and technical positions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 539-546. Drucker, P. F. (1995). Managing in a time of change. New York: Penguin. Dutton, J. E. (1993). Interpretation on automatic: A different view of strategic issue diagnosis. Journal of Management Studies, 30, 339-357. Dutton, J. E. (1996). Strategic agenda buildning in organizations. In Z. Shapira (Ed.), Organizational decision making. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Edmondson, A. C., Roberto, M. A., & Watkins, M. D. (2003). A dynamic model of top management team effectiveness: managing unstructured task streams. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 297-325. Eek, D., & Selart, M. (2009) The choice between allocation principles: Amplifying when equality dominates. International Journal of Psychology, 44, 109-119. Eflin, J. (2003). Epistemic presuppositions and their consequences. Metaphilosophy, 34, 4867. Elsbach, K. D., & Barr, P. S. (1999). The effects of mood on individual's use of structured decision protocols. Organizational Science, 10, 181-198. Eisenstat, R. A., & Cohen, S. G. (1990). Summary: Top management groups. In J. R. Hackman (Ed.), Groups that work (and those who don't). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Eneroth, B. (1992). Att handla på känn: Om intuition i professionell verksamhet. Stockholm: Natur och kultur. Etzioni, A. (1964). Modern organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Etzioni, A. (1985). Guidance rules and rational decision making. Social Science Quarterly, 66, 755-769. Etzioni, A. (1986). Mixed scanning revisited. Public Administration Review, 46, 8-14. Fagenson, E. A. (1989). The mentor advantage: Perceived career/job experiences of protégés versus non-protégés. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10, 309-320. Feldman, S. P. (1988). Secrecy, information, and politics: An essay on organizational decision making. Human Relations, 41, 73-90. Ferris, G. R., & Kacmar, K. M. (1992). Perceptions of organizational politics. Journal of Management, 18, 93-116. Finkelstein, S., & Hambrick, D. C. (1996). Strategic Leadership: Top Executives and their effects on Organizations. St. Paul MN: West Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (1981). Getting to yes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Fiske, S. T. (1992). Thinking is for doing: Portraits of social cognition from daguerreotype to laserphoto. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 877-889. Floyd, S., & Wooldridge, B. (1992). Middle management involvement in strategy and its association with strategic type: A research note. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 153-167. Floyd, S., & Wooldridge, B. (1997). Middle management's strategic influence and organizational performance. Journal of Management Studies, 34, 465-485. Frost, P. J., Moore, L. F., Louis, M. R., Lundberg, C. C., & Martin, J. (1991). Reframing Organnizational Culture. London: Sage. Gabarro, J. J. (1985). When a new manager takes charge. Harvard Business Review, 63, 116. Gannon, M. J., Smith, K. G., & Grimm, C. (1992). An organizational information.processing profile of first movers. Journal of Business Research, 25, 231-241. Ganster, D. C. (2005). Executive job demands: Suggestions from a stress and decisionmaking perspective. Academy of Management Review, 30, 492-502. Gärling, T., Karlsson, N., Romanus, J., & Selart, M. (1997). Influences of the past on choices of the future. (pp. 167-189). In Ranyard, R., Crozier, W. R., & Svenson, O. (Eds.). Decision Making: Cognitive models and explanations. New York: Routledge. Gärling, T., Karlsson, N., & Selart, M. (1999). The role of mental accounting in everyday economic decision making (pp. 199-218). In P. Juslin, and H. Montgomery (Eds.), Judgment and Decision Making. Hillsdale, NJ. Erlbaum. Giddens, A. (1993). The constitution of society. Cambridge: Polity Press. Gigerenzer, G. (2007). Gut feelings: The intelligence of the unconscious. London: Penguin Books. Gigerenzer, G., & Hoffrage, U. (1995). How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instructions: Frequency formats: Psychological Review, 102, 684-704. Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P. M., & the ABC Research Group. (1999). Simple Heuristics that make us Smart. New York: Oxford University Press. Gilbert, D. T. (2002). Inferential correction. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gillholm, R., Ettema, D., Selart, M., & Gärling, T. (1999). The role of planning for intentionbehavior consistency. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 40, 241-250. Gini, A. (1998). Moral leadership and business ethics. In J. B. Ciulla (Ed.), Ethics, The Heart of Leadership. Westport CT: Greenwood Publishing. Ginsberg, A., & Abrahamson, E. (1991). Champions of change and strategic shifts: The role of internal and external change advocates. Journal of Management Studies, 28, 173-190. Gioia, D. A., & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 433-448. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Gordon, W. J. (1961). Synectics. New York: Harper and Row. Grønhaug, K., & Falkenberg, J. (1990). Organizational success and success criteria: Conceptual issues and an empirical illustration. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 6, 267-284. Grønhaug, K., Hellesøy, O., & Kaufmann, G. (2006). Ledelse i teori og praksis. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget. Guzzo, R. A., & Dickson, M. W. (1996). Teams in organizations: Recent research on performance of effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 307-338. Hackman, J. R. (1983). A normative model of work team effectiveness (Tech. Rep. No. 2). New Haven, CT: Yale School of Organization and Management Research Program on Group Effectiveness. Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. Lorch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Hall, D. T., Otazo, K. L., & Hollenbeck, G. P. (1999). Behind closed doors: What really happens in executive coaching. Organizational Dynamics, 29, 39-53. Hambrick, D. C. (1982). Environmental scanning and organizational strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 3, 159-174. Hambrick, D. C., & Finkelstein, S. (1987). Managerial discretion: A bridge between polar views of organizational outcomes. In L. L. Cummings andd B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 9. Greenwich CT: JAI Press. Hambrick, D. C., Finkelstein, S., & Mooney, A. C. (2005). Executive job demands: New insights for exploring strategic decisions and leader behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 30, 472-491. Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9, 193-206. Hannan, M., & Freeman, J. (1984). Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 49, 149-164. Hansen, M. T., Nohria, N., & Tierney, T. (1999). What's your strategy for managing knowledge? Harvard Business Review, 77, 106-116. Hardaker, M., & Ward, B. K. (1987). How to make a team work. Harvard Business Review, 65, 112-118. Hare, P. A. (1994). Individual versus group: In P. A. Hare, H. H. Blumberg, M. F. Davies and M. V. Kent (Eds.), Small group research: A handbook. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Harrison, F. E. (1999). The Managerial Decision-Making Process, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Harrison, J. S., & Freeman, R. E. (2004). Democracy in and around organizations: Is democracy worth the effort ? Academy of Management Executive, 18, 49-53. Heath, C., & Gonzalez, R. (1995). Interaction with others increase decision confidence but not decision quality: Evidence against information collection views of interactive decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 61, 305-326. Hedelin, L., & Allwood, C. M. (2001). Managers' strategic decision processes in large organizations. In C. M. Allwood and M. Selart (Eds.), Decision making: Social and creative dimensions. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Heifetz, R. (1994). Leadership without Easy Answers. Cambridge: MA. Belnap Press of Harvard University Press. Heller, F. (1992). Decision making and leadership. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heller, R. (1998). Making decisions. New York: DK Publishing Inc. Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. H., & Johnson, D. E. (2008). Management of organizational behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hicks, M. J. (1991). Problem solving in business and management. London: Chapman & Hall. Hickson, D., & Miller, S. (1992). Concepts of decisions: Making and implementing strategic decisions in organizations. In F. Heller (Ed.), Decision Making and Leadership. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hitt, M. A., & Tyler, B. B. (1991). Strategic decision models: Integrating different perspectives. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 327-352. Hjertø, K. B. (2004). Teamledelse. In Ø. L. Martinsen (Ed.), Perspektiver på ledelse. Oslo: Gyldendal Akademisk. Hoch, S. J. (2001). Combining models with intuition to improve decisions. In S. J Hoch, H. C. Kunreuther, and R. E Gunther (Eds.), Wharton on Making Decisions. New York: Wiley. Hodgkinson, G. P., & Sparrow, P. R. (2002). The competent organization. Buckingham: Open University Press. Hodgkinson, G. P., & Starbuck, W. H. (2008). Organizational decision making: Mapping terrains on different planets. In G. P. Hodgkinson and W. H. Starbuck (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organizational decision making. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hofstede, G (1991). Culture and organizations: Software of the mind. New York: McGraw & Hill. Holmes, F. L. (1985). Lavoisier and the chemistry of life: An exploration of scientific creativity. Madison, WN: University of Wisconsin Press. Howard, A., & Bray, D. W. (1988). Managerial lives in transition: Advancing age and changing time. New York: Guilford Press. Hrebeniak, L. G. (2005). Making strategy work: Leading effective execution and change.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Hrebeniak, L. G., & Joyce, W. F. (1984). Implementing strategy. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company. Huber, G. P., & Daft, R. L. (1987). The information environments of organizations. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication. London: Sage Publications. Hughes, G. J. (2001). Aristotle on ethics. London: Routledge. Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Sego, D. J., & Major, D. A. (1993). Team research in the 1990s. In M. M. Chemers and R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research; Perspectives and directions. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Irwin, J., & Baron, J. (2001). Values and decisions. In S. J Hoch, H. C. Kunreuther, and R. E Gunther (Eds.), Wharton on Making Decisions. New York: Wiley. Isenberg, D. J. (1984). How senior managers think. Harvard Business Review, 6, 80-90. Isenberg, D. J. (1991). How senior managers think. In J. Henry (Ed.), Creative management. London: Sage Publications. Jacobs, W. (1994). Real time strategic change: How to involve an entire organization in fast and far-reaching change. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Jacobsen, D. I. (2008). Organisasjonsendringer og endringsledelse. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget. Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Janis, I. L., & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making. A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment. New York: Free Press. Jennings, D. F, & Lumpkin, J. R. (1989). Insight into the relationship between strategic momentum and environmental scanning: An empirical analysis. Akron Business & Economic Review (ABER), 20, 84-93. Jennings, D., & Wattam, S. (1994). Decision making: An integrated approach. London: Pitman Publishing. Johannessen, J-A., Olaisen, J., & Olsen, B. (1999). Managing and organizing innovation in the knowledge economy. European Journal of Innovation Management, 2, 116-128. Jones, M. L. (1990). Action learning as a new idea. Journal of Management Development, 9, 29-34. Jung, D. I., & Avolio, B. J. (1999). Effects of leadership style and followers' cultural orientation on performance in group and individual task conditions. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 208-218. Kacmar, K. M., & Baron, R. A. (1999). Organizational politics: The state of the field, links to related processes, and an agenda for future research. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management, Vol. 17. Stamford, CT: JAI Press. Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist, 58, 697-720. Kahneman, D., & Lovallo, D. (1993). Timid choices and bold forecasts: A cognitive perspective on risk and risk taking. Management Science, 39, 17-31. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263-291. Kanter, R. M., Stein, B. A., & Jick, T. D. (1992). The challenge of organizational change. New York: The Free Press. Kaplan, R. E., Kofodimos, J. R., & Drath, W. H. (1987). Development at the top: A review and a prospect. In W Pasmore and R. W. Woodman (Eds.), Research on organizational change and development. Greenwich CT: JAI Press. Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285-308. Karlsson, N., Gärling, T., & Selart, M. (1997). Effects of mental accounting on intertemporal choice. Göteborg Psychological Reports, 27, No 5. Karlsson, N., Gärling, T., & Selart, M. (1997). Explanations of effects of prior outcomes on intertemporal choice. Göteborg Psychological Reports, 27, No 4. Karlsson, N., Gärling, T., & Selart, M. (1999). Explanations of effects of prior income changes on bying decisions. Journal of Economic Psychology, 4, 449-463. Kasperson, J. X., Kasperson, R. E., Pidgeon, N., & Slovic, P. (2003). The social amplification of research. In N. Pidgeon, R. E. Kasperson, and P. Slovic (Eds.), The social amplification of risk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The Social Psychology of Organizations. New York: Wiley. Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1993). The wisdom of teams. London: McGraw-Hill Publishing Company. Keck, S., & Tushman, M. (1993). Environmental and organizational context and executive team structure. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 1314-1344. Khatri, N., & Ng, A. (2000). The role of intuition in strategic decision making. Human Relations, 53, 57-86. Kilburg, R. R. (1996). Toward a conceptual understanding and definition of executive coaching. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 48, 134-144. Klein, G. (1996). The effect of acute stressors on decision making. In J. E. Driskell and E. Salas (Eds.), Stress and Human Performance. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Klein, G. (1998). Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Klein, G. (2003). Intuition at Work. New York: Bantam Dell Kleindorfer, P. R. (2001). Decision making in complex environments: New tools for a new age. In S. J Hoch, H. C. Kunreuther, and R. E Gunther (Eds.), Wharton on Making Decisions. New York: Wiley. Kohlberg, L. (1984). The Psychology of Moral Development. New York: Harper and Row. Korsgaard, M. A., Schweiger, D. M., & Sapienza, H. J. (1995). Building commitment, attachment, and trust in strategic decision making: The role of procedural justice. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 60-84. Kotter, J. P. (1982). The general managers. New York: Free Press. Kotter, J. P. (1988). The leadership factor. New York: The Free Press. Kotter, J. P. (1996) Leading Change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1993). Credibility: How Leaders Gain and Lose it, why People Demand it. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kovach, B. E. (1986). The derailment of fast-track managers. Organizational Dynamics, 15, 41-48. Kovach, B. E. (1989). Successful derailment: What fast-trackers can learn while they're off the track. Organizational Dynamics, 18, 33-47. Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life. Glenview IL: Scott Foresman. Kram, K. E., & Hall, D. T. (1989). Mentoring as an antidote to stress during corporate trauma. Human Resource Mangement, 28, 493-510. Kuvaas, B. (2002). An exploration of two competing perspectives on informal contexts in top management strategic issue interpretation. Journal of Management Studies, 39, 9791003. Kuvaas, B., & Selart, M. (2004). Effects of attribute framing on cognitive process and evaluation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 95, 198-207. Lant, T. K., & Shapira, Z. (2001). Introduction: Foundations of research on cognition in organizations. In T. K. Lant and Z. Shapira (Eds.), Organizational cognition: Computation and interpretation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Larrick, R. P. (2004). Debiasing. In J. Koehler & N. Harvey (Eds.) Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Lee, W. S., & Selart, M. (2011). The impact of emotions on trust decisions. In K. O. Moore and N. P. Gonzales (Eds.), Handbook on Psychology of Decision-Making. Hauppage, NY: Nova Science Publishers. Lerner, J. S., Small., & Loewenstein, G. (2004). Heart strings and purse strings: Carryover effects of emotions on economic transactions. Psychological Science, 15, 337-341. Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (1998). The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant decisions: A test of temporal construal theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 5-18. Lindblom, C. E. (1988). Democracy and market system. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Lines, R., Selart, M., Espedal, B., & Johansen, S. T. (2005). The production of trust during organizational change. Journal of Change Management, 5, 221-245. London, M., & Maurer, T. J. (2004). Leadership development: A diagnostic model for continuous learning in dynamic organizations. In J. Antonakis, A. T. Cianciolo and R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The nature of leadership. London: Sage Publications. London, M., & More, E. M. (1987). Career management and survival in the workplace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lovallo, D., & Kahneman, D. (2003). Delusions of success – How optimism undermines executives' decisions. Harvard Business Review, 7, 56-63. Lubart, T. I., & Sternberg, R. J. (1995). An investment approach to creativity: Theory and data. In S. S. Smith, T. B. Ward, & R. A. Finke (Eds.), The creative cognition approach. Cambridge, MA. MIT Press. Luce, M. F., Payne, J. W., & Bettman, J. R. (2001). In S. J Hoch, H. C. Kunreuther, and R. E Gunther (Eds.), Wharton on Making Decisions. New York: Wiley. Lukes, S. (1986). Power. Oxford: Blackwell. Lyles, M. A., & Thomas, H. (1988). Strategic problem formulation: Biases and assumptions embedded in alternative decision-making models. Journal of Management Studies, 25, 131-145. Madison, D. L., et al. (1980). Organizational politics: An exploration of managers' perceptions. Human Relations, 33, 79-100. Mahoney, T. A. (1988). Productivity defined: The relativity of efficiency, effectiveness, and change. In J. P. Cambbell, R.J. Cambell et al. (Eds.), Productivity in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Malan, L-C., & Kriger, M. P. (1998). Making sense of managerial wisdom. Journal of Management Inquiry, 7, 242-251. Malhotra, D., & Bazerman, M. H. (2007). Negotiating genius. New York: Bantam. Manz, C. C. (1992). Mastering self-leadership. Empowering yourself for personal excellence. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Manz, C. C., & Manz, K. P. (1991). Strategies for facilitating self-directed learning. A process for enhancing human resource development. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 2, 3-12. March, J. G. (1971). The technology of foolishness. Civiløkonomen (Copehhagen), 18/4: 412. March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 71-87. March, J. G. (1994). A Primer on Decision Making: How Decisions Happen. New York: The Free Press. March, J. G. (1997). Understanding how decisions happen in organizations. In Z. Shapira (Ed.), Organizational decision making. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. March, J. G. (1999). The Pursuit of Organizational Intelligence. Oxford: Blackwell March, J. G., & Shapira, Z. (1987). Managerial perspectives on risk and risk taking. Management Science, 33, 1404-1418. March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley. Margerinson, C. J. (1988). Action learning and excellence in management development. Journal of Management Development, 7, 43-54. Martinsen, Ø. L. (2004). Perspektiver på ledelse. Oslo: Gyldendal. Maule, A. J. (2008). Risk communication in organizations. In G. P. Hodgkinson and W. H. Starbuck (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organizational decision making. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, July, 709-734. McCall, M. W, & Kaplan, R. E. (1990). Whatever it takes: The realities of managerial decision making. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. McCall, M. W., Lombardo, M. M., & Morrison, A. M. (1988). The lessons of experience: How successful executives develop on the job. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. McCauley, C. (1998). Groupthink dynamics in Janis's theory of groupthink: Backward and forward. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73, 142-162. McCauley, C. (2001). Leader training and development. In S. J Zaccaro and R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), The nature of organizational leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. McCauley, C. D. , & Douglas, C. A. (1998). Developmental relationships. In C. D. McCauley, R. S. Moxley, and E. Van Velsor (Eds.), The center for creative leadership handbook of leadership development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. McClelland, D. C. (1999). Human motivation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McKenna, B., Rooney, D., & Boal, K. B. (2009). Wisdom principles as a meta-theoretical basis for evaluating leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 20, 177-190. McMackin, J., & Slovic, P. (2000). When does explicit justification impair decision making? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, 527-541. Meindl, J. R., Ehrlich, S. B., & Dukerich, J. M. (1985). The romance of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 78-102. Meyerson, D. E., & Martin, J. (1987). Cultural change: An integration of three different views. Journal of Management Studies, 24, 623-647. Milliken, F. J., & Vollrath, D. A. (1991). Strategic decision-making tasks and group effectiveness: Insights from theory and research on small group performance. Human Relations, 44, 1229-1253. Mintzberg, H. (1973). The Nature of Managerial Work. New York: Harper & Row. Mintzberg, H. (1975). The manager's job: Folklore and fact. Harvard Business Review, 53, 49-71. Mintzberg, H. (1979). The Structuring of Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Mintzberg, H. (1983). Power in and around Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Prentice Hall. Mintzberg, H., Raisinghani, D., & Théorét, A. (1976). The structure of unstructured decision processes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 246-275. Montgomery, H. (1983). Decision rules and the search for a dominance structure: Towards a process model of decision making. In P. Humphreys, O. Svenson, and A. Vari (Eds.), Analyzing and aiding decision processes. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Montgomery, H., Gärling, T., Lindberg, E., & Selart, M. (1990). Preference judgments and choice: Is the prominence effect due to information integration or information evaluation? In K. Borcherding, O. Larichev., & D. M. Messick (Eds.), Contemporary Issues in Decision Making. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Montgomery, H., Selart, M., Gärling, T., & Lindberg, E. (1994). The judgment-choice discrepancy: Non-compatibility or restructuring? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 7, 144-155. Morgan, B. B., & Bowers, C. A. (1995). Teamwork stress: Implications for team decision making. In R. A. Guzzo & E. Salas (Eds.), Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Morgan, G. (1997). Images of Organization. London: Sage Moore, D. A., Kurtzberg, T. R., Fox, C. R., & Bazerman, M. H. (1999). Positive illusions and forecasting errors in mutual fund investment decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79, 95-114 Mumford, M. D., Gessner, T. L., Connelly, M. S., O'Connor, J. A., & Clifton, T. C. (1993). Leadership and destructive acts: Individual and situational influences. Leadership Quarterly, 4, 115-147. Mussweiler, T., Strack, F., & Pfeiffer, T. (2000). Overcoming the inevitable anchoring effect: Considering the opposite compensates for selective accessibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1142-1150. Nadler, D. A. (1988). Organizational frame bending: Types of change in the complex organization. In R. H. Kilmann and T. J Covin (Eds.), Corporate Transformation: Revitalizing Organizations for a Competitive World. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Nadler, D. A., & Tushman, M. L. (1990). Beyond the charismatic leader: Leadership and organizational change. California Management Review, Winter, 77-97. Nanus, B. (1992). Visionary Leadership: Creating a Compelling Sense of Direction for your Organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Narchal, R. M., Kittappa, K., & Bhattacharya, P. (1987). An environmental scanning system for business planning. Long Range Planning, 20, 96-105. Neill, T., & Mindrum, C. (2000). Human performance that increase business performance: The growth of change management and its role in creating new forms of business value. In M. Beer and N. Nohria (Eds.), Breaking the code of change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Nemeth, C., Connell, J., Rogers, J., & Brown, K. (2001). Devil's advocate versus authentic dissent: Simulating quantity and quality. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 707-720. Nobel, C. (1999). The eclectic roots of strategy implementation research. Journal of Business Research, 45, 119-134. Noe, R. A. (1988). An investigation of the determinants of successful assigned mentoring relationships. Personnel Psychology, 41, 457-479. Noe, R. A. (1991). Mentoring relationships for employee development. In J. W. Jones, B. D. Steffy and D. W, Bray (Eds.), Applying psychology in business: The managers handbook. Lexington MA: Lexington Press. Nutt, P. C. (1986). Tactics of implementation. Strategic Management Journal, 10, 230-261. Nutt, P. C. (2002). Why decisions fail: Avoiding the blunders and traps that lead to debacles. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Oberholzer-Gee, F. (2001). Learners or lemmings: The nature of information cascades. In S. J Hoch, H. C. Kunreuther, and R. E Gunther (Eds.), Wharton on Making Decisions. New York: Wiley. O'Connor, J. A., Mumford, M. D., Clifton, T. C., Gessner, T. L., & Connelly, M. S. (1995). Charismatic leaders and destructiveness: A historiometric study. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 529-555. Paulus, P. B., & Yang, H. C. (2000).Idea generation in groups.: A basis for creativity in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 76-87. Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1992). Behavioral decision research: A constructive processing perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 87-131. Pedersen, L. J. T. (2009). Making sense of sensitivity: Moral sensitivity and problem formulation in business. Doctoral dissertation. Bergen: The Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration Press. Peters, T. J., & Austin, N. (1985). A Passion for Excellence: The Leadership Difference. New York: Random House Peters, T. J., & Waterman, D. H. (1982). In Search of Excellence. London: Harper & Row. Peterson, D. B. (1996). Executive coaching at work: The art of one-to-one change. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 48, 78-86. Peterson, R. S., Owens, P. D., Tetlock, P. E., Fan, E. T., & Martorana, P. (1998). Group dynamics in top management teams: Groupthink, vigilance, and alternative models of organizational failure and success. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73, 272-305. Pettigrew, A. M. (1972). Information control as a power resource. Sociology, 6, 187-204. Pettigrew, A. M. (1998). Success and failure in corporate transformation initiatives. In R. D. Galliers and W. R. J. Baets (Eds.), Information technology and organizational transformation. London: Wiley. Pfeffer, J. (1977). The ambiguity of leadership. Academy of Management Review, 2, 104-112. Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations. Marshfield MA: Pitman. Pfeffer, J. (1992). Managing with power: Politics and influence in organizations. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2006). Hard facts, dangerous half truths and absolute nonsense: Profiting from evidence based management. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviour: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26, 513-563. Policastro, E. (1995). Creative intuition: An integrative review. Creativity Research Journal, 8, 99-113. Porter, L. W., Allen, R. W., & Angle, H. L. (1981). The politics of upward influence in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 3, 109-149. Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy. New York: Free Press. Prideaux, G., & Ford, J. E. (1988). Management development: Competencies, teams, learning contracts, and work experience-based learning. Journal of Management Development, 7, 13-21. Prince, G. (1970). The practice of creativity. New York: Harper and Row. Proctor, T. (1999). Creative problem solving for managers. London: Routledge. Quinn, J. B. (1980). Strategies for change: Logical incrementalism. Homewood, ILL: Irwin. Raiffa, H. (1985). Post-settlement settlements. Negotiation Journal, 1, 9-12. Rasiel, E. M., & Friga, P. N. (2002). The McKinsey Mind. New York:: McGraw Hill. Read, W. H. (1962). Upward communication in industrial hierarchies. Human Relations, 15, 3-15. Reid, S. (1984). Information acquisition and export entry decisions in small firms. Journal of Business Research, 12, 141-157. Rickards, T. (1985). Stimulating innovation: A systems approach. London: Frances Pinter. Ritov, I., & Baron, J. (1992). Status-quo and omission biases. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 49-61. Robbins, S. P. (2005). Organizational Behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Rogers, B. (1993). Giving creativity a shot in the arm. Involvement and Participation, 2, 6-10. Rognes, J. K. (2008). Forhandlinger. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Roos, G., von Krogh, G., & Roos, J. (1994). Strategi. Dublin: Green Valley University Press. Rosow, J. M., & Zager, R. (1988). Training: The competitive edge. San Francisco: JosseyBass. Rotter, J. B. (1980). Interpersonal trust, trustworthiness, and gullibility. American Psychologist, January, 1-7. Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, July, 393-404. Rowe, G., & Wright, G. (1999). The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: Issues and analysis. International Journal of Forecasting, 15, 353-375. Rowe, G., & Wright, G. (2001). Expert opinions in forecasting: Role of the Delphi technique. In J. S. Armstrong (Ed.), Principles of forecasting: A handbook for researchers and practitioners. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Sadler-Smith, E. (2008). Inside intuition. London: Routledge. Schein, E. H. (1987). Process consultation: Lessons for managers and consultants. Reading MA: Addison Wesley. Schein, E. H. (1991). What is culture ? In P. J. Frost, L. F. Moore, M. R. Louis, C.C. Lundberg and J. Martin (Eds.), Reframing Organizational Culture. London: Sage Schindler, P. I., & Thomas, C. C. (1993). The structure of interpersonal trust in the workplace. Psychological Reports, October, 563-573. Schoemaker, P. J. H., & Russo, J. E. (2001) Managing frames to make better decisions. In S. J Hoch, H. C. Kunreuther, and R. E Gunther (Eds.), Wharton on Making Decisions. New York: Wiley. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Cambridge: Basic Books. Schuler, R. S., & Jackson, S. E. (1987). Linking competitive strategies with human resource management practices. Academy of Management Executive, 1, 207-219. Schulz-Hardt, S., Jochims, M., & Frey, D. (2002). Productive conflict in group decision making: Genuine and contrived dissent as strategies to counteract biased decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88, 563-586. Schutz, A. (1932). Der sinnhafte Aufbau der sozialen Welt: Eine Einleitung in die verstehenden Soziologie. Vienna: Springer. Schwarz, N. (2000). Emotion, cognition, and decision making. Cognition and Emotion, 14, 433-440. Scott, W. (1995). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Selart, M. (1996). Structure compatibility and restructuring in judgment and choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65, 106-116. Selart, M. (1997). Aspects of compatibility and the construction of preference (pp. 58-72). In Ranyard, R., Crozier, W. R., & Svenson, O. (Eds.). Decision Making: Cognitive models and explanations. New York: Routledge Selart, M. (2005). Understanding the role of locus of control in consultative decision making: A case study. Management Decision, 43, 397-412. Selart, M., & Boe, O. (2001). On practitioners' usage of creativity heuristics in the decision process. In Allwood, C. M., and Selart, M. (Eds.), Decision Making: Social and Creative Dimensions. Boston/Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Selart, M., Boe, O., & Gärling, T. (1999). Reasoning about outcome probabilities and values in preference reversals. Thinking and Reasoning, 5, 175-188. Selart, M., Boe, O., Kuvaas, B., & Takemura, K. (2006). The influence of decision heuristics and overconfidence on multi-attribute choice. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 18, 437-453. Selart, M., & Eek, D. (1999). Contingency and value in social decision making (pp. 261-273) In Juslin, P., and Montgomery, H. (Eds.), Judgment and Decision Making. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Selart, M., & Eek, D. (2005) Is there a pro-self component behind the prominence effect?. International Journal of Psychology, 40, 429-440. Selart, M., Gärling, T., & Montgomery, H. (1998) Compatibility and the use of information processing strategies. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 11, 59-72. Selart, M., Gärling, T., Montgomery, H., & Romanus, J. (1994). Violations of procedure invariance in preference measurement. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 6, 417-436. Selart, M., & Johansen, S. T. (2011). Ethical decision making in organizations: The role of leadership stress. Journal of Business Ethics, 99, 129-143. Selart, M., & Johansen, S. T. (2011). Understanding the role of value-focused thinking in idea management. Creativity and Innovation Management, 20, 196-206. Selart, M., Johansen, S. T., Holmesland, T., & Grønhaug, K. (2008). Can intuitive and analytical decision styles explain managers' evaluation of information technology? Management Decision, 46, 1326-1341. Selart, M., Karlsson, N., & Gärling, T. (1997). Self-control and loss aversion in intertemporal choice. Journal of Socio-Economics, 5, 513-524. Selart, M., Nordström, T., Kuvaas, B., & Takemura, K. (2008). Effects of reward on self-regulation, intrinsic motivation, and creativity. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 52, 439458. Selart, M., & Patokorpi, E. (2009). The issue of design in managerial decision making. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 7, (4), 92-99. Senge, P. (1990). The leader's new work: Building learning organizations. Sloan Management Review, 3, 7-23. Senge, P. (1990b). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday. Shapira, Z. (1994). Risk taking: A managerial perspective. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Shapiro, D., Sheppard, B. H., & Cheraskin, L. (1992). Business on a handshake. Negotiation Journal, October, 365-377. Shaw, P. (2008). Making difficult decisions: How to be decisive and get the business done. Chichester: Wiley Capstone. Shiloh, S., & Rotem, E. (1994). What makes a good decision-maker ? Self and social evaluations of decision making competence versus performance measures in a simulated decision. Personality and Individual Differences, 17, 477-488. Simon, H. A. (1947). Administrative behaviour: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organizations. New York: Macmillan. Sims, H. P., & Lorenzi, P. (1992). The new leadership paradigm: Social learning and cognition in organizations. London: Sage Publications. Sims, H. P. & Manz, C. C. (1996). Company of heroes: Unleashing the power of selfleadership. New York: Wiley. Sinclair, A. (1992). The tyranny of a team ideology. Organization Studies, 13, 611-626. Singer, T., & Fehr, E. (2005). The neuroeconomics of mind reading and empathy. AEA papers and proceedings, Pp. 340-345 Slovic, P., Finucane, M., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2002). The affect heuristic. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Smith, K. G., Grimm, C. M., Gannon, M. J., & Chen, M. (1991). Organizational information processing, competitive responses, and performance in the U.S. domestic airline industry. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 60-85. Sowell, T. (1996). Knowledge and decisions. New York: Basic Books. Staw, B. M. (1976). Knee-deep in the big muddy: A study of escalating commitment to a chosen course of action. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 16, 27-44. Staw, B. M., & Ross, J. M. (1978). Commitment to a policy decision: A multi-theoretical perspective. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 40-64. Steele, C. M., Spencer, S. J., & Lynch, M. (1993). Self-image resilience and dissonance: The role of affirmational resources. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 885896. Sternberg, R. J. (1990). Wisdom: Its nature, origins, and development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (2001). Why schools should teach for wisdom: The balance theory of wisdom in educational settings. Educational Psychologist, 36, 227-245. Sternberg, R. J., & Ben-Zeev, T. (2001). Complex cognition: The psychology of human thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1991). An investment theory of creativity and its development. Human Development, 34, 1-31. Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity. New York: Free Press. Stewart, T. A. (2009). The nine dilemmas leaders face. Unpublished manuscript. Stoffels, J. D. (1994). Strategic issue management: A comprehensive guide to environmental scanning. Milwaukee WN: Pergamon. Stone, D. A (2002). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. New York: Norton & Company. Stoycheva, K. G., & Lubart, T. I. (2001). The nature of creative decision making. In C. M. Allwood and M. Selart (Eds.), Decision Making: Social and creative dimensions. Dordrecht/Boston: Kluwer Academic Press. Strand, T. (2007). Ledelse, organisasjon og kultur. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget. Stroh, L. K., & Johnson, H. H. (2006). The basic principles of effective consulting. London: Lawrence Erlbaum. Sutton, R. I.., & Hargadon, A . (1996). Brainstorming groups in context: Effectiveness in a product design firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 685-718. Svenson, O. (1992). Differentiation and consolidation theory of human decision making: A frame of reference for the study of preand post-decision processes. Acta Psyhologica, 80, 143-168. Svenson, O., & Maule, A. J. (1993). Time pressure and stress in human judgment and decision making. New York: Plenum Press. Taylor, S. E. & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion of well-being. A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193-210. Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1989). Positive illusions: Creative self-deception and the healthy mind. New York: Basic Books. Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1994). Positive illusions and well-being revisited: Separating fact from fiction. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 21-27. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 509-533. Tengblad, S. (2006). Is there a 'new managerial work'? A comparison with Henry Mintzberg's classic study 30 years later. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 14371461. Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge. New Haven. Yale University Press Thompson, L. (2005). The mind and heart of the negotiator. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Thompson, L. (2008). Making the team: A guide for managers. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Tichy, N. (1983). Managing strategic change. New York: Wiley. Torbert, W. R. (1987). Managing the corporate dream: Restructuring for long-term success. Homewood , ILL: Dow Jones-Irwin. Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1993). The culture of work organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Trevino, L. K. (1986). Ethical decision making in organizations: A person-situation interactionist model. Academy of Management Review, 11, 601-617. Trevino, L. K., Butterfield, K. D., & McCabe, D. L. (1998). The ethical context in organizations: Influences on employee attitudes and behaviors. Business Ethics Quarterly, 8, 447-476. Trevino, L. K., & Youngblood, S. A. (1990). Bad apples in bad barrels: A causal approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 378-385. Turner, M. E., & Pratkanis, A. R. (1998). A social identity maintainance model of groupthink. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73, 210-235. Turner, M . E., Probasco, P., Pratkanis, A. R., & Leve, C. (1992). Threat, cohesion, and group effectiveness: Testing a social identity maintainance perspective on groupthink. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 781-796. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131. Ulrich, D. (1997). Human resource champions. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Vaill, P. B. (1998). The unspeakable texture of process wisdom. In S. Srivastva and D. L. Cooperrider (Eds.), Organizational wisdom and executive courage. San Francisco: The New Lexington Press. Valle, M., & Perrewe, P. L. (2000). Do politics perceptions relate to political behaviors ? Human Relations, 53, 359-386. Vidaillet, B. (2008). When "decision outcomes" are not the outcomes of decisions. In G. P. Hodgkinson and W. H. Starbuck (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organizational decision making. Oxford: Oxford University Press. von Krogh, G., Ichijo, I., & Nonaka, I. (2000). Enabling knowledge creation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (1988). The new leadership: Managing participation in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Prentice Hall. Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership and decision making. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Wall, S. J., & Wall, S. R. (1995). The New Strategists: Creating Leaders at All Levels. New York: The Free Press. Weick, K. E. (1969). The social psychology of organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Weick, K. E. (1993). The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 628-652. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Weick, K. E. (2001). Making Sense of the Organization. Oxford: Blackwell. Weick, K. E. (2004). Mundane poetics: Searching for wisdom in organization studies. Organization Studies, 25, 653-668. Weick, K. E., & Roberts, K. H. (1993). Collective mind in organizations. Heedful interrelating on flight decks. Administration Science Quarterly, 38, 357-381. Whitely, W. T., & Coetsier, P. (1993). The relationship of career mentoring to early career outcomes. Organization Studies, 14, 419-441. Whittington, J. L., Pitts, T. M., Kageler, W., & Goodwin, V. L. (2005). Legacy leadership: The leadership wisdom of the apostle Paul. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 749-770. Whittington, R. (2003). The work of strategizing and organizing: For a practice perspective. Strategic Organization, 1, 117-125. Witte, E. (1972). Field research on complex decision making processes: The phase theorem. International Studies of Management and Organization, 2, 156-182. Worley, C. G., Hitchin, D. E., & Ross, W. L. (1996). Integrated Strategic Change: How OD builds Competitive Advantage. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley. Wright, G. (2001). Strategic Decision Making: A Best Practice Blueprint. Chichester: Wiley. Wright, G., & Goodwin, P. (2008). Structuring the decision process. In G. P. Hodgkinson and W. H. Starbuck (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organizational decision making. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Yukl, G. (2005). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Yukl, G., & Chavez, C. (2002). Influence tactics and leader effectiveness. In L. L. Nader and C. A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Leadership. Greenwich, CT: New Information Age Publishing. Zaccaro, S. J., Rittmana, A. L., & Marks, M. A. (2001). Team leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 12, 451-483. Zand, D. E. (1997). The leadership triad: Knowledge, trust, and power. New York: Oxford University Press. Zanzi, A., & O.Neill, R. M. (2001). Sanctioned versus non-sanctioned political tactics. Journal of Management Issues, 13, 245-262. Zey, M. G. (1988). A mentor for all reasons. Personnel Journal, January, 46-51.