Management decision-making is an important business practice (Franklin, 2013) and is a core function of management itself (Baba & HekenZadeh, 2012; Harrison & Pelletier, 2000). Somewhere between skill (Lejarraga, Pachur, Frey, & Hertwig, 2016), process (Seo, Lee, & Lee, 2017) and intuitive art form (Hess, Quees, & Patterson, 2012), it has been the topic of study for more than 60 years. Despite this, the problem of poor decision-making persists, often because of disparate viewpoints rooted in individual value systems (Ariail, Aronson, Aukerman, & Khayati, 2015; Bazerman & Moore, 2013; Fritzsche & Oz, 2007).

The call for research on how individual-level values impact workplace outcomes has been evident for some time (Cohen & Caspary, 2011). Literature has shown that managers’ stable values influence human behaviour (Bilsky & Schwartz, 1994; Rokeach, 1973) and play a significant role in decision-making (Lichtenstein, Lichtenstein, & Higgs, 2017). Recently, Stephan (2020) reiterated the need for an understanding of the mechanisms through which values influence organisational behaviour.

We know that values inform ethical choice (Connor & Becker, 2003; Fritzsche & Oz, 2007); however, this relationship is complex (Hewlin, Dumas, & Burnett, 2015; Shepherd & Baron, 2013). Moreover, decision success or decision quality (Rausch & Anderson, 2011; Seo et al., 2017) goes beyond ethical choice. Given that decision success holds the position of ‘the sine qua non of good management’ (Harrison & Pelletier, 2000, p. 469), we proposed that managers’ decision-making quality presents a significant and undervalued research variable in relation to values.

Values act as guiding principles to yield coherence in our decisions across different situations (Schwartz, 1992). Yet, value differences are evident in contemporary society, reflected, for instance, in political upheavals and corporate scandals. It is not yet clear whether differences in the quality of decisions relate to managerial value sets when managers are faced with difficult choices. Difficult decisions include, for instance, when managers are faced with competing good or sacred drivers such as regarding the earth, equality of people, human life or authority. The research asks whether managers who embrace different value sets differ in the quality of the decisions they make in such circumstances. Specifically, this article sheds light on whether the quality of decisions differs between those managers who value conservation (conformity, tradition and security) and those who are open to change (self-direction and stimulation). Therefore, the objective of the study was to examine the relationships between managerial values of openness to change and conservation and cognitive decision quality for value-laden decisions.

Values are ‘enduring beliefs that a specific mode of conduct or end-state of existence is personally or socially preferable to an opposite or common mode of conduct or end-state of existence’ (Rokeach, 1973, p. 5). To simplify, a manager’s values dictate whether any behaviour or life outcome should be socially preferred over another. Schwartz’s (1992) theory of universal values is most salient to understand people’s views on ‘what ought to be’. Schwartz’s (1994) initial value map categorised 56 human values into 10 value-type groupings. An updated framework incorporates 19 values structured around two axes: self-enhancement versus self-transcendence and conservation versus openness to change (Schwartz et al., 2012). This research focused on the conservation and openness to change value axis.

Motivated partially to protect oneself and escape anxiety whilst having a social focus, managers who value conservation do so because of varying intensities of valuing interpersonal conformity, conformity to rules, tradition, societal security and personal security. In other words, the goal of conservation lies in a need to avoid actions that could upset or harm other people, to abide by the laws that govern and to preserve traditions embedded in religion, family or culture (Schwartz et al., 2012). Individuals who value conservation tend to have stable Big Five personality traits of agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, emotions of calmness and reduced fear (Tamir et al., 2016; Vecchione, Alessandri, Barbaranelli, & Caprara 2011). The distinct facets of the conservation value set are conformity, or the ‘restraint from actions, inclinations, and impulses likely to upset or harm others and violate social expectations or norms’; tradition, or ‘respect, commitment, and acceptance of the customs and ideas that one’s culture or religion provide’; and security, or ‘safety, harmony, and stability of society, of relationships, and of self’ (Schwartz, 1994, p. 22).

On the other side of the spectrum are individuals who are motivated by a calm or anxiety-free need to grow, whilst having a personal focus. A value set of openness to change encompasses the three values of self-directed thought, self-directed action and stimulation (Schwartz et al., 2012). Managers living by openness to change values, specifically stimulation and self-direction, may display Big Five personality traits of openness and extraversion (Vecchione et al., 2011). The most desirable emotions for these managers are interest and excitement (Tamir et al., 2016). The distinct facets of this value set are stimulation or the ‘excitement, novelty, and challenge in life’, and self-direction or ‘independent thought and action – choosing, creating, exploring’ (Schwartz, 1994, p. 22).

Former research shows that those who value conservation may more readily accept organisational change (Cohen & Caspary, 2011). Within the value of openness to change, self-direction may negatively impact new team processes such as team coherence, efficacy, and may increase conflict. In contrast within conservation, the value of security supports positive team processes (Woehr, Arciniega, & Poling, 2013).

It may not be surprising that openness to change relates to political activism, whereas conservation does not (Vecchione et al., 2015). Openness to change may also entail lower propensity towards making decisions that support environmental sustainability, given a reduced focus on others (Grebitus, Steiner, & Veeman, 2013). These examples do not suggest that openness to change consistently leads to negative organisational behaviour, as entrepreneurs are often motivated by the self-direction component of openness to change (Looi & Kamarulzaman, 2015).

These examples from research in values theory suggest that emotions, values, decisions and behaviours interrelate in ways not yet fully understood. Although there are multiple examples in literature of how values determine behaviours in organisations, literature says very little about values and quality of decisions, other than from an ethical viewpoint.

An understanding of personal values provides a useful perspective on decision-making, with Schwartz’s (1992) value framework, described above, being particularly relevant. Researchers have been interested in the relationship between personal values on the one hand and ethical decision-making (Fritzsche & Oz, 2007), environmentally sensitive choices (Grebitus et al., 2013) and the selection of decision support systems (Ariail et al., 2015) on the other hand. Implicitly personal value systems play an important role in decision-making in as far as ‘choice involves judgement, and judgement implies values’ (Ariail et al., 2015, p. 137).

Organisational decision-making is often compromised when taboo or sacred topics, such as issues of religion, sexuality, human life or respect are avoided. One strategy to deal with such issues is reframing the taboo scenarios as trade-offs, where one sacred value is favoured at the expense of another (Schoemaker & Tetlock, 2012). Shortland and Alison (2020) purport that in value clashes, a decision-maker will attempt to choose the least negative outcome, or ‘least-worst outcome’. Routine trade-offs occur when having to decide between secular values, such as different organisational policies. When a single sacred value is dominant, the decision-maker is able to make taboo trade-offs. However, when both competing values are equally sacred, this may result in redundant deliberation and indecision.

The question of what constitutes quality in decision-making is often vague (Franklin, 2013), focusses on idealistic and perhaps synthetic ‘true measure’ comparisons (Boyle, Hanlon, & Russo, 2012; Hess et al., 2012; Lejarraga et al., 2016) or employs cumbersome measurement techniques (Wanous & Youtz, 1986).

Different paradigms define quality decisions in different ways. From an ethical decision-making perspective, good decisions refer to making the right moral choice. In managerial thinking, the power of analysis and decision-making processes may constitute quality decision-making (Dean & Sharfman, 1996). This process perspective, in turn, rests on the notion that better access to data implies higher decision quality (Warnock & Gantz, 2017).

Within this normative view of decision quality mathematical models, such as have been pioneered by Von Neumann and Morgenstern’s formula, define quality decisions as those according to which the decision-maker seeks to maximise utility and fulfil assumptions of the weights and probabilities of decision options (Leonard, 1995). In addition to maximised utility, this rational decision-making view highlights good process and probability analysis as indicators of decision quality.

It seems that managers in practice regard decision outcomes as a better indicator of decision quality than ‘science-based’ procedural approaches (Arvai & Froschauer, 2010). Kock and Gemünden (2016) linked decision quality to optimal rigour and rationality when decision-makers use ‘more and better information’ in decision processes. Citing Dean and Sharfman (1996) and Eisenhardt and Zbaracki (1992), they differentiated between decision effectiveness that require the achievement of a desired outcome, and decision quality that is not defined by the outcome (Kock & Gemünden, 2016). In big data decision-making, a high-quality decision depends on the quality of inputs or information and the process to transform this into outputs. In business intelligence, quality decisions are characterised by problem-solving, alignment to risk preferences and the structure of the decision process (Visinescu, Jones, & Sidorova, 2017). Management decisions require systemic, iterative, adaptive, self-correcting and innovative processes (Rausch & Anderson, 2011). However, Franklin (2013) argued that the complexity of managerial decision contexts invalidates rational decision processes.

Neither good processes nor outcomes are adequate indicators of decision quality because poor decision processes may have good outcomes, and vice versa. Circumstantial coincidences, unconsidered factors, cognitive processes (Gino, Shu, & Bazerman, 2010; White & Poldrack, 2014) or simply blind luck may have greater impact than process in the decision outcomes.

Given the shortcomings of different models of quality decisions, this research operationalises quality of decisions not in terms of process or outcomes, but in terms of the real-time cognitive processing of the decision itself. The concept of integrative complexity (Schroder, 1971) is significant and useful as a proxy for cognitive decision-making quality.

Tetlock (1986) operationally defined integrative complexity as the achievement of: (1) construct differentiation, which is the ‘variety of aspects or components of an issue that a person recognises’ (p. 822) when faced with a choice and (2) integration, which is the ‘development of conceptual connections among differentiated constructs’ (p. 822). Accordingly, high-quality decisions from a cognitive processing perspective are those choices that are more considered (higher levels of differentiation), and where the interactions of the various options are fully evaluated (higher levels of integration).

Considering different value orientations of managers in making decisions according to tradition or what society expects, versus following their own thinking and needs for stimulation, we may ask: ‘When managers align themselves closer to social norms, would they also give more consideration to options in decisions where multiple value sets are at stake (conservationists)?’ Or:

This leads to the hypothesis that there is a difference in the cognitive decision-making quality of those who value conservation and those who value change in situations where values are heightened because of internal tensions between them. The research suggests that those who are open to change will differentiate the aspects of the decision they consider and also integrate more connections amongst competing cues. Conversely, the research also suggests that those who value conforming to rules and society and tradition will be less effective in considering competing cues in the cognitive decision process:

The study employed a quantitative research design that incorporated an assessment of values and a vignette-based task to code for cognitive decision quality. The data gathering strategy involved a single integrated online questionnaire, and the pilot study indicated a duration of 15 to 45 min to complete the assessment on a Qualtrics platform (Hewson & Stewart, 2016).

The sample was drawn from the management population of a large company within South Africa characterised by cultural diversity and resource shortages, an insurance company and a production company. This represented an ideal population to ensure value diversity. A total of 204 managers were included in the study with a response rate of 61%. The majority of the sample (67%) fell within the 30–50-year-old age bracket. In terms of gender, 73% were male participants and 27% were female participants. Mother tongue classifications were of European descent – Afrikaans (42.2%), of European descent – English (20.4%), of Indian descent (7%), of African descent – indigenous languages such as isiZulu, isiXhosa, Sesotho and others (26.4%) and mixed race – Afrikaans (3.5%).

In addition to demographic variables, the survey included a measure of values, two scenarios to measure value-sensitive situations and a measure of integrative complexity to indicate cognitive decision quality.

Ethical clearance for the research was obtained via the (associated university’s) Research Ethics Committee. Data gathering followed ethical principles and ethical clearance approval, ensuring voluntary participation and the anonymity of respondents. Ethical Clearance number: DREC-30032015-9417729.

The findings highlight important considerations for human resource practitioners. Managers are constantly faced by adaptive challenges in an increasingly complex work environment (Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018). Moreover, they need to make decisions where values compete, such as when both labour and societal needs have to be taken into account, or environmental preservations are at odds with the need to conserve finances. This calls for strategies to develop decision-making skills according to which managers will internalise the complexity of the decision situation, understand the competing values and consider the influence of their own values, in order to be more open to multiple possibilities. Especially at top-level management, where greater ambiguity is expected, there is a need for managers to overcome tendencies to conform. Instead, top managers need to be selected and developed to be open to flexible considerations of decision options and need to grow in the ability to integrate these intelligently whilst remaining open to change. This is particularly relevant when faced by competing but significant options or value clashes, such as drivers for social welfare competing with personal needs.

To improve the quality of decisions in organisations, human resource practitioners could develop systems and policies that reward creative and independent thinking. Management teams could be assisted to develop their cognitive complexity capabilities by encouraging them to find alternative ways of looking at decision problems. When value clashes arise, processes could be implemented to balance the tensions and derive value from different perspectives before decisions are made.

Figure 4 proposes a decision framework that incorporates consideration of contextual values embedded in the decision situation, personal values, differentiated preferences of multiple stakeholders and integrative solutions. The framework may be used to challenge managers to open thinking when making complex value-laden decisions.

The current study has some limitations. The findings relate to specific scenarios and different results may appear with the use of new vignettes. A large proportion of the sample was male participants, and a more heterogeneous sample would have been preferred. Moreover, the study followed a cross-sectional design and the research setting relied on a single cultural context. The results only begin to elucidate the personal antecedents of cognitive decision quality. Future work should target additional value blocks, alternative personal attributes (such as risk propensities) and environmental or circumstantial aspects of the scenarios to create better predictive models of cognitive decision quality. Different perspectives of decision theory lay emphasis on different facets of decision quality. Moving away from moral, outcomes and process-based indicators thereof, this research focused specifically on the cognitive processing of conflicting values to make a decision that takes multiple cues into account and that integrates multiple decision alternatives. The focus on a quality measure of decision-making, rather than a normative or ethical perspective, contributes to a richer understanding of values theory in decision-making. Further work can explore other dimensions of information and value processing in decision-making.

Within the context of organisational decision-making, the research found that tradition, a conservation value, negatively predicts decision quality, and harbouring the value of self-directed thought encourages considered decisions in value-laden circumstances. Managers with low tradition values or high self-directed thought values are likely to better process the complexity of value-laden decision clashes. The newly created decision-making scenarios in this research give further insight into the context-specific impact of value clashes on decision-making quality.