Decision-Making in An Organizational Learning Context PDF

Decision-Making in an Organizational Learning Context
By
Mary Ann Pater Wangemann
B.A. 1982, University of Maryland Baltimore County
M.A.S. 1986, Johns Hopkins University
Ed.D. 2007, The George Washington University
A Dissertation Submitted to
The Faculty of
The Graduate School of Education and Human Development
of The George Washington University in partial fulfillment
o f the requirements for the degree o f Doctor o f Education
May 18, 2007
Dissertation Chair:
Dr. Michael Marquardt, Professor of Human Resources Development
and International Affairs
Dissertation Committee Members
Dr. Joseph Bocchino, Chair, Department of Clinical Management and Leadership
Dr. Joseph Williamson, Adjunct Professor of Engineering
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI N um ber: 3260165
Copyright 2007 by
Wangemann, Mary Ann Pater
All rights reserved.
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI
UMI Microform 3260165
Copyright 2007 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company

300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Abstract of Dissertation
Harnessing individuals ideas to drive organizational learning is a powerful process;
one that can cause organizations to reach new levels of competency, integration and
innovation. But for the individuals idea to have relevance for the company, decisions
must be made to support which ideas will become part of organizational learning. Delay
or mistakes in this decision making process can mean missing a business opportunity or
innovation. Organizations must learn faster and adapt to the rapid change in the
environment or they simply will not survive. (Schwandt & Marquardt, 2000, pp.2)
Rational, fact-based models, the staple in business for years, are making way for
intuitive-based models. Understanding these types of decision-making processes within
the context of organizational learning is an emergent field.
This single case describes how one persons idea became institutionalized in a large
information technology company. Interviews, company documents and journal entries
reveal the decision processes executives used in the context of organizational learning.
The study found that throughout the organizational learning process: 1) Major
decisions occurred at four different levels: individual, group, organization, and beyond
the organization. 2) As the idea moved through the process, there were periods of
divergence and convergence of ideas. 3) A fabric of decisions occurred continuously
across multiple levels. 4) Both intuitive and rational decision making activities are
required. 5) There was congruence between individual decision making and group
decision making. 6) There existed a safe place for the open exchange of ideas at the
group level.
ii
The conclusions are: 1) The model proposed by Crossan et al. (1999) for
organizational learning was supported by this study and can be extended beyond the
organizational boundaries. 2) Stated usage of intuitive or rational decision making may
be driven by an interviewees point of view or critical reflection. 3) Major decisions
occurred at four different points in the organizational learning process but were supported
by a fabric of decisions throughout.4) A combination of intuitive and rational decision
making methods are used at each decision point in the organizational learning process
and in both feed forward and the feed backward processes.
iii
Dedication
To my parents, Bob and Lorraine Pater, who taught me to follow my dreams.

To my daughter, Lorraine Wangemann, whom I encourage to dream.
iv
Acknowledgements
In deep gratitude, I wish to acknowledge God, without whom, none of this would be
possible. In addition, this effort would not have been possible without the support of
family, friends and colleagues. I would like to thank the following individuals for their
contribution to this work:
The George Washington University faculty who provide an excellent foundation
through the Executive Leadership Programs course of study, in particular, Clyde
Croswell, Dave Schwandt, and Andrea Casey. Classmates Mark Stavish, Bill Toms,
Elizabeth Ross, and Ernie Smith who made the whole ELP learning experience a fiinfilled adventure.
My family members Bob and Dolly Pater and Lorie and Steve Melsom for their
support throughout the process.
My friends Tim and Karen Shrum; Bill Carter; Pam Murray; Kim Arndt; Joan and
Steve Smith; Mary Ann and Scott Glover; and Mike Wangemann who heard about
progress on the dissertation way too much but remained my friends.
EDS Corporation for funding this doctoral program and the EDS Fellows willing to
share their knowledge and talents with me.
Mike Marquardt, Dissertation Committee Chair Extraordinaire, who willingly
provides his unwavering support, academic insight and practical prowess to his students
goals. Dissertation committee members Joe Williamson and Joe Bocchino who helped
me develop a solid strategy to completing this work. The readers Ozgur Eckmekci, Chris
Lafferty and Brad Lafferty who graciously shared their time and insights with me.
Lorraine Wangemann, a child wise beyond her years, whose intuition, humor,
intelligence, kindness, compassion and grace provide me a role model, a blessing, and
reasons to be a very proud Mom.
May God bless each of you.
vi
Table of Contents
Section.......................................................................................................................... Page
Abstract of Dissertation....................................................................................................ii
Dedication.................................................................................
iv
Acknowledgements.......................................................................................................... v
CHAPTER 1 .............................................................................................................................. 1
Overview........................................................................................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem.................................................................................................3
Business Environment............................................................................................. 3
Rational Decision Processes...................................................................................3
Intuitive Decision Processes...................................................................................4
Link to the Problem..................................................................................................4
Purpose and Research Questions..................................................................................... 5
Purpose......................................................................................................................5
Research Questions..................................................................................................7
Statement of Potential Significance.................................................................................7
Conceptual Framework....................................................................................................8
Theoretical Framework....................................................................................................9
Crossan et al. Organizational Learning Model (1999)..........................................9
Eisenhardts Rapid Decision-Making Model (1989).......................................... 12
Sadler-Smith and Sheffys Intuition Model (2005)............................................ 14
Relationship between the Constructs................................................................... 14
Summary of the Methodology....................................................................................... 15
vii
Data Collection,
16
Data Analysis......................................................................................................... 16
Limitations..............................................................................................................16
Definition of Key Term s................................................................................................18
Decision-Making.................................................................................................... 18
Intuition................................................................................................................... 18
Organizational Learning.........................................................................................18
Rational Analysis Decision-Making.................................................................... 18
Summary......................................................................................................................... 18
CHAPTER 2 ............................................................................................................................ 20
Literature Review........................................................................................................... 20
Introduction: Topics, Purposes, and Methods of the Literature Review................... 20
Description and Critique of Scholarly Literature................................................20
Decision M aking............................................................................................................ 21
Logical and Non-Logical Decision-Making....................................................... 21
System 1 and System 2 Processing...................................................................... 23
Decision Making Kaleidoscope........................................................................... 23
When Executives use Each Decision Making M ethod...................................... 24
Explicit and Implicit Inputs...................................................................................26
Role of Sensemaking in Decision Making...........................................................27
Organizational Learning.................................................................................................29
Introduction............................................................................................................ 29
Organizational Learning as Applied to Decision-Making...........................................29
4 Is: Crossan, Lane and White (1999)................................................................ 30
viii
Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation: Nonaka (1994)......32

Organizational Restructuring and Middle Manager Sensemaking: Balogun and
Johnson (2004).................................................................................................33
CEOs Sensemaking in Turbulent Environments: Cahill (2005)........................35
Summary of the Literature Review ...............................................................................35
CHAPTER 3 ............................................................................................................................ 38
Methods........................................................................................................................... 38
Overview......................................................................................................................... 38
Methodological Approach..............................................................................................38
Research Questions........................................................................................................ 39
Research Design............................................................................................................. 40
Methodology Selection......................................................................................... 40
Case Selection........................................................................................................41
Participant Selection.............................................................................................. 42
Participant Description.......................................................................................... 43
Recruitment of Participants...................................................................................44
Event Selection.......................................................................................................45
Data Collection............................................................................................................... 45
Interviews............................................................................................................... 46
Executive Journal T ool......................................................................................... 46
Documents............................................................................................................. 47
Data Analysis......................................................................................................... 47
Trustworthiness.............................................................................................................. 49
Human Participants and Ethical Considerations................................................. 50
ix
Summary of Methodology and Design................................................................ 51

CHAPTER 4 ............................................................................................................................ 53
Results............................................................................................................................. 53
Introduction.....................................................................................................................53
Research Questions........................................................................................................ 53
The Participants in the Study......................................................................................... 54
General Characteristics...................................................................................................54
Individual Participant Cameos..............................................................................55
Overview of the Thought Leadership Program................................................... 59
Site Description...............................................................................................................59
Large Information Technology Company (LITC) - Company Overview
60
Project Background........................................................................................................ 60
Overview of Findings.....................................................................................................61
Finding 1: Major decisions occurred at four different points in the organization:
individual, group, organization, and beyond the organization..............................61
Individual Decision Point Example..................................................................... 62
Group Decision Point Example.............................................................................62
Organization Decision Point Examples...............................................................64
Beyond the Organization Example...................................................................... 66
Finding 2: As the idea moved through each phase of organizational learning, there
were periods of divergence and convergence of ideas..........................................67
Examples of Divergence....................................................................................... 67
Example of Convergence...................................................................................... 72
Finding 3: A fabric of decisions occurred continuously throughout the
organizational learning process across multiple levels (individual, group,
organization and beyond the organization) that impacted this process................74
x
Fabric of Decision Making Examples.................................................................. 76

Finding 4: For an idea to move from the individual to the institution and thereby
facilitating organizational learning, both intuitive and rational decision making
activities are required................................................................................................79
Innovators versus Corporate Mainstream in Decision M aking.........................80
Consistency versus Inconsistency in Decision M aking......................................82
Qualitative versus Quantitative Decision M aking.............................................. 85
Spark versus Bipolar Decision Making................................................................ 85
Intuition versus Systematic Rational-Based Decision-Making.......................... 86
Incubation versus Rational Decision M aking..................................................... 90
Finding 5: There was congruence between individual decision making and group
decision making........................................................................................................ 94
Finding 6: There existed a safe place for the open exchange of ideas at the group
level.......................................................................................................................... 101
Review of the Findings................................................................................................. 106
Finding 1: Major decisions occurred at four different levels in the organization:
individual, group, organization, and beyond the organization................... 106
Finding 2: As the idea moved through each phase of organizational learning,
there were periods of divergence and convergence of ideas...................... 107
Finding 3: A fabric of decisions occurred continuously throughout the
organizational learning process across multiple levels (individual, group,
organization and beyond the organization) that impacted this process 108
Finding 4: For an idea to move from the individual to the institution,
facilitating organizational learning, both intuitive and rational decision
making activities are required....................................................................... 109
Finding 5: There was congruence between individual decision making and
group decision making...................................................................................109
Finding 6: There existed a safe place for the open exchange of ideas at the
group level...................................................................................................... 109
XI
110
Conclusion
CHAPTER 5 .......................................................................................................................... I l l
Interpretations, Conclusions and Recommendations................................................ I l l
Introduction................................................................................................................... I l l
Discussion and Interpretations of the Findings.......................................................... I l l
Finding 1 ...............................................................................................................I l l
Finding 2 ...............................................................................................................113
Finding 3 ...............................................................................................................117
Finding 4 ...............................................................................................................118
Finding 5 ...............................................................................................................123
Finding 6 ...............................................................................................................124
Synthesis of Case Study...............................................................................................128
Conclusions................................................................................................................... 131
Conclusion 1: The model by Crossan et al. may be enhanced to include outside
organizations that can impact organizational learning.........................................132
Conclusion 2: Major decisions occurred atfour different pointsin the organizational
learning process but were supported bya fabricof decisions throughout........132
Conclusion 3: Stated usage of intuitive or rational decision making may be driven
by an interviewees point of view or critical reflection....................................... 133
Conclusion 4: A combination of intuitive and rational decision making methods are
used at each decision point in the organizational learning process and in both the
feed forward and the feed backward processes.................................................... 135
Limitations of Study..................................................................................................... 136
Single case study.................................................................................................. 136
Temporal aspect of the study.............................................................................. 136
Researcher bias..................................................................................................... 137
xii
Uniqueness of the thought leadership program................................................. 137

Recommendations for Future Research.......................................................................138
The nature o f intuition in the context of decision making................................138
The role that a small group of thought leaders plays within an organization .138
Applying concepts from other disciplines to organizational learning ........... 139
Recommendations for Practice.................................................................................... 139
The decision making process.............................................................................. 139
The attributes of the idea..................................................................................... 141
Intuition.................................................................................................................142
Concluding Remarks.................................................................................................... 143
APPENDIX A ........................................
145
First Interview Protocol................................................................................................ 145

APPENDIX B ........................................................................................................................ 148
Second Interview Protocol...........................................................................................148
REFERENCES.........................................
151
xiii
List of Figures
Figure 1: ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING: DRIVEN BY INTUITION OR

RATIONAL DECISION-MAKING.............................................................................. 148
Figure 2: CODES FOR EACH LEVEL OF DECISION MAKING.................................148
xiv
CHAPTER 1
Overview
Harnessing individuals ideas to drive organizational learning is a powerful process;
one that can cause organizations to reach new levels of competency, integration and
innovation. These ideas represent solutions to clients, potential revenue streams, and
market growth opportunities. But for the individuals idea to have relevance for the
company, decisions must be made to support which ideas will become part of
organizational learning. Delay or mistakes in this decision making process can mean
missing a business opportunity or innovation. Organizations must learn faster and adapt
to the rapid change in the environment or they simply will not survive. (Schwandt &
Marquardt, 2000, pp.2) While there have been informal and formal programs in place
throughout organizations that have produced ideas that later turned into realities, these
approaches have not produced results in a consistent, repeatable manner. Rational, factbased models, the staple in business for years, are making way for intuitive-based
models. Understanding these types of decision-making processes within the context of
organizational learning is an emergent field.
To explore these intuitive and rational decision-making processes, this case study
was used to examine large information technology company where there was an idea
presented by an individual that did turn into a reality. The idea caused a fundamental shift
in the way business was done for clients and in the way the clients conduct their own
business. It became the brand, strategy, platform for the company and has been
implemented around the world. It is known as the Flexible Foundation. At the bequest
of the organization at which the research was conducted, the actual company or the
program names will not be used.
This study contributes to the current body of literature by presenting a single case
that describes the idea of one individual and how that idea became institutionalized into
the body of knowledge for a large information technology company. Interviews with the
executives for the company reveal their perceptions of how the idea of one person
became the product line, branding strategy, and future direction for the company. It
demonstrates how individual learning contributes to organizational learning through a
decision making process that contains elements of both rational and intuitive types of
decisions.
Crossan, Lane, & White (1999) established a model in which individual intuiting is
the starting point for organizational learning. But while individual learning is necessary,
it is not a sufficient condition for organizational learning to occur (Schwandt &
Marquardt, 2000). Crossan et al. (1999) continue by outlining intuiting, interpreting,
integrating and institutionalizing as the processes in which an individual learns something
and influences the organization and how the organization learns something and
influences the individual. They refer to these concepts as feed-forward and feed-back. In
order to move between the four phases of the Crossan et al. model, decisions must be
made that support moving the idea from one phase to another. Those decision points
represent whether the idea will move to the next level of institutionalization and how
those decisions are made become the difference between whether those ideas get adopted
or not. Bocchino (2004) stated that it is the relationships and processes typically
associated with leadership that generate the organizing influence for both individual
understanding and social action (p. 5).
But what is the relationship between the quality of decisions that are made
throughout the organizational learning process and the ability of businesses to operate
effectively in todays complex environment? Why is decision-making so critical to this
process? For the answer to that question, we turn to the requirements of an executive
operating in todays organizations.
Statement of the Problem
Business Environment
Businesses are often contradictory, ambiguous, and surprising places, and ... their
environments are becoming increasingly complex and unpredictable (Sadler-Smith &
Sheffy, 2005, p. 76). Executives who are working in todays organizations live in a
turbulent world as if they are riding through permanent white water (Vail, 1996). With
the constantly changing environments, executives encounter new situations for which
they have no prior experience. Fast, high-quality, strategic decision-making in this
context represents a fundamental dynamic capability in high-performance organizations.
(Sadler-Smith & Sheffy, 2004, p. 76).
Rational Decision Processes
Executives, if they are to be effective, must be able to make fast, high-quality
strategic decisions in this context. The traditional response to this challenge has been
rational analysis: information is collected, analyzed and interpreted, alternatives are
formulated, and a logical choice is consciously chosen (Davis & Davis, 2003).
However, these same methods can adversely impact and lead to erroneous results by
factors within and outside the companys control: terrorism, computer glitches, new
technology, or an unsuspected competitor (Sadler-Smith & Sheffy, 2005, p. 76). Further,
information technology has allowed an explosion in the volumes of data an executive is
required to deal with and can be overwhelming (Huber & Daft, 1987). Still in other
instances, executives may be tasked with a new venture in an unfamiliar environment
where there may be an information vacuum (Sadler-Smith & Sheffy, 2005). Yet in spite
of these challenges, the speed at which decisions must be made does not slow down
(Wally & Baum, 1994).
Intuitive Decision Processes
An alternative or addition to rational decision making is intuition. Isenberg (1984)
found that executives used intuition in the following ways: to sense a problem, perform
pre-programmed behavior patterns, produce an integrated picture, check rational analysis,
and as a way to by-pass analysis. Sadler-Smith & Sheffy (2005) found that executives
also use intuition as feeling and intuition as expertise to help make decisions.
Link to the Problem
An organization needs to utilize the ideas from individuals by turning them into
organizational knowledge. Crossan et al. (1999) established a model for how individual
intuiting is the starting point for organizational learning. In her model, she outlines
intuiting, interpreting, integrating and institutionalizing as the manner in which an
individual learns something and influences the organization and how the organization
learns something and influences the individual; concepts she describes as feed-forward
and feed-back. But for the individuals idea to have relevance for the company, it must
be assessed, analyzed, and exploited early in the organizational learning process. Delay
can mean the missing of a business opportunity, or a customer that takes their business
elsewhere, or a competitor who gets to the market first. Organizations must learn faster
and adapt to the rapid change in the environment or they simply will not survive.
(Schwandt & Marquardt, 2000, pp.2)
While there has been a great deal of work done on organizational learning, there has
not been much work done on the decisions that are needed to move an idea from an
individual to an organization. Further, whether those decisions are made using rationalbased models or intuitive-based models have yet to be explored.
Purpose and Research Questions
Purpose
The purpose of this case study is to gain a better understanding of how an individual
triggers organizational learning to occur by analyzing the decision points that are used
throughout the process. Specifically, this study will focus on the work done by an
individual within a large international information technology company and how an
intuitive idea by an individual became supported by a group, spread throughout the
organization and finally adopted as standard practice at the organizational level.
Decisions made throughout the process were analyzed to determine if they are rationalmodel based, intuitive-model based or a combination of both methods. For purposes of
this study, rational decision-making occurs when information is collected, analyzed and
interpreted, alternatives are formulated, and a logical choice is consciously chosen (Davis
& Davis, 2003). Intuition refers to the nonconscious ability to code, sort, and access the
meaningfulness or relevance of the outcomes of past decisions efficiently (Agor, 1989).
Interviews with the original thought leader and peers executives were undertaken to
identify how the idea of one person became the product line, branding strategy, and
future direction of a company. By using one instance of learning created by an individual
and permeating the entire organization, I hope to gain a better understanding of the
development of organizational learning and how that process is facilitated by the
decisions that are made.
The case study was done at LITC, a large information technology company offering
products and services to clients around the world. LITC has a group of executives that
are recognized as having the ability to convert outstanding knowledge and expertise into
business solutions for the company and its clients. This group of LITC executives is
frequently called on to help LITC clients and their account teams implement new
solutions to challenges. They are known for encouraging creativity and innovation,
enhancing LITC' external image, and promoting companywide networking for innovation
and thought leadership. The 30 LITC executives distinguish themselves by consistently
moving ideas from creation through implementation to defined business impact, said
LITC president and a sponsor of the LITC Executive program (LITC website on May
16, 2006).
One executive had the idea of something called the Flexible Foundation (also a
pseudonym). Flexibility is the capacity of an enterprise to: 1) anticipate changing
market dynamics, 2) adapt to those dynamics, and 3) accelerate enterprise change faster
than the rate of change in the market to create economic value (The Flexible Foundation
presentation made to the LITC Steering Committee Meeting on May 28, 2003).
The purpose of this case study is to examine this specific instance in which
knowledge was created by an individual executive and then institutionalized throughout
the entire LITC organization. This research provides an understanding of the types of
activities several executives undertook to take an idea and move it through to
organizational learning. This case study focuses on how those decisions were made:
whether they were made through intuitive type skills or if they were made through
rational decision making processes. This gives us a better understanding of the
relationship between intuition and rational thought processes in the context of
organizational learning at this one particular location.
Research Questions
The research questions for this study are:
What specific activities did the executives undertake when making a decision about
how a piece of knowledge from an individual gets institutionalized?
Did executives do specific activities that support rational decision-making?
Did executives do specific activities that support the use of intuition in decision
making?
Statement of Potential Significance
The contribution of this research to the literature is to analyze one particular
instantiation of organizational learning in terms of the decisions that were made to
support the process from an individual to an organization. By understanding this dynamic
between the types of decision-making in the context of organizational learning and how
they can be applied, an organization can better maximize its human capital by
determining strategies to ensure that individuals ideas become part of the
institutionalized knowledge base.
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework for this research contains two constructs: decision
making in the context of organizational learning. Decision-making will be viewed along
a continuum of rational and intuitive decision-making. Organizational learning will be
viewed along a continuum of individual through organization. The conceptual
framework is found in Figure 1. Once an individual has an idea, how does that idea
move through to become an implemented solution? How does it pass through the
decision making and organization learning continuums? What form is used to make
those decisions (intuition or rational model based) and how does the idea move from an
individual through an organization?
Figure 1: Organizational Learning: Driven by Intuition or Rational Decision-Making
Organizational Learning: Driven by Intuition or Rational

Decision Making?
Research Question: What form generates decisions at each point

.-iin the organizational learning model?
/
'
D ecision-M aking P r o c e s s C ontinuum

\
Intuition th ro u g h F a c t-B a s e d D ecisio n s
(Informe d by the work of Eisenhardt and Sadler-Smith an d Sheffy^--
...
Im p lem en tatio n
irg an izatio h al L earn in g C o n tinuum

Individual th ro u g h O rg an iza tio n ::
I (Informed: by th e work of C ro sso n )::
Theoretical Framework
The literature that helps to inform this discussion about types of decision-making in
the context of organizational learning will be reviewed in this section.
Crossan et al. Organizational Learning Model (1999)
Crossan et al. (1999) identified three levels of organizational learning that are linked
by social and psychological processes: intuiting, interpreting, integrating and
institutionalizing - a concept they refer to as the 4Fs; 4) cognition affects action and
action affects cognition. These 41s are integral to feed-forward (in which knowledge is
transferred from the individual through the group to the organization) and feed-back (in
which knowledge is transferred from the organization through the group and back to the
individual).
While the work of Crossan et al. (1999) clearly suggests intuition is done only at the
individual level, it provides an explanation for how knowledge is then interpreted,
integrated and finally institutionalized throughout an organization. This construct helps
to explain how an executive raises his/her awareness of knowledge; interprets that
knowledge in light of its existing knowledge structures; integrates the knowledge, if
deemed appropriate, into its existing knowledge structures before it ultimately
institutionalizes that knowledge throughout the entire organization. Further, the model
illustrates how knowledge can begin at the institutionalized level (for example, policies
and procedures) and how it can be integrated and interpreted back into the knowledge
structures of the individual.
Intuiting
The first step in the Crossan et al. (1999) model begins at the individual. How does
an individual achieve that spark of intuition to fuel the beginning of an idea strong
enough to drive learning through the organization? Stanovich and West (2000) identified
intuition as a System 1 cognitive system characterized by responses that are automatic,
effortless, associative, emotionally-charged, governed by habit and difficult to control or
modify.
Interpreting
Interpreting is the next level of the Crossan et al. (1999) model and moves from the
individual to the organizational level of analysis. To understand how the organization
10
interprets, it is important to look at how key individuals within that organization interpret
new information. How do key decision-makers interpret the new information in a way
that makes sense to them and to the organization? Cahill (2005), in his work with CEOs,
found that they make sense of new information utilizing a sensemaking continuum that
includes sensemaking-in-action, sensemaking-as-problem-solving, and, sensemaking-asframe-changing. He also found that CEOs go through multiple levels of sensemaking
and that when CEOs change their perspectives (i.e. frames of reference); it is frequently,
but not always, associated with a significant affective element that energizes the frame
changing process. Context, historical and personal factors are strong filtering influences
on CEO sensemaking discourse partners are a vital component of CEO sensemaking. His
research also supported the belief that CEOs utilize intuition to support their
sensemaking.
Integrating
Integrating is the next level of Crossan et al. (1999) model and focuses on the
organizational level of analysis. How does an organization integrate the new idea into its
existing business practices? Individuals in most organizations still use rational decision
making as the main way of reaching decisions in todays business world. Stanovich and
West (2000) would consider this reasoning, or a System 2 cognitive system, that is
characterized by responses that are slow, serial, controlled, effortful, and potentially rulegoverned. But unlike the traditional rational method o f decision-making in which
information is collected, collated, analyzed and interpreted, alternatives are formulated
and a conscious choice is logically arrived at, Sadler-Smith and Sheffy (2004) advocate
11
adding an intuitive component to help improve decision making capacity. They espouse
a joint solution of rationality and intuition to yield superior decisions. They believe that
there are two sources of intuition: 1) intuition-as-feeling that is demonstrated by a
physical sensation a gut feel, toward a particular solution; and 2) intuition-as-expertise or
intuition that is gained through knowing or sensemaking.
Institutionalizing
Institutionalizing is the final stage of Crossan et al. (1999) model in which she
explores how the organization institutionalizes or learns from the idea originally
generated by the individual. Further, Sadler-Smith and Sheffy (2004) seem to build on
several of Eisenhardts (1989) conclusions about fast decision-makers that apply to
intuitive decision-makers. Intuitive decision-makers rely on explicit and implicit learning
with the latter providing images, episodes and narratives that can be stored as rules for
how to achieve specific goals for a particular situation. This tacit knowledge cannot be
described easily largely because it involves involuntary acts and is independent of any
conscious attempt to learn. This reliance on implicit and explicit knowledge would
support Eisenhardts view regarding the amount of information, number of alternatives
and patterns of behaviors that fast decision makers use as described below.
Eisenhardts Rapid Decision-Making Model (1989)
This reliance on implicit and explicit knowledge that Sadler-Smith and Sheffy
discuss supports Eisenhardts view that 1) fast decision makers use more, not less,
information than do slow decision makers and that 2) fast decision makers develop more,
not fewer alternatives. Further, 3) the fact that an intuitive decision maker uses the
12
results of the implicit learning process as rules gives the intuitive decision maker an
ability to conduct internal conflict resolution and integration among strategic decisions
and tactical plans that are also critical to the pace of decision making and tied to
Eisenhardts findings. Finally, Eisenhardt states that 4) fast decisions based on this
pattern of behaviors leads to superior performance and the results of the work done by
Sadler-Smith and Sheffy demonstrates that a combination of rational decision-making
with intuitive decision-making allows individuals to enhance a firms success in complex
and fast-moving business environments.
Eisenhardt identified tasks that functional areas perform when doing rapid decision
making:
Real time information - collecting and utilizing data from both internal and external
sources;
Multiple simultaneous alternatives - keeping more than one alternative open at all
times to ensure that options remain open and decision makers dont commit to only one
option too early in the process
Two-tier advice process - using advisors or counselors to help with the decision
making process
Consensus with qualification - allowing people to provide conditions on their
consent in a decision so that the team can move forward with the decision
Decision integration - ensuring all components of the organization are represented in
the decision making process
13
She felt that applying those inputs to the key mediating processes of accelerated
cognitive processing; smooth group processes; and confidence to act to yield faster
decisions and thus improve a firms performance.
Sadler-Smith and Sheffys Intuition Model (2005)
Sadler-Smith and Sheffy (2004) advocate adding an intuitive component to help
improve decision making capacity. They espouse a joint solution of rationality and
intuition to yield superior decisions. They believe that there are two sources of intuition:
1) intuition-as-feeling that is demonstrated by a physical sensation a gut feel, toward a
particular solution; and 2) intuition-as-expertise or intuition that is gained through
knowing or sensemaking.
Relationship between the Constructs
As information from the individual moves through an organization, there are
decision points that propel the information forward (or backward if the information is
coming from the organization back to the individual) or can stop the information from
any further travel. As such, the nature and essence of these decision points come at
critical junctures for whether information from the individual will actually become
institutionalized. Along the organizational learning continuum from an individual to an
organization, decisions must be made. Those decisions will be analyzed as to whether
they follow a more rational form of decision making like that described by Eisenhardt
(or a System 2 form in Stanovich and Wests terminology) or more of an intuitive process
such as that espoused by Sadler-Smith and Sheffy (or a System 1 form in Stanovich and
Wests terminology).
14
Summary of the Methodology

This case study was designed as a qualitative design to gain an understanding of how
decisions get made as part of the process from an individuals idea through organizational
institutionalization of that idea. It will be a basic case study (Merriam, 1998) designed to
identify recurrent patterns in the form of themes or categories (p. 12). The
particularistic form o f case study will be used since the topics focus on a particular
phenomenon and as Merriam (1998) states this specificity of focus makes it an
especially good design for practical problems for questions, situations, or puzzling
occurrences arising from everyday practice (p.29). Further, case studies concentrate
attention on the way particular groups of people confront specific problems, taking a
holistic view of the situation. They are problem centered, small scale, entrepreneurial
endeavors (Shaw, 1978, p. 2). In this case study, this researcher will be trying to
understand the types of decisions that were made throughout an application of
organizational learning. Since the research centers on whether rational decision making
or intuition was used by executives in their decisions to take an individuals idea through
small groups and finally through institutionalization are everyday practical issues, this
design format seemed most appropriate.
For this work, the level of analysis will be at the individual level to help understand
the essence of decision-making at each phase of the organizational learning. The
interviewee sample is made up of executives tasked with determining the future direction
and strategy for LITC. The case study will center around one particular event that
spanned four years: the inception, development, and implementation of the Flexible
15
Foundation. The actual case will be time bound based on what is discovered in the
executives journals.
Data Collection
Journal entries of 30 executives were reviewed to determine those people who either
participated in a large portion of the Flexible Foundation development or were involved
during critical milestones. Six executives were selected to participate in the interview
process. This number struck an appropriate balance between number of informants, types
of data sought, length of research project, and research agenda. Multiple interviews were
conducted with each interviewee. Interviews were used to gather information about how
people made decisions about a specific idea as it moved from one person to the group of
executives to the organization as a whole. Interviews were triangulated with reports,
memos, and speeches prepared by the LITC executives on the Flexible Foundation and
the journal entries.
Data Analysis
The data was analyzed using Miles & Huberman (1994) analysis strategy for
qualitative studies. Summary sheets were drafted on fieldnotes. The summary sheets
were used to develop contrasts and comparisons among the data. The data was coded and
the frequency of the codes was determined. These codes led to a noting of patterns and
themes. Themes were captured independently and then reviewed at a macro level to
determine cross level themes.
Limitations
The limitations of this study are as follows:
16
Researcher Bias
As a former LITC executive and member of this group, I had to suspend my own
assumptions and modus operandi to clearly understand what the LITC executives believe
about how the events of the Flexible Foundation development occurred. I needed to
contemplate the value judgments and the biases that are present in my own thought
process.
Boundary Issues:
This research represents the findings of one particular instantiation of an idea

becoming a reality within one organization under investigation. Therefore, the findings
may not be transferable to other instantiations of an idea or other organizations. As a
qualitative interpretivist study, the events will derive meaning from the context in which
they are created. However, there may be themes that emerge that that may be applicable
or useful to other teams.
Nature o f the Study
As this is an interpretivist study, there is an inherent assumption that events did not
play out exactly as others or I remembered them. Staying open to what the data presents
and identifying my assumptions upfront will help me to stay true to the research
methodology and produce a less biased report while capturing the perceptions of the
interviewees.
17
Definition of Key Terms

Decision-Making
The definition used in this paper is from Simon (1965) who asserts that decision
making is a complex social process involving the directing o f attention, discovery,
designing courses of action, evaluating alternatives, and choosing among them.
Intuition
Intuition refers to the nonconscious ability to code, sort, and access the
Sadler-Smith and Sheffys (2006) model of intuition-as-expertise and intuition-as-feeling
will be used.
Organizational Learning
For purposes of this study, the definition provided by Schwandt & Marquardt (2000)
will be used. Organizational learning is a very complex interrelationship between people,
actions, symbols, and processes within the organization.
Rational Analysis Decision-Making
For purposes of this study, rational decision-making occurs when information is

collected, analyzed and interpreted, alternatives are formulated, and a logical choice is
consciously chosen (Davis & Davis, 2003)
Summary
Chapter 1 introduces the study and provides a brief overview of the problem and
purpose of the study within a conceptual framework. The research question are identified
and explained. Three main constructs were described: 1) organizational learning as the
18
context and within that context 2) rational decision making and 3) intuitive decision
making. A summary of methodology, limitations and definition of terms was also
presented. Chapter 2 presents a literature review identifying the key pieces of research
that support this work.
19
CHAPTER 2
Literature Review
Introduction: Topics, Purposes, and Methods of the Literature Review
This literature review examines the organizational learning and decision-making
literature that contain theory relevant to the conceptual framework of this study. The
literature search process was conducted online using the following resources:
ABI/Inform, ProQuest, Psychlnfo, EBSCOhost, and JSTOR.
The search was initiated using initially key words: rational decision-making,
intuition, organizational learning and then narrowed down to focus on specific types of
decision making and theoretical models that addressed the notion of an individuals idea
permeating an organization. After reviewing many studies and abstracts, I determined.
Eisenhardt, Sadler-Smith and Sheffy, and Crossan et al. were the key components of the
conceptual framework and the foundation for this study. At that point, I searched for
other work done by these theorists in addition to other researchers who had cited their
works.
The remainder of this chapter will include a review o f the literature related to
intuitive and rational decision-making, and organizational learning.
Description and Critique o f Scholarly Literature
This section will summarize the literature on decision making and organizational
learning. First the various perspectives on rational and intuitive decision making
literature will be reviewed concurrently. Next the organizational learning literature will
20
analyzed. The section will conclude with a discussion on the connections between the
organizational learning literature and decision making.
Decision Making
Rational decision making has been the staple in business for years but is making way
for an additional intuitive component. For purposes of this study, rational decision
making occurs when information is collected, analyzed and interpreted, alternatives are
formulated, and a logical choice is consciously chosen (Davis & Davis, 2003) Intuition,
on the other hand, refers to the nonconscious ability to code, sort, and access the
Sadler-Smith and Sheffys (2004) model of intuition-as-expertise and intuition-asfeeling advocates adding an intuitive component to rational decision making to help
improve decision making capacity. They espouse a joint solution of rationality and
intuition to yield superior decisions. They believe that there are two sources of intuition:
1) intuition-as-feeling that is demonstrated by a physical sensation a gut feel, toward a
particular solution; and 2) intuition-as-expertise or intuition that is gained through
knowing or sensemaking.
Looking back through the literature of decision making provides a juxtaposition of
both of these decision making methods. This section will explore how some leaders in
the field have viewed the two components of decision making.
Logical and Non-Logical Decision-Making
The role of intuition in executive decision-making has experienced a significant ebb

and flow evolutionary pattern over the past several decades. Chester Barnard in a letter
21
to A. A. Lowman, President of Northwestern Bell Telephone Company, said

Management is an art, will always be one, can never be completely understood, and the
greatest artists, with possible the very rare exceptions, will be unable to understand what
they are doing in a scientific sense, or to explain it to others (Wolf, 1995, pp. 1866-7).
Barnard believed differences in mental processes quite independent of knowledge and
experience and suggested that these mental processes could be classified as conscious
thinking which could be expressed in words, o r... reasoning, while non-logical
processes - were considered to be those made known through judgment, decision or
action (Barnard, 1938, p.302). Polanyi (1958) believed that non-logical processes were
incapable of being expressed in words. Meehl (1957) questioned the use of heads (his
word for intuition) versus formulas (statistical analysis and data) in making
professional judgments and decisions in a wide range of applications from law to
medicine. His opinion fell in line with the prevailing thought of the day to focus on
analysis over intuition particularly given the rise of cognitive sciences and information
processing that occurred in the late 1960s (Newell, 1992). In the 1970s and 1980s, there
was a resurgence of the use of intuition when it was better to feel the Force than to use
visual senses or tactical analyses (Turkkan, 2001, p. 483). Clore and Parrott (1991)
pushed our understanding of intuition a little farther with their groundbreaking work on
emotional intelligence. It was groundbreaking because it was the first time that emotion
was thought of as information.
22
System 1 and System 2 Processing
Most judgments and most choices are made intuitively and the rules that govern
intuition are generally similar to those that govern perception (Kahneman, D., &
Taversky, A. (1982). While reasoning is done deliberately and with effort, intuitive
thoughts seem to come to mind spontaneously and without effort (Gilbert, 1989, 2002;
Wilson, 2002; Epstein, 2003). Stanovich and West (2000) identified intuition as a
System 1 cognitive system characterized by responses that are automatic, effortless,
associative, emotionally-charged, governed by habit and difficult to control or modify.
Reasoning, a System 2 cognitive system, is characterized by responses that are slow,
serial, controlled, effortful, rule-governed, flexible and potentially rule-governed.
Decision Making Kaleidoscope
For Erikson, insight (which he used synonymously with intuition) was ability to see
the situation and into the self at the same time (Erikson, 1975). This definition, coupled
with the classic experiments with the grand chess masters, prompted an image in the
authors mind of a decision making kaleidoscope. In the experiment, grand chess
masters recall capabilities were significantly lessened when chess pieces were randomly
placed on the board than when the pieces were meaningfully placed as if in a real game
(Simon, 1989).
Decision making as a kaleidoscope depicts the dual nature of decision making: facts
or representations from the outside world are combined in unique ways by the executive
to represent meaningful patterns to them. Similar to the Talmud We dont see things as
they are; we see things as we are, the executive turns the kaleidoscope of a situation
23
until all the pieces make sense (Weick, 1979) to the executive. The executive turns and
turns the kaleidoscope until the situation fits an existing mental model (Mezirow, 1991)
that can be acted upon. According to theories surrounding intuition, all of this activity is
primarily done at the unconscious level. According to theories surrounding rational
decision making, all of this activity provides reasons and justifications necessary for a
rational model approach. If this data analysis transcends to the conscious level, the
executive is no longer able to make sense of a situation intuitively. Once it enters the
conscious level, the executive has the option making a decision spontaneously or
subjecting it to some type of analysis. If the decision is made spontaneously, the
executive may or may not critically reflect upon his assumptions that seem to be driving
him to that decision outcome (Mezirow, 1991). If the decision is made using some type
of analysis, the executive has the ability to rely on past analytical methods as a model.
When Executives use Each Decision Making Method
While there was a great deal written about the fact that executives use intuition and
rational decision making and that they are helpful to them, what was missing was the
specific tasks that executives do to prepare them to use one form over the other. Cahill
(2005) supported the belief that CEOs utilize intuition to support their sensemaking.
Parikh (1994), in his work on executive intuition, found that there are functional areas in
which managers felt that they were more apt to use intuition than others. These included
corporate strategy and planning; marketing, human resource development, research and
development, public relations, investments and acquisitions, and mergers and alliances.
Further, a study has shown that senior managers tend to be more intuitive than their
24
middle and junior counterparts; small business entrepreneurs are just as intuitive as their
large business counterparts (Allinson and Hayes, 1996).
While the literature points to the fact that many executives use intuition, we didnt
know the tasks that these executives do on a daily basis that sets the foundation for an
internal knowledge base that they can refer to in using intuition. Wangemann (2006)
explored what kinds of tasks intuitive executives did on a daily basis by looking at
electronic journal entries for 2005 and found that the executives studied spent most of
their time involved in critical contract issues, strategic sales pursuits, and innovation.
The findings also demonstrated that the executives are quite diverse in their daily
activities that give them of wealth of knowledge and experience to draw upon in business
scenarios. While they are characterized as intuitive, they have a wealth of knowledge
structures available to them from which to draw to make decisions. In support of
Eisenhardts (1999) study, the executives each recorded time against the five main areas
studied representing diversity in the work they perform on a daily basis showing that
intuitive people tend to operate in many different spheres of activity. Lastly, executives
were each put in situations frequently in which they were working with internal and
external resources to the organization such that they can continually learn new
information and validate it with a variety of sources. They were involved in activities
that both exploit existing components of the organization as well as explore new
opportunities for business.
Tying into the work of Simon (1987, 1989) who talked about chunking pieces of
like information as a way that one uses intuition to make decisions, these particular
25
executives tended to be involved in problem solving, creative selling and innovation as

their way of chunking their information that they experienced on a daily basis. This
study on the daily types of things that they do gives them the information with which to
chunk so that when the appropriate time comes they can rely on their intuition to make a
decision.
Explicit and Implicit Inputs
Eisenhardts (1989) work on rapid decision-making seemed to dovetail into the work
done around intuition. The most parallel analysis comes from Sadler-Smith and Sheffy
(2004) who agree with the notion of the fast paced nature of decision making and felt that
businesses are often contradictory and ambiguous places that are becoming increasingly
complex and unpredictable. Fast, high-quality, strategic decision-making in this context
represents a fundamental dynamic capability in high-performance organizations (SadlerSmith & Sheffy, 2004, p. 76).
Further, Sadler-Smith and Sheffy (2004) seem to build on several of Eisenhardts
conclusions about fast decision-makers that apply to intuitive decision-makers. Intuitive
decision-makers rely on explicit and implicit learning with the latter providing images,
episodes and narratives that can be stored as rules for how to achieve specific goals for a
particular situation. This tacit knowledge cannot be described easily largely because it
involves involuntary acts and is independent of any conscious attempt to learn. This
reliance on implicit and explicit knowledge would support Eisenhardts view that 1) fast
decision makers use more, not less, information than do slow decision makers and that 2)
fast decision makers develop more, not fewer alternatives. Further, the fact that an
26
intuitive decision maker uses the results of the implicit learning process as rules gives
the intuitive decision maker an ability to conduct internal conflict resolution and
integration among strategic decisions and tactical plans that are also critical to the pace of
decision making and tied to Eisenhardts findings. Finally, Eisenhardt states that fast
decisions based on this pattern of behaviors leads to superior performance and the results
of the work done by Sadler-Smith and Sheffy demonstrates that a combination of rational
decision-making with intuitive decision-making allows individuals to enhance a firms
success in complex and fast-moving business environments.
Role o f Sensemaking in Decision Making
Sensemaking is driven by plausibility, rather than by accuracy. The sensible need

not be sensible (Weick, 1995, p. 55). Instead, the focus of sensemaking is pragmatics,
coherence, reasonableness, creation, invention, and instrumentality. Individuals have
perceptual as well as information-processing limits, and even though they may intend to
act rationally, they can do so only in a limited fashion (Simon, 1957).
Cahill (2005) found that executives make sense of new information utilizing a
sensemaking continuum that includes sensemaking-in-action, sensemaking-as-problemsolving, and sensemaking-as-frame-changing. He also found that CEOs go through
multiple levels of sensemaking and that when CEOs change their perspectives (i.e.,
frames of reference); it is frequently, but not always, associated with a significant
affective element that energizes the frame changing process.
Eisenhardts (1999) notion of collective intuition is providing the exact same
function of sensemaking. The group as a whole is building these chunks through their
27
regular contact with each other. As such, their information storage is efficient and can be
readily used when a decision opportunity comes up. This approach tends to enhance
quick decision making because it minimizes some of the barriers traditionally outlined
with strategic decisions.
1) Decisions are made incrementally and with ongoing data feeds so the emphasis on
a high level of comprehensiveness that typically slows the strategic decision process and
considers fewer alternatives obtained is minimized. Eisenhardt (1999) suggests frequent
meetings that all decision makers attend that include real time metrics.
2) Decisions are made by the group with each member relying on each others
expertise, so the problem of limited participation and centralized power is minimized.
Eisenhardt (1999) suggests that effective decision makers maintain decision speed by
knowing when to cut off discussion and getting the team to gain consensus with
qualification. This approach allows decision makers to buy in ... but and get their
concern on the table. Since decisions are made routinely rather than in a monumental
fashion, there is less personal stake or ego in the game that also helps to smooth the
internal process.
3) Finally, conflict occurs throughout the process, albeit at a much smaller scale, so
the notion that fast decisions were obtained by limiting conflict is minimized. In fact,
Eisenhardt says that effective strategic decision makers dont avoid conflict; rather they
try to accelerate it by ensuring that their decision makers represent a diverse population
so that multiple perspectives can be considered.
28
Organizational Learning
Introduction
Similar to the study of intuition, there are several definitions for organizational
learning depending on the epistemological stance taken, yet little convergence has
emerged on what is meant by the term (Huber, 1991; Kim, 1993). March and Olsen
(1978) describe a stimulus-response learning cycle in which the individuals actions lead
to organizational actions evoking environmental responses. The environmental responses
are then reported back to the organizations where they impact the individuals cognition
and potentially impact future actions. Cyert and March (1963) believe that organizations
learn by being moved from one system state to another as a result of external sources of
disturbance.
Nonaka (1994) believes that organizational knowledge is created through a
continuous dialogue between tacit and explicit knowledge. He further assumes that while
new knowledge is developed by individuals, it is articulated and amplified by the
organization.
Organizational Learning as Applied to Decision-Making
In this section, four major contributors in the field of organizational learning are
reviewed: Crossan et al. (1999) Nonaka (1994) Balgoun and Johnsons work (2004), and
Cahill (2005). We will look at the contributions each of these scholars have made to
organizational learning as a lens through which we focus our understanding of the
phenomena of decision making. As a basis of reference, we will continue to review
primarily the work by Eisenhardt (1989, 1999)and Kahneman, et al. (1982,1999) with
29
support from numerous other researchers in the fields of intuition and rapid decision
making to help understand the essence of decision making.
4 1 s: Crossan, Lane and White (1999)
Crossan et al. (1999) identified four assumptions underpinning the framework her
team developed: 1) Organizational learning involves assimilating new learning
(exploration) and using what has been learned (exploitation); 2) Organizational learning
is multi-level and includes the individual, group and organization; 3) There are three
levels of organizational learning that are linked by social and psychological processes:
intuiting, interpreting, integrating and institutionalizing - a concept they refer to as the
4Ps; 4) Cognition affects action and action affects cognition. These 41s are integral to
feed-forward (in which knowledge is transferred from the individual through the group to
the organization) and feed-back (in which knowledge is transferred from the organization
through the group and back to the individual).
While the work of Crossan et al. (1999) clearly suggests intuition is done only at the
individual level, it provides an explanation for how knowledge is then interpreted,
integrated and finally institutionalized throughout an organization. This organizational
learning construct is useful to the study of decision-making because it helps to explain
how a group raises its awareness of knowledge; interprets that knowledge in light of its
existing knowledge structures; integrates the knowledge, if deemed appropriate, into its
existing knowledge structures before it ultimately institutionalizes that knowledge
throughout the entire organization. Further, the model illustrates how knowledge can
begin at the institutionalized level (for example, policies and procedures) and how it can
30
be integrated and interpreted back into the knowledge structures of the individual. In
addition, Sadler-Smith and Sheffy (2004) advocate adding an intuitive component to help
improve decision making capacity.
The Crossan et al. (1999) work draws many of the same conclusions as the
groundbreaking work done by Kathleen Eisenhardt (1999) on rapid decision making.
Like Eisenhardt, Crossan et al. broke from tradition in her model by demonstrating that
all aspects of the organization (individual, group, and organizational); all having different
ideas and views are involved to support the organizational learning process. Decisions
about what gets institutionalized are done after they have been interpreted and integrated
by the three levels of the organization thereby abolishing the notion of an autocratic
approach.
Eisenhardts model o f Strategic Decision Speed in High Velocity Environments
(1989) provided a conceptual framework around how organizations that take real-time
information and use multiple simultaneous alternatives; two-tier advice processes;
consensus with qualification and decision integration can apply those inputs to the key
mediating processes of accelerated cognitive processing; smooth group processes; and
confidence to act to yield faster decisions and thus improve a firms performance.
Crossan et al. (1999) model dovetails nicely with Eisenhardts work because information
is coming in from a variety of sources and multiple alternatives can be considered
simultaneously. The Crossan et al. model supports, at a minimum, a two tier advice
process and could be expanded to include all three tiers of the organization. Consensus
with qualification is supported because individuals, groups or the organization can
31
interpret what a new piece of knowledge does to the existing knowledge structures but
then this interpretation is followed up with the decision integration aspect that permeates
both models. The highly integrative nature of the Crossan et al. model, suggests that
faster decisions can result although it cannot guarantee any improvement on a firms
performance.
Dynamic Theory o f Organizational Knowledge Creation: Nonaka (1994)
Nonaka (1994) broke from traditional theory conceptualizing an organization as a

system that processes information or solves problems. Nonaka felt that this view
presented a static view of the organization and was thereby limited. Rather, Nonaka
proposed that organizations dynamically deal with a changing environment and that they
ought not only to process information efficiently but also create information and
knowledge. He described innovation as a process in which the organization creates and
defines problems and then develops new language to solve them. To do this, he
postulated, that there needs to be a continual dialogue between explicit and tacit
knowledge that drives the creation of new ideas and concepts.
Building on her previous work while questioning the traditional approaches to
strategy, Eisenhardt and her colleague Shona Brown found that successful corporations
have adopted a term they coined as competing on the edge strategy. Eisenhardt felt
that the definition provided by The Economist of looking at strategy as where to you want
to go and how do you want to get there provided an incomplete approach. In the
competing on the edge type of strategy, these where and how questions are answered, but
not as isolated events but rather as way of creating a continuing flow o f temporary and
32
shifting competitive advantages. To do this, managers create an ongoing dialogue in

which all members are present and share real time internal and external information.
When a decision opportunity arises, they capitalize on this store of knowledge, or
collective intuition as she terms it, that theyve built up through this regular information
exchange.
Eisenhardts creation of a continuing flow of dialogue in which all members share
real time internal and external information is further explained by the use of Nonakas
continuing dialogue between explicit and tacit knowledge. As group members share their
facts, experiences, successes and failures, the group begins to build a repository explicit
and tacit knowledge that serves them well when it comes to making a decision.
Eisenhardts utilization of inputs from internal and external sources further substantiates
the dynamic nature o f the organization that Nonaka refers to. The organizational
boundaries become almost meaningless shifting a little further out in some instances or
retracting in others.
Organizational Restructuring and Middle Manager Sensemaking: Balogun and Johnson
(2004)
In their longitudinal, qualitative study examining middle-manager sensemaking

during an organizational shift from a hierarchical to a decentralized organizational form,
Balgoun and Johnson (2004) found that different types of change processes can lead to
different patterns of schema development. During a major organizational structural
change, managers moved from shared sensemaking through clustered sensemaking to a
33
shared but differentiated sensemaking. These replacement schemas served to help the
managers acclimate to their new organizational structure.
In the intuition literature, Nobel Laureate Donald Kahneman found that most
judgments and most choices are made intuitively and the rules that govern intuition are
generally similar to those that govern perception (Kahneman et al., 1999). While
reasoning is done deliberately and with effort, intuitive thoughts seem to come to mind
spontaneously and without effort (Gilbert, 1989,2002; Wilson, 2002; Epstein, 2003).
In analyzing Balgoun and Johnsons work (2004) with Kahnemans work, there are
some significant overlaps. While the level of analysis is different (Balgoun and Johnson
are looking at sensemaking at a group or organizational level while Kahneman is focused
on intuition at the individual level), there are still some extrapolations that can be made
between the two theories. As managers in Balgoun and Johnsons study started off in
their routine, hierarchical organization, they found their behavior and their intuition
described as a System 1 cognitive system meaning that their responses were automatic,
effortless, associative, emotionally-charged, governed by habit and difficult to control or
modify. As the new organization structure was thrust upon them they experienced a
disorienting dilemma and were thrown into a System 2 cognitive system. In this new
organizational structure, their actions were slow, serial, controlled, effortful, rulegoverned, flexible and potentially rule-governed. As the new organization structure
became more familiar to them, they moved to a combination o f System 1 and System 2
cognitive system in which some things could be handled routinely and novel situations
still required a greater thought process to formulate a response.
34
CEOs Sensemaking in Turbulent Environments: Cahill (2005)
In more recent work, Cahill (2005) looked at how todays leading organizations live
in a turbulent world as if riding through permanent white water (Vaill, 1996). With the
constantly changing environments, executives encounter new situations for which they
have no prior experience. Without the benefit of an existing frame of reference to link to
new information, the construction of meaning is more complex (Weick, 1995). Cahill
(2005), building on the work from Crowley (2003), Weick (1995), and Mezirow (1998),
found that CEOs make sense of new information utilizing a sensemaking continuum that
includes sensemaking-in-action, sensemaking-as-problem-solving, and, sensemaking-asffame-changing. He also found that CEOs go through multiple levels of sensemaking
and that when CEOs change their perspectives (i.e. frames of reference); it is frequently,
but not always, associated with a significant affective element that energizes the frame
changing process. Context, historical and personal factors are strong filtering influences
on CEO sensemaking and discourse partners are a vital component of CEO sensemaking.
Although not specifically sought after, his research also supported the belief that CEOs
utilize intuition to support their sensemaking.
Summary of the Literature Review
This chapter examined the literature related to the key constructs and theories
underlying this study, namely: intuition, rational decision making, and organizational
learning.
Several theories around intuition are discussed (Sadler-Smith & Sheffy, 2005;
Barnard, 1938; Stanovich & West, 2000; Kahneman, et al., 1999, Allinson & Hayes,
35
1996). Although Sadler-Smith & Sheffys theory provides the overall framework for this
study, the Stanovich & Wests consideration of the two forms of decision making as
System 1 and System 2 do provide an alternative approach that ties the rational and
intuitive based decision processes together in one model. The lack of a clear intuition
definition in the literature furthers the difficulty with which to operationalize intuition.
Sadler-Smith & Sheffys use of the terms intuition-as-expertise and intuition-as-feeling
provides an easy to understand lay persons definition that presumably will be easier to
capture in the interviews. The controversy around what intuition is and is not was
discussed and the literature indicates that this concept continues to be a subject of great
debate.
The literature on the decision-making was reviewed beginning with Eisenhardt
(1989) and her study o f fast strategic decisions. In it, she laid the groundwork for a
model of how executives make decisions in the face of constantly changing
environments. Her work was supported with the idea of chunking (Simon, 1987) as well
as Sadler-Smith and Sheffy who said that intuitive decision makers use explicit and
implicit learning.
A review of the literature on organizational learning was provided citing the work
from Nonaka (1994) and his notion o f organizational knowledge created through a
continuous dialogue between tacit and explicit knowledge; Balgoun and Johnsons (2004)
work around different types of change processes leading to different patterns of schema
development and finally Cahills (2005) work on CEO sensemaking and how that
influences organizational learning. Crossan et al. (1999) will be used as the
36
organizational learning model used in this study. Their four stage process of intuiting,
interpreting, integrating and finally institutionalizing seemed to provide a solid basis for
the research questions proposed in this study and tie intuition into the organizational
learning process.
The literature on the connect points between organizational learning, intuition and
decision making was reviewed. These connect points begin the conversation at the meta
level of analysis to gain an understanding of how these three topics work separately and
with each other.
In summary, there has been a great deal written independently on decision making,
intuition and organizational learning. However, there has not been much work done from
a meta-level across the three topics. In carefully analyzing these bodies of literature,
there are connect points between the research that help shed light on how these three
topics might be related as evidenced in this literature review. By carefully studying the
relationships between these constructs in the context of a specific case study, I hope to
provide a cross-discipline approach leading to greater clarity about the relationship
between these topics and provide insight into ways that organizational learning can more
consistently occur.
37
CHAPTER 3
Methods
Overview
This chapter outlines the research design and methods used in the study. The
purpose of this case study was to gain a better understanding of the decisions made
throughout the organizational learning process by analyzing the decision points to
determine if they are more rational or intuitive based. Specifically, this study focused on
the work done by an individual within at a large international information technology
company (LITC) and how that intuitive idea by an individual became interpreted and
integrated at the group level and eventually instituted at the organizational level.
Decisions made throughout the process were analyzed to determine if they are rationalmodel based, intuitive-model based or a combination of both methods. Interviews with
the thought leader and peer executives were undertaken to identify how the idea of one
person became the product line, branding strategy, and future direction of a company. By
using one instance of learning created by an individual and permeating the entire
organization, I hoped to gain a better understanding of the development of organizational
learning and how that process is facilitated by the decisions that are made.
Methodological Approach
The methodological approach was a qualitative case study design informed using an
interpretivist paradigm (Burrell and Morgan, 1979). An epistemology based on
knowledge as socially constructed was used (Hatch, 2005) supported by interviews to
gain understanding of each persons beliefs about how reality was constructed. This
38
world view allowed for the attempt to understand and explain the social world primarily
from the point of view of the actors directly involved in the social process (Burrell &
Morgan, 2000). To achieve this goal, interviews with people involved at various points
of the process were conducted.
The research was a single, descriptive case study (Merriam, 1998) designed to
identify recurrent patterns in the form of themes or categories. (p. 12). A particularistic
form of case study was used since the topics focus on a particular phenomenon and as
Merriam (1998) states this specificity of focus makes it an especially good design for
practical problemsfor questions, situations, or puzzling occurrences arising from
everyday practice(p.29). Further, case studies concentrate attention on the way
particular groups of people confront specific problems taking a holistic view of the
situation...They are problem centered, small scale, entrepreneurial endeavors (Shaw,
1978, p. 2).
For this work, the level of analysis was at the individual level to help understand the
essence of decision-making at each phase of the organizational learning model. The
interviewees are executives tasked with determining the future direction and strategy for
LITC. The case study was centered on one particular event that spanned four years from
2002-2006 to include the inception, development, and implementation of the Flexible
Foundation. Interviews with the executives provided data on the types of decision
making done in the context of organizational learning.
Research Questions
The research questions for this study are:
39
making?
The following sections in this chapter describe the research design, methodology,
data collection, and data analysis is included.
Research Design
Methodology Selection
This study employed a qualitative, case study design adopting the belief that
individuals construct meaning from their experience. Yin (2003) defines case study as
an empirical inquiry that: investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life
context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly
evident (p. 13). The case study method was well suited for the purpose of this inquiry
for several reasons. 1. This study is focused on gleaning a rich understanding of the
decision making process throughout the organizational learning process. 2. The study
sought to investigate a contemporary phenomenon, e.g. the development and deployment
of the Flexible Foundation, within a real life context. 3. The research study captures the
complexity of a single case in an effort to learn it well by promoting intensive description
of a single bounded system (Stake, 1995). Thus, a single case study on intuitive and
rational decision-making in the context of organizational learning provided an
40
opportunity to understand how this process of institutionalizing one persons idea

unfolded.
Case Selection
Criterion sampling and typical case best describe how this case was selected for the
present study. As a qualitative research study, I purposely selected a sample based on the
research questions rather than randomly (Miles and Huberman, 1994). I wanted a project
that met the following criteria: 1. Deemed successful by a wide audience; 2. Conducted in
an organizational learning context; 3. Provided a range of decision-making over time; and
4. Subjects willing to participate in this study 5. Project could be time bound to allow for
conception, development and implementation in less than five years.
The research site is a large, global information technology organization (LITC).
Specifically, the research addresses one particular event, the development of the Flexible
Foundation from its inception to present day application. This period spans 2002 through
2006. The case was time bound based on the data that is collected through the journal
reports.
LITCs Flexible Foundation project was selected for the present research because it
met the criteria. 1) As I felt that a successful implementation was necessary, the Flexible
Foundation has been deemed successful by LITC leaders, clients, alliance partners and
market analysts. 2) It is an organization that has engaged an individual with an idea that
eventually became institutionalized throughout the organization thus providing a context
for organizational learning. 3) As a former member of this group, I knew that the project
involved many decisions that could be analyzed. 4) The key decision makers were willing
41
and available to participate in the study. 5) This research was conducted over a period of
four months on a project that lasted four years.
In defining what the case is or the unit of analysis Yin (2003) suggests that the unit
of analysis relate to the way the research questions have been defined. In the present
study the case is an individual; however, the individual will be studied from the
perspective of how each made decisions that eventually impacted the organization as a
whole. To be considered for the study, an interviewee must have been involved in the
creation or deployment of the Flexible Foundation from a decision-making position. This
approach serves the purpose of the proposed study which is to gain an understanding of
the decision-making process that occurs in moving an individuals idea into the
organizations collective learning, and whether those decisions get made using intuitive
or rational-based models. Executives who were involved on the project periphery were
interviewed as well to determine their reasons for not participating more fully in the
process. The essence of the research is to understand the nature of this process and to
discover how the learning experience cascades throughout an organization.
Participant Selection
Weiss (1994) suggests that in selecting participants, researchers focus on the people
who together can provide the information the study requires. There are many participants
in this study that were involved in the Flexible Foundation development and deployment
and are willing to provide a valuable and knowledgeable insider set of perspectives on
how events played out. Having worked with these people for over five years, I found my
exchanges with them particularly candid and insightful on this research project.
42
When asked, the LITC executives expressed a willingness to participate in the study.
I communicated with the leader of the executive organization to determine those
individuals that would be most useful to interview for the study and to secure
organizational approval. A brief summary of the research was sent to this leader to
obtain his approval. He is a Senior Vice President for LITC, pointed me to documents
that would be useful for my review and agreed to be an interviewee. I also contacted the
originator of the idea to determine if he was interested in participating. He agreed and
gave me some additional interview candidates for my study.
Interviewees were equitably selected based on their level of involvement with the
project and many were recommended by the leader of the thought leaders group or the
innovator of the idea. They were selected based on this criteria and their willingness to
participate in the study.
Participant Description
The following description is taken from the LITC website on May 16, 2006 The
LITC executive program recognizes employees who have the ability to convert
outstanding knowledge and expertise into business solutions for the company and its
clients. Executives are frequently called on to help LITC clients and their account teams
implement new solutions to challenges. They are known for encouraging creativity and
innovation, enhancing LITC' external image, and promoting companywide networking
for innovation and thought leadership. The 30 LITC executives distinguish themselves
by consistently moving ideas from creation through implementation to defined business
impact, said LITC president and a sponsor of the LITC executive program. To become
43
a LITC executive, one has to receive unanimous approval from a global and diverse
cross-section of LITC leaders who serve on the LITC Executive Review Board. The
LITC Executives have an average of 24 years of professional experience.
Recruitment o f Participants
Ethical considerations will be given to the recruitment of participants. I requested

that the participants agree to participate voluntarily without feeling coerced by anyone.
Each potential participant was sent a cover letter, research information sheet, audio
release form, informed consent form and a copy of the letter from their boss approving
the study. Upon successful completion of the informed consent form, I set up interviews
at mutually agreeable times. The individuals were given the name and contact
information of the researcher and the principal investigator in the event they had any
questions. Each participant was given a unique identifier to insure confidentiality. The
list of interviewees includes:
Developer of the original idea
Executive responsible developing the tools for the project
Executive responsible for developing the intellectual
Executive involved in the development and implementation of the Flexible
Foundation
Executive who assisted with overall strategy development
Executive focused on tie with subsidiary organization
44
Event Selection
I consulted my dissertation committee chair for his advice on selecting the best
example of an idea becoming institutionalized in an organization. We agreed that the
LITC executives are an interesting population in and of themselves and may end up
playing a very critical role in how an idea becomes a reality in LITC. Further, by
focusing on how this group operates in the decision-making process is likely to yield
broader ramifications because the executives are involved in so many different aspects of
LITC rather than just focused on one functional area. Further, because this study is
looking at a past event, the interviewees had some experience with the result of their
decisions. The four year boundary around this study enables me to capture how the
decisions were made and the impact of those decisions.
Data Collection
The primary method of data collection for this study was interviews with executives
who had critical roles to play in the development and deployment of the Flexible
Foundation at LITC. In addition to interviews, data was collected from executives
electronic journals coupled with a review of relevant documents. These three methods of
data collection were used to validate findings across participants. Interviews were about
an event that occurred in the past; about data already collected through separate
corporate initiatives (in the form of journal entries) and data already produced by the
company (annual reports, etc.).
45
Interviews
Interviews provided the main source of data for this research. Each participant was
interviewed multiple times. Interviews were conducted either face to face or over the
phone from September through October 2006. Follow up interviews were conducted to
validate data being received, properly assign codes, or for further clarification. All
interviews lasted thirty to sixty minutes in length and were digitally recorded. I typed up
the interviewee transcripts within one week after each interview to help ensure accuracy.
Interview questions were designed to understand the nature of the decision making
process as it affects organizational learning. Interview questions of the leader focused on
his perceptions of the process, how the decisions were made, and the specific tasks the
interviewee went through to make their decisions related the Flexible Foundation. The
actual interview questions can be found at the end of Chapter 5
Executive Journal Tool
In addition to interviews with key personnel, the LITC Executive Journal will be
used. This journal tool only allows access to LITC executives (to input their activity
entries) and administrative personnel (to run reports that are given to the CEO or the
LITC Board).The data used for this study has been inputted into the LITC Journal tool
through the calendar year of from 2002- 2006. During that time, the number of the LITC
executive team has fluctuated from 13-30 but it captures the work that those specific
executives that worked on the Flexible Foundation did. It also captures the work of
executives who could have worked on the project, but chose not to. The activities are
46
recorded by each executive. The data is downloaded into an Excel spreadsheet. It

contains about 10,000 items. The following data is collected in a database:
Statement of the activity
Metric the activity is tied to based on the corporations objectives for the executives
Amount of time spent on the activity
Whether the activity was completed or not
Month that the activity was done in
Documents
LITC is a publicly held company and therefore has many public records available.
Further, for purposes of this study, I had been given access to electronic files,
presentations, memos, e-mails and other documents. Sensitive documents were held in
strict confidence at all times.
Data Analysis
The study was conducted at the individual level of analysis to gain an understanding
of how an executive makes decisions as part of the organizational learning process to
determine if each used intuitive or rational based models. I used analytic techniques
based on Miles & Huberman (1994) and conducted the following tasks:
Analyzed the journal entries by sorting out the data on those activities associated
with the project then verifying that the remaining data did not have any activities
associated with the project that were accidentally miscoded. There were not any errors in
how the data was coded.
47
Drafted a summary sheet based on total number of hours each executive worked on
the Flexible Foundation and the types of activities that they were involved in.
Ranked the executives from highest to lowest involvement gave me an initial list of
interviewees to target.
Spoke with the leader of the executives and the innovator of the project to triangulate
the data received from the journal analysis. From these three sources, I identified the key
group of interviewees to target. There were eight individuals on the list. I also identified
a few players that were on the periphery of the project to get the insight into this project.
Emailed or phoned each of the people on my targeted list. All but 3 were available
for interviews. The interviews were conducted at a mutually agreeable time, one-on-one,
and tape-recorded.
Transcribed the interviews and notes from journals within one week after each
interview. I reviewed all documents sent to me by the interviewees as well as publicly
held documents and drafted a summary sheet on my notes.
Developed a set of initial codes based on my interview questions. Once all the
transcripts and notes were captured, I sorted the data based on the codes originally
established and continued to modify them throughout the process.
Sorted the data by question to see contrasts and comparisons among the data by each
interviewee. By counting the frequency of the code, patterns and themes began to
emerge. This data helped me to see individual themes; cross case themes, interpretations
and case context information emerge. Specifically, the lens I used was the type of
activities that executives did to make decisions that moved the idea from the individual to
48
the institutionalization and whether those activities tended to be based on intuitive or

rational decision-making methods.
Trustworthiness
In order to ensure trustworthiness and seek corroboration across data sources and
methods for this study, -1) Triangulation - Multiple sources of data and multiple methods
were used to confirm the emerging findings; 2) Member checks - Data and researcher
interpretations were taken back to the subjects to determine plausibility; 3) Long-term
observation - As a member o f this group for five years, the researcher had ample
opportunity to observe the members of this group; 4) Peer examination - Several
colleagues were asked to review and comment on the data collected from the interviews
and the themes as they emerged to provide alternate suggestions for themes; 5)
Researcher bias - At the onset of this study, the researcher identified assumptions and
theoretical orientations to help minimize researcher bias.
Researcher Bias
I was both helped and hindered by being a former LITC executive for purposes of
this study. As a former executive who used the task tracking tool routinely, I am familiar
with how it works, how to pull reports from it, and the structure of the data. I am also
well-versed in many o f the projects that the executives are involved as to conduct a
member check to ensure that the data is coded properly. On the hindrance side, I had to
ensure that I didnt try to impose my understanding of tasks on the data collection
process. Staying true to the data captured in its original form by the executives during
this case study project and relying on only the data captured as part of the dissertation
49
research from actual interviews with executives were done to minimize my own native
bias. Further, in order to counteract this bias, I employed the following additional data
integrity strategies for use on the data collected from the journaling tool and interview
process:
Quality of the data: All data was inputted by each executive according to a standard
related to LITC metrics.
Data collection: All data is put into the same system, in the same format.
Data coding: After each executive inputted the data, I conducted member checks to
see if the activities were consistently recorded.
Member checks: The data presented in the database was more wholly described
through the interview process. Any clarification on items listed in the journaling tool was
followed up in interviews.
Appropriate study population: All key executives that participated in the
development of the Flexible Foundation were interviewed as well as one that was only
involved on the periphery. He was selected to provide additional insight into the project.
The sample size used in this study was 30 for the journal entry review portion of the
analysis and 6 for the in-depth interviews.
Human Participants and Ethical Considerations
Finally, the study was performed under the guidelines provided by the Institutional
Review Board of the George Washington University. All conditions to ensure informed
consent, confidentiality, and privacy were met. All agreements made with participants
were steadfastly honored. Ethical precautions also included keeping confidential
50
documents in a safe and secure place as well as disclosing any potential conflicts of
interest.
The journal entries were used to put together a milestone chart and to determine the
executives selected for interviewing. The executives routinely log in to the system (using
a secure password and id) and input their data on a monthly basis. The data is secured on
a company-owned and secured server in a database that is inaccessible by anyone outside
of the company because of a firewall and inaccessible by anyone inside the company
unless they are an executive through password protection. As part of this research study,
those journal entries were extrapolated out of the database and provided to me in Excel
spreadsheet form including names. I assigned each executive a letter which will be used
as an identifier throughout the study.
Summary o f Methodology and Design
This research is a qualitative case study designed to gain an understanding of the

decision making process as it relates to organizational learning. Data collection includes
interviews, LITC executives journals analysis and a document review. Methods for data
analysis have been described including coding, creation of categories, a search for
patterns, clustering, and the development of themes. This section also discussed the need
for trustworthiness to ensure internal and external validity. Several methods for
achieving trustworthiness that were used in the study were described. Finally a
discussion about ethical considerations including, disclosure of researcher bias,
consideration for confidentiality and a strict adherence to The George Washington
University Institutional Review Board guidelines concluded the methodology section.
51
Chapter 4 will describe the results of the data collection process. Further, it will
provide the findings for this study.
52
CHAPTER 4
Results
Introduction
The purpose of this case study was to gain a better understanding of how individuals
working through a group, organization and beyond the organization trigger organizational
learning by analyzing the decision points that occurred throughout the process.
Specifically, this study focused on the work done by an individual within a large
international information technology company and how an intuitive idea by that
individual became supported by a group, spread throughout the organization and was
finally adopted as standard practice at the organizational level.
The findings presented in this chapter are derived from the data collected from
interviews, observations and documents that sought to answer the research questions
related to this purpose.
Research Questions
This study attempts to understand the nature of the relationship between decision
making and organizational learning. The research questions for this study are:
making?
53
The organizational learning model espoused by Crossan et al. (1999) and the
decision making models put forth by Eisenhardt and Sadler-Smith and Sheffy provide the
framework to help explicate the findings of this study. I was given approval to use the
site on the condition that the company and project name remain anonymous. To comply
with this stipulation, pseudonyms have been used to replace the company, project, and
individual names.
The Participants in the Study
This section provides general characteristics of the six participants in the study and
an overview o f the thought leadership program as well as a description the role and
length of time that that each worked played on the Flexible Foundation project.
General Characteristics
All interviewees were male executives with LITC and ranged in age from 49-59.
They were based in Texas, Virginia, Louisiana, Illinois and Michigan. Their expertise
included: supply chain, business development, marketing, engineering, knowledge
management, emerging technologies, and software development. Their length of time at
LITC ranges from eight to thirty years.
All were participants in the thought leadership program. They were selected for this
study based on their level of involvement with the program as recorded in their monthly
journal entries. Interviewees A and D had over 50 hours putting them in the researcherdefined HIGH participation category; Interviewees B and F had between 25-50 hours
putting them in the MEDIUM participation category; Interviewees C and E tracked less
than 25 hours putting them into the LOW participation category. It was important to
54
interview candidates across the full range of participation so as to get better

understanding of the events as they unfolded. Each candidate participated in at least two
interviews and participated in follow up clarifications when necessary.
Individual Participant Cameos
Interviewee A is 55 years of age and is located in Plano, TX. He has been in the
thought leadership program for six years and worked in the Retail Strategic Business Unit
doing a whole variety of jobs but I had no official title. He is known throughout LITC
as a futurist. His main areas of expertise are pursuits, business development, and
marketing. As the established innovator on the Flexible Architecture, he has been on the
project the longest amount of time beginning back in November 2002. He is still on the
project today in the form of helping to create the [Flexible Architecture Plus] the
successor program to the Flexible Architecture. Based on the journal entry analysis, his
amount of time spent on the project was over 50 hours placing him in the HIGH
involvement category?
At the beginning.. .1 was originator o f the whole concept of agility from

the perspective of identifying the need for a branding that we did not have
within the corporation... I was involved with crafting the marketing
message. I was involved with various parts of the portfolio to identify
what flexibility means to them. Ive been an influencer in the strategy for
the overall thing we were trying to go for.
55
[I was] also the core of the core team that rode herd until we got it
approved as a corporate capability. My current role is in actually defining
the next level of flexibility which we are now tying to the [Flexible
Architecture Plus] which is all about the things that we envisioned in
[flexibility] but that the corporation was not yet ready to accept because
they were too aggressive at that point in time. And now we are here lets
get to the next step of where the capabilities should go.. .1 crafted [that]
about mid last year (Interviewee A).
Interviewee B is 56 years of age and had worked in Chicago before his retirement in
December 2005. He was in the thought leadership program for six years and was a
consultant at LITCs subsidiary company ABC. His main area of expertise is supply
chain. He was involved in the program from November 2002 through April 2003. Based
upon analysis of the journal entries, his participation in the project was between 25-50
hours placing him in the MEDIUM involvement category.
I was involved in some of the early design work on the flexile composite
which was an index o f the level of flexibility within a company and
surrounding that there was also design work on the agility assessment
process. It was pretty much limited to the design work. I stopped right
after the design was put on the table. It was then shifted to another
organization that took responsibility for it and ran with it from that point
56
forward... The only review I was involved was an early review of the
concept with some of the ABC folks. One of the things we were looking
at was how could we use the ABC intellectual capital plus the consultative
side approach to selling. At that point they were trying to line up ABC to
participate in it and naturally, coming from that organization, I was
involved in some of those discussions (Interviewee B).
Interviewee C is 59 years old and works part time in Herndon, VA and part time in
Detroit, Michigan. He has been in the thought leadership program for five years and was
the Vice President Knowledge Services for the Government Organization prior to joining
that program. His main area of expertise is engineering with a current focus on
knowledge management. He has been involved since 2003. As he noted, he was part of
the brainstorming team that worked with the other fellows in having to crystallize what
we were talking about in the initial stages. He stated that he was involved with the
forming and the stormingjust kind of refining the look and feel of it in terms of the
communications package that was put together. Based on the journal entries, he
participated less than 25 hours placing him in the LOW involvement category.
Interviewee D is 56 years old and is based in New Orleans, Louisiana. He has been
in the thought leadership program for six years and was an Enterprise Architect prior to
that. His main area of expertise is emerging technologies particularly mobile and
consumer mobile. I consider myself to be one of the charter members of the group that
pushed it. My direct involvement was from the beginning of when we started pushing it
to the leadership until the point where we handed it off to another organization to bring it
57
to fruition.... So my involvement lasted probably one year. He was involved in the

initial meetings, tool development, and patent filings. He is currently involved in the
successor Flexible Architecture Plus project in a full time capacity. Based on journal
entries, he is in the HIGH involvement category.
Interviewee E is 53 and was based in Herndon, Virginia. He has since retired from
LITC but was a member of the thought leadership team for four years prior to that point.
Prior to that, he was the Technical Director for LITCs Federal Government Innovation
Lab. His main area of expertise is software development primarily in military command
and control. Based on his journal entries, his participation is in the LOW involvement
category. He was also selected from other low involvement thought leaders because he
scores differently on the Myers Briggs test as an ISTJ when the majority of the thought
leaders is ENTPs and typically presents a unique point of view on topics. He considers
himself to have participated in some presentations and some discussions, but there was
no active role. I was more a supporting role. He felt he was involved with the project
over a one year timeframe and was primarily involved in the validation of concept
itself... [and] the product line selection. He felt that he did not vote on things but rather
provided a confirmation that it was a good idea.
Interviewee F is 49 years old and is based in the Detroit area. He has been a thought
leader for 6 years and prior to that was an enterprise engineer. His main area of expertise
is artificial intelligence and intellectual property. I was involved with activities very
early on. I was involved with those meetings with Interviewee A. I found it very
intriguing. My involvement was more at the technical level of the agility index; the
58
measurement o f it; the quantification of it and the follow up with applying for two patents
along with a few other people.. .Beyond the first 6 months very little actually [because]
once it took off, there wasnt a whole lot of need for me. Anything I did beyond the first
six months was to describe and clarify what we proposed in the first six months. There
was a lot of knowledge transfer and verification that I was doing. He participated about
eight months and, based upon journal entries, had a MEDIUM level of involvement.
Overview o f the Thought Leadership Program
The LITC thought leadership program recognizes outstanding individuals for their
abilities to: get things done in the company; be recognized as industry experts; contribute
to intellectual property development; promote a culture of innovation; and mentor other
leaders. All participants in this study became thought leaders within the last five years.
Members work on client accounts for approximately 80% of the time and enterprise
thought leadership projects 20% of the time. The Flexible Foundation project is
considered an enterprise thought leadership project meaning that the interviewees
involvement was done during the 20% of the time not focused on actual client work.
Site Description
This section will provide an overview of the LITC research site and its background
based on company-provided data and research from external sources. The background is
provided as context for the Flexible Foundation project.
59
Large Information Technology Company (LITC) - Company Overview
LITC is a global information technology consulting company that defined the

outsourcing business when it was established in 1962. It has $19.8 B in revenue in 2005
and has over 117,000 employees located in 60 countries. It has three service portfolios
including Infrastructure that maintains a clients computers and communications;
Business Process that performs business functions for customers; and Applications that
involves developing, integrating or maintaining applications software for clients.
Project Background
LITC had decades of solid execution and contract discipline making it a successful
outsourcing company. Then, over the past several years, LITC experienced contract
failures, unstable financials and changes in leadership. To regain market leadership,
LITC felt that it needed to cut service delivery costs and announced that it was forming a
flexibility alliance with companies such as Dell, Cisco, EMC, Microsoft, and Xerox to
create a computing foundation. LITC believes this Flexible Foundation will help their
clients fix the montage of legacy applications, networks and management tools used to
crunch data and process transactions for businesses in many industries. LITC believed
that this hodgepodge of systems is expensive for companies to maintain and that by using
the Flexible Foundation companies could save money or direct it into more productive
areas such as research and development or sales. The approach represented a
fundamental shift from the former LITC strategy of acting as an independent supplier by
designing a specific solution for a customer.
60
Overview o f Findings
There were six major findings identified in this research.
Major decisions occurred at four different levels in the organization: individual,
group, organization, and beyond the organization.
As the idea moved through each phase of organizational learning, there were periods
of divergence and convergence of ideas.
A fabric of decisions occurred continuously throughout the organizational learning
process across multiple levels (individual, group, organization and beyond the
organization).
For an idea to move from the individual to the institution both intuitive and rational
decision making activities are required.
There was congruence between individual decision making and group decision
making.
There existed a safe place for the open exchange of ideas at the group level.
These findings are documented throughout the chapter and analyzed at the end. This
approach is used to provide minimal disruption to the flow of the case study and decision
making context while still drawing the readers attention to the rationale behind the
researchers findings.
Finding 1: Major decisions occurred at four different points in the organization:
individual, group, organization, and beyond the organization.
The data illustrate that the process was broken down by decisions made by the
original innovator (individual level); by the thought leaders group (group level); by the
61
LITC enterprise (organization level) or beyond LITC to include teaming partners (beyond
the organizational level). Feed forward (in which the smaller entity influenced the larger
entity) and feed back (in which the larger entity influenced the smaller entity) processes
were both described by the interviewees.
So I think that there were probably three or four major decision points where this
could have been taken in a different direction or killed. And it didnt. It ended up where
it is now. (Interviewee D)
Individual Decision Point Example
The story of the Flexible Foundation begins with an innovator who saw a need.
Throughout 2002,
we were pretty much milk toast brand and nobody was paying very much
attention to any differentiation.. .My original frustration was that we had
nothing that we could hang our hat on and nothing that we could hang our
plans on.. .Well the decision making process ... started off with one
person, myself, who talked to one person who was a senior manager who
made a connection and said make it happen. (Interviewee A)
The innovator also made another decision to present the idea to the group of thought
leaders. This act, in turn, ignited the group decision process.
Group Decision Point Example
In February 2003, the originator of the idea made a presentation on the Flexible
Foundation to 20 executives who were part of a thought leadership group to get their
62
comments and to solicit their involvement. Thats when I was rolling it out and saying
guys we need to do this and can I get some help? (Interviewee A) This presentation led
to a group decision to pursue the project.
The thought leaders saw the strategic decision to support this program as a group
level decision. As examples, Obviously, the very first one was the thought leaders to
pursue Flexible Foundation as a project (Interviewee F) and We had to make a group
decision to go with this flexible concept. That was early on (Interviewee D). One
interviewee saw the group decision as a weeding out process, Group decisions
revolved around what was in what was out - how we should portray that and the timings
of things (Interviewee C).
.. .were in the room and were looking for an idea of what we can get
LITC on message with but it cant be on demand, right, what can it be? So
Interviewee A proposes this agile thing, or whatever he calls it -basically
the ideaand we had to get onboard with it. We had to make a decision
that indeed this was the way to take. That may have taken a couple of
meetings. (Interviewee D)
There were individual thought leaders that heeded the request and began their work
on the Flexible Foundation project at this point. These thought leaders made strategic
decisions about where to present the idea and working with others in the organization,
moved the idea forward into the overall corporate strategy.
63
Manager X then picked up the idea and owned it. He could have killed it
but he didnt . .. And [he] liked it enough to be able to expand it to a
working team that required investment on his part as well as on the parts
of the group of thought leaders. Although with the thought leaders it was
more about passion. And then when we were doing this we saw that the
best way of doing thisof getting it into the corporation was not
through the technical people because they would fight something like this
but rather through the branding people because a) there was a huge gap
that needed to be filledwe didnt have anything to fill that gap at LITC
and secondly we felt that the marketing people would get it especially if
they were involved. (Interviewee B)
Organization Decision Point Examples
The innovators vision became the starting point as more of the thought leaders and
representatives from other corporate groups became involved to help enhance the project.
By this time we had started to pull in other people. I think in the original meeting with
Senior Manager [there were] probably five of us [from the thought leaders group]
(Interviewee D). At that point, thats when he (Manager X) decided to pull in some
more people from the strategic planning group grand I was to pull in others from the
thought leadership group.. .It was a small group of us. I know that. (Interviewee A)
And .. .it seems to me that it was in the second meeting where he decided
(I think he brought in Manager X or somebody from his team) and decided
64
to move it to the next level so by the second meeting we had some

additional thought leaders involved as well. So after the second meeting
was when things kind of took off. It was a very interesting creative battle
that went on between the thought leaders and Manager Xs team that got
us to a pretty good place. (Interviewee D)
As the idea began to take form, more people from the corporation and the thought
leaders group became involved. The buy-in from some key executives at the top of the
organization helped to provide the support needed to bring the idea to fruition.
And he said, I agree why dont you get with Manager X (from the
Corporate Strategy group) and talk to him about that and his team.. .So the
next thing we did was I got with Manager X and we started talking about
this. We decided that we would get an enlarged group - myself with
several executives to combine with some of his team. We got together and
had some initial meetings about what we were talking aboutwhat my
vision of the future was and why we needed a different approach to that.
(Interviewee A)
Simultaneous to this work were some efforts being led by other thought leaders to go
beyond the organization.
65
Beyond the Organization Example
The thought leaders then worked with other people in the organization to drive the
message beyond the organization. In particular, there were decisions made to respond to
something a competitor was doing.
We had this meeting with this guy, (Senior Manager), to talk about how
we were going to fight back against IBMs on-Demand push; that big onDemand push that they did where they had the open letter and all kinds of
BS. You know very 'salesy' and obvious to those of us in the industry of
what they were trying to do but we felt that they had upped the ante and
changed the game significantly enough that if we wanted to continue to
play we had to have a theme. And we called a meeting to come up with
that theme, and in that meeting Interviewee A is the one who said you
know flexibility should be what our theme is about. Their theme is on
demand but ours ought to be around flexibility. And oh by the way, Ive
done some presentations on the topic that we could use as a starting point.
So I think that we leveraged something that Interviewee A had already
begun to kind of scratch the surface of. (Interviewee D)
The second beyond the organization example resulted in a 2004 press release stating
that LITC was forming a flexibility alliance that would create a computing platform
based on products from: Dell, Cisco Systems, EMC, Microsoft, Sun Microsystems, and
Xerox. These companies were approached back in the 2002 timeframe to fully support
66
this Flexible Foundation concept. This was an example of both a feed-forward and feedbackward process in that the companies outside of LITC were influencing LITC and
LITC was influencing these other companies.
Finally, one of the interviewees defined success from an external perspective:
It was very successful because it became the direction of the company and
not just of LITC. IBM and HP do something very similar so I think it was
very worthwhile and successful. If we had not done that then chances are a
company like HP or IBM would have done it because of market pressure.
The advantage was that we were the very first players who had done it.
(Interviewee F)
Finding 2: As the idea moved through each phase of organizational learning, there were
periods of divergence and convergence of ideas
The interviewees described periods during decision making in which the pool of
decision outcomes was either enhanced, (representing divergence) or reduced
(representing convergence).
Examples o f Divergence
In this first divergence example, the interviewee discusses all of the connections with
the rest of the organization that the thought leaders had that could be brought in to help
further develop the idea of the Flexible Foundation.
I recall that in an early discussion Interviewee A had come up with some
of the early flexible concepts that he was trying to use to give us a hook in
67
the marketplace to try and differentiate LITC from the rest of the
competition out there. One of the thought leadership meetings.. .he made
a presentation and everybody kind of thought it was a good rallying cry
for the organization and maybe it was worthwhile for the thought leaders
to devote some time and energy in because obviously the intellectual
capital area was an area that a lot of us were interested in. Plus we had a
lot of connections within the rest o f the organization and it was a good
way to leverage our skill base and out networks within the organization.
(Interviewee B)
Even the project itself went through a period of divergence. At this point in the
process after members from the thought leadership executive and the corporate strategy
teams joined together, there appears to be several simultaneous tracks that emerged.
We sort of compartmentalized what we did. If I remember correctly, we

had 4-5 different teams that were working on different aspects of it:
whether it be development of the marketing presentations. There was
another team working on white papers that we were going to develop and
market; there was another team working on the composite and assessment
tool. Within the composite and assessment tool, decisions were made in a
similar fashion. [It was] very much a spark of ideas and someone
championing something and pushing it forward to get it done.
(Interviewee B)
68
One group focused on an internal subsidiary to join forces in going to market.
One of the things we were looking at was how could we use the ABC
intellectual capital plus the consultative side approach to selling. At that
point they were trying to line up ABC to participate in it and naturally,
coming from that organization, I was involved in some of those
discussions. (Interviewee B)
Another track focused on the tools required to help sell the Flexible Foundation
concept.
So early into it we started to say well what are the elements of this thing?
.. .what can we do with it? ... and there was the whole idea of is there
some way to assess a companys level of flexibility and relate that to its
business performance. (Interviewee B)
.. .From there (when we started working with Manager X) we got into the
definition of ideas for some tools.. .some practical tools that we could use
to measure how flexible an enterprise was because the original approach
was that the way that we thought we could bring it to the market was that
w e w ould have an offering - when w e go in and evaluate how flexible an
enterprise was -and based on these metrics that we pulled out using these
ideas for these tools-we could then come up with an flexibility number; a
flexibility score and that score could be used as a baseline and as we
69
improved an organization we could take new flexibility scores and we

could watch them improve so this allowed us to have a metric that both
gave us a starting point and was kind of influential in the customer going
well you know you have this process with this tool and these metrics, so
we can start off taking a measurement and you can tell us how bad we are
and then as we go along well be able to use the tool to track progress. So
the tool resulted in two patents that were filed by some of the originating
team. (Interviewee D)
Another track focused on the external vendors that would play a role in the future of
the Flexible Foundation. Interviewee B believed that alliance partners would be part of
the delivery [capability]:
I dont think we had fully determined how we would use them in the
upfront assessment and at least in my mind, I dont think we gave much
thought into how we would use them in the marketing of it. The
flexibility alliance kind of grew up in parallel with it.. ..Im sure it was
included in some of the early thinking that Interviewee A had done when
he had put together the flexibility presentation but I dont think it was
explicit. (Interviewee B)
One track made up of core team members tried to meld the Flexible Foundation
concept with the concept being promoted by a recent acquisition. In this example a
divergent track being created leads to a convergent message.
70
Now when VP Portfolio Management [former president of the acquired

company] came along ... [right] after the Flexible Foundation started, [he]
had the message that was a little bit different. And there was a lot of
activity by Interviewee A ... and any other thought leader who got a minor
audience with the VP Portfolio Management, that flexibility was really the
way of achieving this future state of flexible applications. If your future
state from going from the mess to the cleaned up organized future state
was anything, it was that that cleaned up state was flexible. So there was a
lot of work done, particularly by Interviewee A to the point where he
probably [expletive meaning ticked] the VP Portfolio Management off a
few times by pushing and pushing and pushing, that the real message that
really needed to be there was the flexible message and it fit really well
with what VP Portfolio Management was trying to sell which was fix the
mess. VP Portfolio Management came in and said right now LITC, what
they do is they sell your mess for less, but what they need to sell is Fix
your Mess. So you come along and look at flexible and you move
applications towards flexibility, the fact that theyre flexible, by definition,
means that they are not a mess.. .by definition, if they are a mess, they are
not flexible.. ..So somehow, those two things ultimately got to the point
where they merged. (Interviewee D)
71
These examples of the project itself diverging into different tracks and the decisions
made within each of the tracks illustrate some of the divergent nature around decision
making on this project.
Example o f Convergence
In one convergence example, there was a manager responsible for coming up with
the strategy that would be used for the corporation. To do that, he had to select from
many different options.
We had a senior manager that was brought into the corporation.. .His role
was to set the strategy for the corporation ... I was very frustrated and
went to talk to him and said listen we dont have anything that defines
LITC in any differentiated way from any of the competition. We need
something to hang our hat on and it needs to be something that we can tie
our offerings and our marketing to ... The original was that we needed to
transform LITC into a focused organization that had a vision about the
future and had a way of aligning all of our efforts towards that vision.. .we
need a consistent and constant view of the future so that we can all shoot
for it. And so what I was trying to create was a perspective within which
all decisions would be made. (Interviewee A)
In the second example of convergence, the group needed a way to demonstrate that
the Flexible Foundation was a viable solution. They choose to converge on developing a
tool that could measure flexibility for customers.
72
I think, you know, Interviewee A has a tendency to be a little out there;

and the leader has a tendency to want hard and fast tools kinds of things
but somehow or another this small group of people came to the agreement
that you know we wanted to pursue some type of tool set to help us roll
this idea out. That it couldnt just be projector-ware. There had to be
something tangible behind it and that would be this set of tools that we
could use to measure flexibility. And also those tools could be used to
help direct the activity, you know, the processes that we had to put in
place to make an organization more flexible. (Interviewee D)
In this final example of convergence, the data show that there was direction forming
toward which companies would become alliance partners and a description of the role
that they would each play in the Flexible Foundation. When the innovator was asked
whether additional companies were considered as part of the original strategy, he said:
The answer to that is no but one of the things that we did envision was
there needed to be a greater than LITC way to the market from the
perspective that LITC had to be focused on the integration and we
couldnt afford to dilute our focus to do some of the other things that were
necessary to be flexible. So Sun with their computing capability; Cisco
with their communication capability; Microsoft with the desktop and the
enterprise office types of environmentall those things were being
contemplated as being necessary to an agile environment. So we had as a
73
basis at that time the LITC Flexible Foundation which was nothing more
than a marketing relationship. It was indeed just marketing and not any
kind of collaboration and definitely not a go to market kind of a thing.
Thats why it was a necessity for us ... to get more of a contribution from
them in terms of flexible. And also their buy in that flexibility was the
next paradigm that people had to shoot for. (Interviewee A)
Another company being targeted for business applications was Typco.
I was involved with CTO of Typcowe worked together long ago in a

different lifetime. I spent a lot of time with him - 1 provide more of a
consulting service. [We were trying to figure out] how is it that Typco
should be properly packaged within the Flexible Foundation? (Interviewee
E)
Finding 3: A fabric of decisions occurred continuously throughout the organizational

learning process across multiple levels (individual, group, organization and beyond the
organization) that impacted this process.
In analyzing the data on decision-making, the complexity of the decisions and
processes became apparent. While it is important to discuss these decisions in context
based on whether the data was provided in response to questions about individual or
group decisions or decision making actions, it also seems noteworthy to look at the level
of decision. The data points to several different levels of decision which are listed in the
following figure:
74
Figure 2: Codes for Each Level of Decision Making
Level of Decision Making
Code
Individuals making decisions to impact themselves as individuals
I-I
Individuals making decisions to impact the group of thought leaders
I-G
Individuals making decisions to impact the LITC organization
1-0
Individuals making decisions to impact beyond the LITC organization
I-BO
Group making decisions that impact their own group
G-G
Group making decisions that impact an individual within the group
G-I
Group making decisions that impact the LITC organization
G -0
Group making decisions that impact beyond the LITC organization

Organization making decisions that impact the LITC organization
Organization making decisions that impact beyond the LITC
G-BO
0 -0
O-BO
organization
Organization making decisions that impact the group
0-G
Organization making decisions that impact the individual
0-1
Beyond organization making decisions that impact the individual
BO-O
The other component of decision level that is relevant to this discussion is that any
decisions that were made at the individual level were based on actual decision making.
Some decisions made at the group level were as actual decisions meaning that the
individual interviewed participated in the decision. In all other decisions, the individual
75
did not personally participate but rather they are based on individuals perceptions that
the decisions occurred.
As the data on decisions and decision making processes is presented, the decision
level will be presented in parentheses, for example (I-I) will represent a decision made by
an individual regarding his own actions. Decisions perceived by the interviewee that
occurred but that the interviewee was not personally participating in will be designated
with the infinity symbol ( q o ).
In cases in which the individual influences the structure and the structure influences
the individual, a three point connection will be described. For example, when an
individual makes decisions based on his perception of how the organization should
function thereby demonstrating his knowledge of the structure of the organization as well
as its impact on him and his impact on it, the three point connection I-O-I would be used.
Finally when there was a high degree of overlap between decision making processes
that were made by the individual and that of the group, it is designated as I=G.
This complex pattern of decision making occurred throughout the interview process.
For purposes of illustration, one example, that of personal decision-making in joining the
project will be coded to give the reader a glimpse at the array of decisions and levels of
the organization involved.
Fabric o f Decision Making Examples
When asked whether the interviewee felt that they had a choice in working on the
Flexible Foundation project, most discussed that this project was taken on in addition to
their full-time regular job.
76
But you know we were all multi-tasking. (O-Ioo; G-Ooo) It was not just
that project -w e have our day time jobs as well - so this was done with
20% of the time that we have dedicated to thought leadership-type work
and corporate type workand actually it was more than 20% but you
know how that works. In addition to that, I had a fulltime day job so that
took all the discretionary time I decided to allocate it to help this project
out (I-I; I-G; I-O). (Interviewee C)
Noticeably different was the response from the innovator because he felt that he was
the only one who could have driven alternative choices. It was my choice to have the
Flexible Foundation project so it was my choice. There was no other alternative unless I
would have come up with it (I-I; I-G; I-O; I-BO) (Interviewee A). All of the other
interviewees except one felt that they had a choice in joining the Flexible Foundation
project.
No. [I did not have a choice.] Since I was already involved another
assignment; Flexible Foundation was just additional duty. So it was not
either you do another assignment or you do Flexible Foundation, I was
also doing two or three other projects; so that is why with Flexible
Foundation I was just a supporting role. That was just one project of
many it is not just that one only. I had other jobs (G-I; O-I).
(Interviewee E)
77
One interviewee felt that since it came from his leader, he felt obligated to
participate.
Well, you know, the thing about joining the Flexible Foundation project is
like a lot of things that we do. You dont really make a choice of one
thing over another. Its just that this is presented to you and it is almost
like its volunteer work and you either accept it or you reject it. If it comes
from the Manager, you usually accept it. I have to say that I fall in to that
category. That it was a Manager thing, so [I did it] (I-I; G-I). (Interviewee
D)
One interviewee felt that he would have had a choice had another assignment been
available:
I cant think of another assignment that was offered to me. Being from
ABC, I was always a little of the odd man out and was always looking for
ways that I could insert myself into other things going on with the other
thought leaders so if there had been something else that had also fit my
background and interest I would have had the opportunity to make the
choice (I-I; G-Ioo). (Interviewee B)
The final interviewee mentioned the cost of involvement,
Typically I work on a handful of things not just one and this was one of
the things that I decided was critical at that time. It was truly a choice and
78
it was at the expense of not doing other things (I-I; I-G; I-O). (Interviewee
This example is but one of the many contexts provided through the data in which
many decisions were being made across levels simultaneously.
Finding 4: For an idea to move from the individual to the institution and thereby
facilitating organizational learning, both intuitive and rational decision making activities
are required.
This finding emerged after analyzing the data from interviewees about how decisions
were made on the project. It became apparent in the bulk of the interviews that
interviewees perceived differences in the decision-making processes that they used within
their group and the decision-making processes observed and assumed occurring outside
of their group by other corporate functional areas. While categorized differently by each
interviewee, the underlying processes used by each group tended to have similarities.
Some of these processes tended to be more intuitive based; others tended to be more
rational-model based. The quotes representing both perspectives will be illustrated for
each interviewee to show the differences that each interviewee perceives. When
describing themselves as the group of thought leaders, they used phrases such as
innovators, consistency, qualitative decision making, idea sparks, intuition, and
incubation. When describing the decision making occurring in the rest of the
corporation, they used phrases such as corporate mainstream; inconsistent; quantitative;
bipolar, and systematic rational.
79
This finding address the interviewees views on how decision making in the thought
leader group was different from other corporate group decision making. The following
interviewee-developed categorizations will be covered:
Innovators versus Corporate Mainstream Decision-Making
Consistency versus Inconsistency in Decision Making
Qualitative versus Quantitative Decision Making
Spark versus Bipolar Decision Making
Intuition versus Systematic Rational Decision-Making
Incubation versus Rational Decision Making
Innovators versus Corporate Mainstream in Decision Making
One interviewee saw the differences between the two groups as those indicative of
innovators in an incubator versus the corporate mainstream of decision-making. In this
example, the interviewee illustrated that both the thought leaders group acting as the
incubator group and his perception of the other organizational entities representing
corporate mainstream both used forms of rational decision making.
Im going to talk process. I think that the early decisions, when it

[Flexible Foundation] was part o f the thought leaders [domain], we
tended to take a consensus decision making approach, even though there
were some strong personalities involved...but there was enough difference
of opinion that there was pushback when there needed to be pushback and
consensus decision that many people involved could live with, and then
80
people of good will were willing to move off with that decision.
(Interviewee D)
I think when it got taken out of incubator sandbox and became part of the
corporate decision making process, it got more caught up in the internal
politics of where does this belong, and whos going to get credit for it, and
wheres the budget for this going to come fromall the typical things you
would expect in any organization once you move it from the incubator
because by taking it out of the incubator and basically doing a handoff to
another organization, it suddenly, at that point no longer became a
something that people wanted to do -they were doing it because they had
been given a task to do. So the decisions became more cold-blooded,
more rational, and more quantitative but it also lost the passion that it took
to get it implemented. (Interviewee B)
When asked why he perceived these differences, he said,
I think that the thought leaders were doing it as a combination of

something we think needs to be done for the corporation. This is
something we are personally interested in doing. It is intellectually
interesting to do. It is stimulating to push the envelope. When it went
over to the other organization, it just became well this is something more
that we have to crank out. I dont know that that would have been a whole
lot different for any other thing that came through a sandbox or an
81
incubator. It may be that it came out of the incubator too soon and that it
didnt have enough legs underneath it. (Interviewee B)
The impact of moving it out of the incubator too soon became apparent to the
interviewee,
And reflecting on it, that may have been part of the problem we had was
that it wasnt ready for prime timeit wasnt even close to being ready
for prime time. And all of a sudden it gets dumped into another
organization that has forty seven other things it is supposed to worry
about. It has to worry about the budget, is this thing going to fly within
the next six months; will we recoup our investment quickly. It is very
similar to the kinds o f things that [Geoffrey] Moore talks about... .the
bowling alley guy.. .that you have to incubate some of these things
separate from the organization otherwise they just die because they dont
get the sponsorship, nurturing or attention. (Interviewee B)
Consistency versus Inconsistency in Decision Making
One interviewee believed that all decisions were made in the same way within the
thought leader group and in different ways within the other corporate groups. Yet in both
o f these scenarios, he describes com ponents o f a rational decision making m odel. In
speaking of the thought leaders group, he said
We had conversations. We had negotiations. We had people wearing their

hearts on their shirtsleeves. Then it came down to lets make a decision
82
here, how many people want to do x, y, and z? So wed always have to

bring it down to do we proceed or not after a period of discussion.
(Interviewee C)
The same interviewee when asked whether that previously described process was the
same or different process that the executives were going through. He replied,
Executives were going through not the discussion and the brainstorming I think they had a little bit of that so what Im talking about is what I
think that the executives had going through their heads while we were
going through this was they were trying to understand what we were
talking about. And then having understood that I think they were thinking
about similar types of propositions they had in the past; whether they had
successes or failures; why they had successes and failures and how was
this going to be successful. And then, I dont know if this is in the
sequence, but then does it make sense for LITC to go this way and talk
about Flexible Foundation or agility. So they were doing a smaller
version than what we were doing but they were having the conversation
with themselves. (Interviewee C)
H ow ever, this same interview ee did not feel that the executives went through a
similar decision making process for every decision that they made.
It [executive decision making processes] varied. So by that I mean it
wasnt a yeah, lets do it end of discussion. Yes, lets do it but come back
83
to me with the questions. So once they caught the attention and they said
it seemed to make sense, then the rational person showed up and said,
OK, I need some more information in these areas. OK? In order to have
that second discussion you had to capture them on the first discussion.
(Interviewee C)
To summarize, this interviewee thought there was,
Kind of a consensus on the thought leaders part - a consensus; on the

executives part a yes or no. Or maybes... Well the executives, if I
remember, were talked to individually as opposed to a group. And
individually, I think each one of them went through the same mental cycle
that we did - the little touch points that we had does this make sense?
Can I understand what the hell they are talking about? Or why should we
do this from a business point of view?...We did things in kind of group
sessions whether they be synchronously or in the same room so it was
more of a consensus. So we kind of get a bunch of thought leaders in a
room all we can hope for is consensus as opposed to 100% agreement.
But with the executives it was either up or downthumbs up or thumbs
down. (Interviewee C)
84
Qualitative versus Quantitative Decision Making
One interviewee believed that both the thought leader and the corporate groups were
using a qualitative and quantitative approach combining intuition and rational decision
making components.
If Im looking at stuff and internalizing it, then theres got to be some sort
of intuitive thing going on. Like what does it mean to make sense? And
from the executives point of view, you know can I equate that to
something that affects the bottom line or something that affects the future
growth, or something along those lines. So they are making the mental
map thing as you are talking or presenting or having a dialogue with them.
They are going on their experience of hearing stuff like this before. They
are going on their experience of sizing you up if you are doing the
presentation and they are going on their experience of you know what the
industry and the marketplace is looking for. And mentally they are putting
it all together and saying yes or no. Its not, I dont think its a quantitative
type of decision. I mean quantitative aspects fall into this but there are
lots of qualitative aspects of making that decision. (Interviewee D)
Spark versus Bipolar Decision Making
While there was a great deal of energy within the thought leaders organization, this
same interviewee did not feel that things were the same at the corporate level. At that
85
level, consistency in decision making process was replaced with inconsistency in his
opinion and illustrated components of rational decision making.
Im not sure how decisions were made at the corporate level.. .1 wasnt
involved in [many of the decisions made at the corporate level] but just
observing where decisions seemed to have gotten made out in the field or
out in the organization without a whole lot of scrutiny and things got off
the rails. So if it was kind of a bipolar decision making process either it
was way too tight or way to loose... The spark of ideas was goneWith
the other efforts (once it went to the other organization). It was much more
of a corporate approach to OK lets crank it through. Lets build a
business case and lets have reviews and other sorts of things, so the level
of agility in the LITC decision-making process wasnt all that agile.
(Interviewee B)
Intuition versus Systematic Rational-Based Decision-Making
Several of the thought leaders discussed the idea o f differences between the way
decisions were made as ones involving intuition and others involving a more systematic
approach. One interviewee felt that intuition was primarily used in the beginning of the
project with the more rational based decision making used towards the end.
Im not sure in the first three steps of the five [innovators vision, thought
leaders decision to support and socializing the idea] that we talked about
that there was any conscious or formal decision making process. It was all
86
very intuitive I think. I think Interviewee As realization was intuitive; I

think the thought leaders decision to work on this was intuitive; I think
trying to initially socialize the idea with others was intuitive - both by us
and by them. I dont think that the idea could have been developed
systematically.... (Interviewee F)
The last two strategies making it a corporate strategy and then executing
those plans, they, on the other hand were much more systematic, I think.
That is they had specific tasks, specific timelines, budgets, assigned
resources, have metrics, move forward, negotiate contracts that those
are very systematic activities and very non-intuitive. So I would say that
the first half to 60%, the decisions were more informal and more intuitive;
and the other half of the project the decisions were more deliberate or
systematic (Interviewee F).
Another interviewee stated percentages to the amount of time that intuition and
rational decision making models were used.
Yeah I think what the thought leaders were using was intuition but what
the executives were using wasnt exclusively rational. So its a mixture of
intuitive and rational. I think there is a degree of each. So if you had a
sliding bar between the two, I think 90% intuition on the thought leaders
part and 10% rational. Whereas on the executives, it was probably 45%
87
intuition and 55% rational. The intuition part never drops out.
(Interviewee C)
In support of both intuition and rational models, another interviewee said,
I think it began within the thought leaders as probably a gut feel that this
thing is A) the right thing to do and B) going to work.. .and then we began
to feed on each other. .. .Maybe it was initially intuitive supported by fact
and then the intuitive side came in when we started expanding it to say
well how could we do this and it might have bounced back and forth
within the thought leaders organization reinforcing it from both angles both from the intuitive as well as the factual side. (Interviewee B)
One of the interviewees carefully described his perspective of the processes that
occurred in the intuitive decision making modes. As a self-proclaimed intuitive, he had a
great deal more to say about intuition than the systematic decision making process. In
describing the intuitive process, he said,
Well physically it happened with a presentation by Interviewee A and the

rest of us listening to it and thinking about it and nodding and asking
questions and saying its a good thing. We didnt take votes.. .we werent
doing any kind of analysis or market research which suggests that there
was a very significant reliance on the background knowledge that the
individuals were bringing to the meeting. A lot o f kind of experiences that
they had, the knowledge that they had, the research that they had done -as
88
part of their job or because of their own interests not because of

Interviewee As presentation. And I think that kind of state of mind is
necessary for intuitive thinking, that is, these kinds of people need to have
access to a lot of knowledge. They have been gathering all kinds of
patterns and trends and its probably in the back of their mind. Then when
something like Interviewee As presentation came about, it resonated. If
we had much less experience and no IT market knowledge, then we would
have just listened to the presentation and laughed at the funny jokes that
he made but it wouldnt have resonated with themthey wouldnt have
understood it. At that time, Interviewee A, by himself, did not have the
resources to do all the necessary research, all the necessary analysis to put
all the facts in front of the audience so that they could make a rational
decision. It was not possible to do that. So I think the background that
people brought in, their knowledge of the IT market; their own perceptions
of where the industry was heading helped them to quickly internalize what
Interviewee A s message was. Now the interesting thing was other people
in the company at the same time were doing the exact same thing but this
group of people were successful in doing it. (Interviewee F)
But this resonance that Interviewee A experienced in the thought leaders group, after
he made the initial presentation, did not materialize as quickly with the rest of the
corporation.
89
It took Interviewee A about 20 minutes to resonate the idea in the thought

leaders group. It was a quick thing. But once the idea was fully developed
and presented at length to the corporation it took about 6 months for
people to say I think I know what it means. The time differencethe
original message to the thought leaders was just a power pointvery
limited and very high level idea and it just took a few minutes for it to
resonate. What Interviewee A took to the corporation six months later
was a very developed idea yet it still took six months for it to resonate.
(Interviewee F)
Incubation versus Rational Decision Making
Several interviewees felt that the group of thought leaders tended to rely on intuition
to a much greater extent than the corporation did (Interviewees A, B, C, F). For example,
My personal decision making process is that I come quickly to the conclusion of what
we need to do and then I spend all the time figuring out how Im going to sell it [to the
rest of the corporation]. (Interviewee A). As the innovator driving much of the process,
he saw his personal decision making process as a key driver of the group decision making
process.
Well I think and Ive always been accused of having a mind that drives
very quickly to a conclusion without having to go through the interim
steps... .1 jump to the conclusion and I sometimes have to backtrack and
say so -... Its like the professor who walks into the classroom and says
90
so it is intuitively obvious that the answer is 7.213 but then he works

backwards in the equations to bring every body else through the process
by which he does prove that the answer is 7.213. My mind jumps to
conclusions and then my mind goes back and says now check it and
validate it. Then my mind says how are you going to sell this because
you cannot get people to jump through hyperspace to get to the same
conclusion that you have already reached. How do you go back and put a
process in place that allows them to come through the process one step at a
time and Ive just always had to live with people who were more pedantic
about their processes than I am. Im intuitive but I know what the right
answer is based upon having exposed myself to so much that is out there
that my mind correlates and says its pretty obvious that this is the
answer. Now bear in mind that I am an ENTP [Myers Briggs reference]
and my intuitive score is off the scale. I basically intuit things that other
people think about. (Interviewee A)
Continuing on, he said,
Well, its [intuition is] a blessing and a curse... because it is relatively

rare, especially in the corporate world that this happens. I dont know at
the executive level, but I will tell you this: At the worker bee level most
people are not that intuitive. Most people have go to walk through the
process in order to be able to leap from a to b to c to d all the way up to z.
91
My mind will jump me all the way up to x and sometimes all the way to z.
Most of the times it will get me 90% of the way there and then I have to
think and then Ill jump to the other 10% with interaction with others.
(Interviewee A)
When asked about intuitive people at the higher levels of the organization,
Interviewee A responded,
I think one of the reasons you get to an executive level or higher up in

your organization is because you do have that ability to see the future.
Now when you go to the board, you have to prove it. But, by the time you
did that, I don t think you can ever get to the future one step at a time. I
dont think you can say A makes B makes C and thats the right direction
for the future. I think you have to pull people to the future by having that
intuitive vision of what it is and then being able to go back and lead them
through the steps where they go from A to B not A to B prime because B
prime would take them off a different angle. And so when I tell you that I
will come to the conclusion and then I will figure back how I get other
people there, thats most of my process. Its figuring out all of those steps
that they could relate to so that I can get them up to where Im at now.
(Interviewee A)
When the innovator was asked whether this intuition was based on feeling or
expertise, he said, Expertise and experience. It is not based on feeling. I will say this: it
92
used to be based on feeling. And my experience has given me the opportunity to continue
to get it away from feeling (Interviewee A).
Interviewee F suggested how these intuitive and rational decision making models
work together in an organization.
I believe that whenever an idea is being developed and introduced, we

need intuitive thinking up front. We need a group of innovative people
who can project into the future because they are the ones who can amplify
those weak signals. Interviewee A s work was probably based on one or
two references that were available and mentioned. Thats not even the
noisethats the sub-noise. But what does it take to recognize those very
weak signals and amplify them into the next market wave. That kind of
decision can only be done intuitively because by the time it reaches the
point that it can be a rational decision, its too late. Much more research
needs to be done. Much more analysis needs to be done which is much
harder to justify for those people making those decisions. Now, once the
idea is developed, then the intuitive people must get out of the way. Then
we need people who think very rationally; who think very systematically
because they are the ones who are holding the purse-strings; they are the
ones who are going to take risks. They are the ones that basically make
something happen. That is a very different mindset than the initial one
that is trying to amplify weak signals... You know, I really believe those
weak signals, by definition, will be put aside and wiped out if subjected to
93
that kind of rational thought process because those kind of processes look
for strong signals. But they are there to actually eliminate and wipe away
those weak signals -many of them do that. But it is the intuitive thinker
that can look at a whole bunch of weak signals and recognize the one that
should be amplified. (Interviewee F)
Finding 5: There was congruence between individual decision making and group decision
making.
When asked whether their personal decision making process is the same or different
from what they have described for the decisions made with regard to the Flexible
Foundation project, several of the interviewees emphasized the congruence between the
two processes. The interviewees tended to focus on defining a characteristic of the
decision-making process at the group level that was similar or different than the same
characteristic at the individual decision-making level. For example, an interviewee, who
had previously described the thought leaders decision making style as more intuitive, felt
that his own personal decision making style was similar to it. Fie also felt that he needed
to interject some rational decision making into the process as well. For example,
I guess in terms of the decisions about whether we should do this or not

a lot of that was intuitiveI thought it was a great idea. Maybe what the
difference from a personal standpoint was that I was also coming from
having done it before in a different job text so it maybe I had a little more
faith that it could happen. But at the same time I had more of an
94
understanding of what it took to make it happen. For example, early into

it I remember putting together a long list of here are the questions we need
to get answers for if were are going to design this agility assessment
process.. .It was a list of battle scars that I had developed from other
places. And I am reasonably sure that nobody else on the team was
thinking about those things at that point in time. I had been thinking of
them prematurely; we werent ready for them at that point but I was trying
to bring in a dose o f reality into the enthusiasm without quashing the
enthusiasm. It was my experience from previous efforts like this that you
had to start thinking of those things early enough if you could get them
done it time. (Interviewee B)
Another interviewee also saw the group processes as being intuitive and felt that he
did the same in his personal decision-making. In fact, he felt that his multiple points of
view perspective helped drive whether or not he committed to doing something.
I kind of look at a lot of dimensions all at the same time; it drives the
economists nuts because they only want to vary one dimension. So at
each point of the process, Im looking at it from multiple points of view
and then deciding in the aggregate, does this pass the test where I would
personally commit or not because if I dont agree with some thing I
personally dont commit. (Interviewee C)
95
Another interviewee selected the characteristic of benefit in describing how he made

personal versus group decisions. In his personal decisions, he focused on the benefit to
his family and children. In his group decisions, it was the company that benefited.
In high level, I would say that [they are] fundamentally, similar. [The]
difference is probably instead of full stepseach step would be broken
down more granular. [It is] the same not differentbut each decision is
analyzed by different characteristics. My personal decision style is more
family-based; instead of this one that is corporate based and driven by
LITC benefit. [It is more about] staying on top of technology and how can
we catch our competitorsmy [personal] decision making is probably
done more family wise and children wise. (Interviewee E)
Finally, one interviewee felt he used similar techniques across his group and
individual decision making processes. He described a natural predisposition to one
decision making style and actively seeking out projects that require those kinds of
decision making skills. He also believed that there were situations that required a
coupling of other decision making styles in order to meet the needs of the situation. For
example,
I think as an individual, in our professional and personal lives, w e com e
up with coping behaviors that is what were good at. When we are faking,
that is when we learn to do the rest so we can survive. My personal way
of thinking is highly intuitive. It always has been. I mean I can remember
96
myself as a 9 year old boy saying the same thing. I think others may have
had a very similar experience but over the years, Ive learned to make
rational decisions; in my investments, with my projects, with my kids.
But I tend to gravitate towards problems that require intuitive thinking.
This means those problems that are unsolved; where the solution is not
known. So what I did with regard to the Flexible Foundation is very
consistent with what I like to do and often what I gravitate towards. What
I described was probably more the ideal way of doing it. In the ideal world
I would limit to the start up type of activities. But in reality, innovators
dont just focus on creativity. They also have to implement and reduce
those ideas and creations into practice. So the difference is that I have
developing coping skills. Ive learned to manage projects. Ive learned to
manage time; Ive learned to manage ROI. Ive learned to finish tasks.
But those are skills that I have picked up to get things done although it
might not be my natural way of approaching it. (Interviewee F)
One interviewee described a high correlation between the way he personally makes
decisions and how the thought leaders as a group make decisions. With respect to group
decisions of whats in and whats out, that kind of coincides with the way I operate and
then the presentation was more of a - I m a graphically oriented kind of guy so just
contributing to that in the way that by saying you know if we did it this way, that would
mean more to me than if you did it that way. And then on the timing of things, I didnt
care (Interviewee C).
97
Several interviewees discussed the relationship between individual and group

decision making. For example, one interviewee felt that group decisions were an
extension of what a person thought was best for him.
Well I think the group decision was that they had to see that a) there was
value to the corporation and b) there was value to themselves in bringing it
forth to the corporation. I mean, lets face it, WIIFM (whats in it for me)
is always playing on everybodys radio station and so the idea was that
they had to see that there was value in them participating and being part of
it. So Im always wanting to say sell [the] why to anybody at any point in
time so that they understand that theres value [in it for] them. Thats only
part of it - what we had was a lot of people who were finally
understanding what was broken because before that we really didnt have
any kind of a common set of beliefs about why we were broken. Before
that it was well I guess were broken but Im not sure how or Im not
sure how we need to get out of it. And so that was the best thing to do
was to get a simple compilation around why we were broken. My agile
presentation did that. Agile was basically, if you want to think about it,
agile was a wrapper for change. And thats really what I used it for was a
major way of driving my message through the organization. (Interviewee
A)
98
There were examples o f when an individual got caught up in the enthusiasm of the
group and joined in but still introduced some sense of reality, from his perspective, to the
process. For example,
I guess the similarities were around [that] I had enthusiasm for it the same
as other people had enthusiasm for it - so I was caught up in it and feeding
on the energy of the organization. The decisions about whether we were
going to do it were being made from an emotional standpoint and I was
clearly in the middle of that one.. .The differences I think were ... that I
was also trying to bring in a little bit of reality into it by saying yeah we
need to think about these things as we are doing that. It is great to take the
concept to move it forward but if our goal is to implement the idea then
heres what we need to know to implement it.. .and these are the kinds of
things we need to do to get it there.. .the decisions that I was making were
more around how do we implement that concept. (Interviewee B).
Another interviewee felt that decision-making was a self-interest driven event.
We make our decisions individually and the decisions made on the

projects are both influenced by self-interest, in two ways: 1) In one way
there are things that energize us and so w e often make decisions that
enable us to do things that energize us. 2) There are some things that we
benefit from overall and our decisions are really based on that. I dont
really believe that decisions are made in corporations that are ultimately
99
only for the good of the corporation. I think that when youre talking about
the good of the corporation, youre really talking about the good of
somebody in the corporation. Thats my cynical view. I think when I
make a decision, one of the things that influence it is the need to be
consistent so if I have made a decision that is inconsistent with decisions
on that same matter than I have to have a really good logical and
straightforward understanding and explanation of what the difference is.
You know, why the change. I feel like a lot of people will change their
decision because their leader says heres how were supposed to think
now. And I think that kind of rapid vacillation between ideas is what
causes us to lose the good ones. So I think if youve made decisions a
certain way in the past and then suddenly find yourself about to undue
everything youve done with another decision, you really have to ask
yourself the question Why and have a good logical understanding of
how it is beneficial over your previous choice which at the time you
thought was the best. (Interviewee C)
Finally, one interviewee looked at the group decision process as a way to fill in
on his own understanding.
When I say make my own decisions I have had the conversation with
myself. So then Im trying to influence other people or explain my
understanding and try to convey that to the other person that I havent
100
missed something that is first. And second, perhaps there is a chance that
I am missing something. So am I thinking about it in the way that other
people are thinking about it? Is there a point of view that I havent
considered? And after having those discussions, then I make my decision.
(Interviewee C)
Overall, the interviewees expressed an overall feeling of congruence between

individual and group decision making and several discussed ways that the two types of
decision making were complementary.
Finding 6: There existed a safe place for the open exchange of ideas at the group level.
The last question posed to each interviewee was whether or not they had any
additional thoughts on the topic of decision making with regard to the Flexible
Foundation project. One discussed how this project was a microcosm for decisions
generally made by this group of thought leaders in the context of the overall LITC
organization. Coming from the ABC subsidiary, he had both an internal and external
point of view on how the group of thought leaders operated.
The Flexible Foundation as it applied to the thought leaders was a

microcosm of the overall thought leaders decision making process and
how it fit in within the rest of LITC... It was a decision-making effort that
I think kind of amplified what we were talking about earlier on coming up
with the goals and objectives each January only this was done over a six
month period. where it had to do with directional things and process
101
things and things like thatit was a good example of how we couldnt
come to consensus very easily or all the timeand formed natural groups
that would go off and do the content things that some subset of the thought
leaders were comfortable with going off and nailing to the wall and saying
this piece of it is done. But when we come back as a process decision
making body on behalf of the whole thought leaders program, we tend to
get into these endless do loops of should we be doing x or should we be
doing y. Should we take an active role over here, should we wait to be
called over there? Well youve been to enough thought leaders meetings
to know that thats how we go around and around and around and spend 4
days talking about one days worth of stuff. I think the decision making
process that we used as a thought leaders organization may have been
amplified in terms of what weve done in the early days of the Flexible
Foundation project because it was a thought leaders only project at that
point. We didnt have the external influences in many cases. We just kind
of fed on our natural tendency to make decisions quicker on content and
slower on process... We were self-directed. So, yeah, we had inputs from
external sources, anyone we talked to as individuals, or as subsets as the
thought leaders team .. .but in terms of someone to direct us, we didnt
have a whole lot of that from what I can remember. It was much more this
is the thought leaders program at least for that first six months period and
we did what we thought was right... From that standpoint, the thought
102
leaders program looked more like an ABC organization than it did

LITC.. .It had a strategic element. It also had more of an unstructured
problem solving approach and thats something that typifies management
consulting - you dont really know the answer when you walk in on day 1.
Whereas with LITC you probably know what you need to put in x number
of help desks, or x number of servers, or have to convert this number of
programs. Stuff that it is pretty well known. But our folks, ABC folks,
[and the thought leaders] tend not to have a playbook. They might have a
series of tools to do an analysis but except for a couple of isolated
offerings theres not a lot that is plug and play, whereas LITC gets its
leverage from the repeatability and scale. (Interviewee B)
Another thought leader used the open-ended question to springboard into the
comfortableness in making a decision and the language used in the linguistic network.
So you know it has to do with a lot with how comfortable you feel in
making a decision. So is it from a pragmatic point of view, from a
personal point of view, from an ethic point of view, from all of those
points of view. I use the word feeling comfortable about a decision and
thats more for the psychology people or maybe even the anthropologists.
[It is] the matter of the decision process. Theres just something in all of
us that I term level of comfort with a decision. Youve been in those
meetings. Each person is coming at this with their own point of view and
103
so their own feeling of comfort. So we can change that through the

dialogue and discussion as they begin to understand whats in other
peoples heads or begin to see what the images are that we each have
inside of our heads. Buts its the, I think its the setting up that linguistic
network that we talked about so that there is an understanding of the
terminology or a tactical or semantic understanding. You know the
language that you are using is not literal or metaphorical so it is difficult
for me to convey the image that I have in my brain so that it is exactly
replicated in your brain. It just doesnt happen. That why we have these
extended conversations in these meetings and stuff to try to get that idea
across. And once that idea is across and understood then you deal with it
depending upon who you are and that determines your level of comfort. I
think that theres a level in the decision process that is definitely beyond
the quantitative. (Interviewee C)
Another interviewee felt that the thought leaders group represented a place where he
could be with like-minded innovators.
Early on when the thought leaders were working on this, I cant say that
there was anything that I disagreed with. Nothing stands out so if there
was, it was not significant because I dont remember it. After we did our
work and we saw the corporation try so hard to understand it or ignore it
and then they tried to implement it there were probably a whole bunch of
104
things that I probably didnt agree with because I felt that we had rights or
it is not as we described it or they did not understand it. And at those
times, I was telling myself that its the process of consensuswe do what
were best at and then they do what theyre best at. They dont have to
agree with us and we dont have to agree with them as long as the whole
thing works. [We let it go] well we didnt have much of a choice. But
once one does this kind of thing for awhile you recognize that as an
innovator that if most of your ideas just dont translate with others nothing
is going to happen no matter how great you think you are. So we just
accept it and move on to the next thing. After some time you recognize
what innovators come up with really need to be sanity checked because
reality can be very muddled, very cruel and a solution has to be changed to
accommodate. (Interviewee F).
In trying to understand what made this thought leader group different than the rest of
the organization and why it represented such a safe place for its members, one
interviewee said,
The idea is not going to come from just thinking about the current
business we have but unless somebody believes that this is an opportunity
or this is something there is a market for and takes it to some point of
development that they can go out and prove that there is a market for it.
And if youre in an organization that is buttoned down and managing
105
every dollar youre not going to get the funds to be able to go and do that
skunk works. The thought leaders organization had that unique
opportunity and capability because for the most part that I was a fellow
there wasnt a whole lot of oversight from management about what we
were doing. We were left to do the kind of things that we thought were
right and could just go do them. Im not sure that there were other places
in LITC where that can happen. (Interviewee B)
Review of the Findings

This chapter has provided the detailed data that supported the findings presented at
the beginning of the chapter. This section will analyze each of the findings to provide a
summary of data in support of each of the findings.
Finding 1: Major decisions occurred at four different levels in the organization:
individual, group, organization, and beyond the organization.
Individual decisions were made throughout the process. At times these individual
decisions committed the same individual to action. At other times, these individual
decisions committed another individual, group or an organization to action.
Group decisions were made by the thought leadership team to support this project.
Group decisions were also made by sectors within the thought leadership team on how to
address the particular components of one of the tracks.
Organizational decisions were evidenced when a person in the position of power had
the authority to direct an organization to act in a certain way. This occurred throughout
106
the case study when senior leaders directed particular groups to participate in the
implementation of the Flexible Foundation.
Decisions beyond the organization were made when companies outside of LITC
decided to participate in the Flexible Foundation. Microsoft, Dell, Tyco, Cisco, and other
companies decided to participate in this initiative thereby extending the program
boundaries outside of LITC.
Finding 2: As the idea moved through each phase o f organizational learning, there were
periods o f divergence and convergence o f ideas.
Examples of this finding permeated the study. For example,

The innovator routinely scanned the external environment (divergent activity) by
understanding the external environment and LITCs role in that environment; he came up
with the idea for the Flexible Foundation (convergent activity). The innovator presented
the idea to a group o f thought leaders for their review and additions (divergent activity).
The thought leaders (as cited by two interviewees and as evidenced through the journal
activities) spent a great deal of time involved with outside organizations including clients,
academic institutions, other companies, standards bodies conducting such activities as
roundtable discussions, conference speaking, proposal writing, and classroom lectures
(divergent activity). The thought leaders made their recommendations and split up in to
different tracks (divergent activity). They pulled together to represent the Flexible
Foundation that gets forwarded to the organization (convergent activity).
The executives involved made decisions on the applicability of the Flexible
Foundation to their business needs (convergent activity). Then they directed people and
107
organizations to move forward on the tasks assigned (divergent activity). Finally, people
within the organization scanned the environment about what outside companies should be
involved in the Flexible Foundation (divergent activity) and then made decisions about
who should be asked to participate (convergent activity).
Finding 3: A "fabric o f decisions occurred continuously throughout the organizational
learning process across multiple levels (individual, group, organization and
beyond the organization) that impacted this process.
In analyzing the interviewee data, the complexity of the decisions and processes
became apparent. While it is important to discuss these decisions in context based on
whether the data was provided in response to questions about individual or group
decisions or decision making actions, it also seems noteworthy to look at the level of
decision. There were cases in which individuals were making decisions that affected
themselves as individuals, the group of thought leaders, the LITC organization, and even
beyond the LITC organization. Similarly, the group of thought leaders were making
decisions that impacted individuals, the group, the LITC organization and beyond the
LITC organization. The same can be said of decisions made by LITC and beyond LITC
impacting all components as well. What this data points to is that there was not a single
chain of events that moved one persons idea into organizational learning. Rather, there
existed a fabric of decisions that were happening at all levels and across all levels that
eventually brought this idea through to fruition.
108
Finding 4: For an idea to move from the individual to the institution, facilitating
organizational learning, both intuitive and rational decision making activities are
required.
There was an appreciation illustrated by the interviewees for the variations of

decision-making processes that occurred between the group of thought leaders and other
groups within the company. It was clear that both intuitive-type and rational-based
decision making processes were needed to bring an idea through to fruition. Several
interviewees discussed how innovative and intuitive type skills were required upfront to
amplify the weak signals coming from the environment. Rational-based decision making
processes were needed to put the project plans and resources around those ideas to get
them implemented.
Finding 5: There was congruence between individual decision making and group
decision making.
The interviewees felt that their own decision making processes mirrored those of the
thought leader group. This high degree of congruence may have allowed people to feel
more comfortable with the direction that the group as a whole was going. This could be
due to the fact that many of the thought leaders are self-proclaimed intuitives and they
felt that the group exhibited intuitive behavior.
Finding 6: There existed a safe place fo r the open exchange o f ideas at the group level.
The final key finding was that communication within the thought leaders group was
extensive during this project. References to one-on-one chats; small group meetings;
large group presentations and discussions were frequently made throughout the
109
interviewees. This high level of communication and frequency of interaction created a

safe place for the thought leaders group where they could process what needed to be done
as well at try to make sense of what was happening around them. There was also a level
of comfort in the abilities of the members and a respect for what each individual was
capable o f that allowed for an open exchange of ideas. The camaraderie and
understanding of each others personalities became apparent throughout the interview
process. While there were some cases described that disagreements around approach or
process occurred, fundamentally, there seems to be an underlying respect for each
thought leader and cohesion around what they were trying to do for the company.
Conclusion
This summary of findings concludes Chapter 4. In Chapter 5, the findings are
discussed and analyzed. In addition, this chapter synthesizes this qualitative case study,
draws conclusions and develops recommendations for practice and future research.
110
CHAPTER 5
Interpretations, Conclusions and Recommendations
Introduction
The purpose of this case study was to gain a better understanding of how an
individual triggers organizational learning to occur by analyzing the decision points that
are used throughout the process. This study focused on the work done by an individual
within a large international information technology company and how an intuitive idea by
an individual became supported by a group, spread throughout the organization and
finally adopted as standard practice at the organizational level and beyond. Decisions
made throughout the process were analyzed to determine if they are rational-model
based, intuitive-model based or a combination of both methods. The intent of this study
was to gain a greater understanding of the decision making processes that occurred as to
help facilitate organizational learning happening in a more consistent fashion.
Discussion and Interpretations of the Findings
This section will review and interpret each of the six findings as they relate to the
theories that frame the study and to the applicable literature.
Finding 1
Major decisions occurred at four different points in the organizational learning

process: individual, group, organization, and beyond the organization.
A significant finding o f this study is that major decisions occurred throughout the
organizational learning process. The innovator deciding that a new approach was
needed; the group of thought leaders deciding to take the project as their own; the
111
organization deciding the project would become its future direction and strategy; and
corporate partners outside the organization deciding to get on board with the Flexible
Foundation approach. These decisions demonstrate how organizational learning started
with the individual and moved outward through the group, to the organization and
eventually beyond the organization. Similarly, there were decisions made in industry
(beyond the organization) that called for a new way to do things; decisions made at the
LITC organization that drove business directions; decisions made at the thought leaders
group that drove the innovators project in new directions. These decisions demonstrate
how organizational learning and the structures currently in place move from beyond the
organization, through the organization to the group and eventually the individual.
The model of Crossan et al. (1999) shows the individual intuiting as the starting
point for organizational learning. But while individual learning is necessary, it is not a
sufficient condition for organizational learning to occur (Schwandt & Marquardt, 2000).
Crossan et al. (1999) continue by outlining intuiting, interpreting, integrating and
institutionalizing as the processes in which an individual learns something and influences
the organization and how the organization learns something and influences the individual.
They refer to these concepts as feed-forward and feed-back. The stages in the model tie
back to the individual (for intuiting); the group (for interpreting and integrating); and the
organization (for institutionalizing). In order to move between the four phases of the
Crossan et al. model, decisions must be made that support moving the idea from one
phase to another. Those decision points represent whether the idea will move to the next
level of institutionalization. How those decisions are made becomes the difference
112
between whether those ideas get adopted or not. Bocchino (2004) stated that it is the
relationships and processes typically associated with leadership that generate the
organizing influence for both individual understanding and social action (p. 5).
The work of Crossan et al. (1999), Schwandt and Marquardt (2000), and Bocchino
(2004) were supported by this finding. The data moves beyond the model proposed by
Crossan et al. (1999) to include components beyond the organization that affected the
organizational learning process. Similar to the model, the study demonstrated the feed
forward and the feed backward in the organizational learning process. The findings
further went on to describe specific decision points that occurred that moved the idea
along its path. These decision points add support to Schwandt and Marquardts theory
that it takes efforts beyond those of an individual to have organizational learning become
a reality. Bocchinos theory of relationships and processes typically associated with
leadership that generate the organizing influence for both individual understanding and
social action was supported by the data describing the actions taken by the thought
leaders and other organizational leaders in making this idea become a reality and part of
the organizations learning.
Finding 2
As the idea moved through each phase of organizational learning, there were periods
of divergence and convergence of ideas.
At the home designed by premier architect Frank Lloyd Wright at Fallingwater, there
is a window that does not contain the supporting structures typically required to keep a
comer window intact. Consequently, the full beauty of nature is afforded the inhabitant
113
because there is no impediment to the view. One can see beyond the structure to the
beauty that exists.
This analogy seems indicative of how the organizational learning process happened
in this instantiation. Individuals were able to see beyond the structure of the
organization, processes, functional areas or industry practice to determine what might
become. During this divergent time, structure was no longer an impediment but rather a
pliable medium to house the new concept.
The obverse was also true. When the project
needed a reigning in, structure, processes, and teams were put in place to converge the
variety of thoughts and actions.
This convergence and divergence occurred throughout the projects lifecycle and still
occurs today with the various successor projects spawned by the original idea. Examples
of the divergence are indicated through the numerous outreach efforts depicted in the
journal entries analysis; widening the group of innovators beyond the original one;
developing a cross-industry perspective; etc. Examples of the convergence are indicated
through defining what projects were in and out of the Flexible Foundation; taking
concepts and putting them into presentations; honing the marketing materials to specific
audiences, etc.
Even language was changed to reflect the evolving reality. As a case in point, the
way in which the Flexible Foundation is described varies across interviewees. This is in
spite of vast amounts of marketing materials (that tended to be consistent) that were
produced by this group about this program as per the journal entries. Further, the
program description provided by each interviewee tends to be highly related to the
114
function they performed on the program or to their previous position within the company.
For example, Interviewee A talks about a vision perfectly in line with being a futurist.
Interviewee B describes the supply chain relationship, his own area o f expertise.
Interviewee C describes streamlining complexity, also a key role for an engineer.
Interviewee D talks about the tools needed to measure flexibility and hes responsible for
tool development.
While this may be no more significant than people trying to simplify their
descriptions of a complex program into the components that make the most sense to
them, it may also provide some insight into the language that was used to gain acceptance
of this project both internally and externally. Perhaps people decided to join the project
because there was something in the program that was, for them, a hook or a place that
they felt that they contribute. Perhaps this open nature gave the interviewees the reason
they needed to get involved. Further, maybe it was the boundary-less description of the
concept that encouraged people to see how they could become part of it.
Nonaka (1994) broke from the static view of the organization that processes
information or solves problems. Nonaka felt that this view presented a static view of
the organization and was thereby limited. Rather, Nonaka proposed that organizations
dynamically deal with a changing environment and that they ought not only to process
information efficiently but also create information and knowledge. He described
innovation as a process in which the organization creates and defines problems and then
develops new language to solve them. To do this, he postulated, that there needs to be a
115
continual dialogue between explicit and tacit knowledge that drives the creation of new
ideas and concepts.
In the competing on the edge type of strategy, Eisenhardt (1999) felt managers create
an ongoing dialogue in which all members are present and share real time internal and
external information. When a decision opportunity arises, they capitalize on this store of
knowledge, or collective intuition as she terms it, that theyve built up through this
regular information exchange. Eisenhardts creation of a continuing flow of dialogue in
which all members share real time internal and external information is further explained
by the use of Nonakas continuing dialogue between explicit and tacit knowledge. As
group members share their facts, experiences, successes and failures, the group begins to
build a repository explicit and tacit knowledge that serves them well when it comes to
making a decision. Eisenhardts utilization of inputs from internal and external sources
further substantiates the dynamic nature of the organization that Nonaka refers to. The
organizational boundaries become almost meaningless shifting a little further out in some
instances or retracting in others.
This finding fundamentally supports both the work of Nonaka and Eisenhardt.
While there were no examples of the collective intuition that Eisenhardt speaks of, the
group o f thought leaders provided that continuing flow of dialogue in which members
were sharing real time information and turning tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge.
Language was altered to support the new idea and the organizational structures became
transparent to the process.
116
Finding 3
A fabric of decisions occurred continuously throughout the organizational learning

process across multiple levels (individual, group, organization and beyond the
organization) that impacted this process.
This finding helps to provide an explanation for why so many attempts at
organizational learning fail. While organizational learning is initiated by an individual
and ripples through an organization; it is not a single threaded process. At every juncture
when this idea was discussed, the presentation of the idea created new knowledge;
spawned new decisions; molded the original concept slightly differently; triggered new
people to get involved and each of those events spawned a whole new presentation which
solicited even greater impacts.
Unlike a pebble thrown into a still pond that sends its ripples out uniformly, an idea
unleashed in an organization moves in unpredictable ways. There are points in which
decisions are needed to move the idea forward; there are points when lack of decisions
move the idea in a different direction; there are decisions that are made based on peoples
personal motivations and ideas that die because of no decision. There are people that
change or new people that have different ideas. There are decisions made on the basis of
power and on the basis of lack of power.
In this particular case study, the group of thought leaders played a pivotal role in
moving this idea into organizational learning. They were in a unique position given the
role they had in the company; the contacts they had throughout the company; and the
relationships they had beyond the company. They were able to effect change in their
117
solidarity of purpose in spite of waves of deterrence around them. They also knew when
to stop moving in an unfruitful direction or to let go. They were quick to praise the
good ideas that were generated outside of the group that helped further instill the Flexible
Foundation ideal thereby not hung up on the not invented here syndrome that cripples
other organizations.
As a critical leadership imperative, a great deal of research has been done on
organizational learning (Schwandt & Marquardt, 2000; Crossan et al., 1999; Nonaka,
1994). Similarly, as a driving force of leadership, there has been a significant
contribution to the literature around decision making (Sadler-Smith & Sheffy, 2005;
Davis & Davis, 2003; Eisenhardt, 1989, 1999). There appears to be a dearth of research
on the juxtaposition of these two significant constructs, an area that beckons researchers
to pursue and add to the body of knowledge. Considering that organizational learning is
a critical component of capitalizing on the human intellectual capital of employees,
understanding how decisions get made throughout an organization that either help or
hinder the organizational learning process seems ripe with potential in todays economy.
Finding 4
For an idea to move from the individual to the institution thereby facilitating
organizational learning, both intuitive and rational decision making activities are
required.
Executives, if they are to be effective, must be able to make fast, high-quality
strategic decisions in the context of a rapidly changing environment. The traditional
response to this challenge has been rational analysis: information is collected, analyzed
118
and interpreted, alternatives are formulated, and a logical choice is consciously chosen
(Davis & Davis, 2003). Further, information technology has allowed an explosion in the
volumes of data an executive is required to deal with and can be overwhelming (Huber &
Daft, 1987). Still in other instances, executives may be tasked with a new venture in an
unfamiliar environment where there may be an information vacuum (Sadler-Smith &
Sheffy, 2005). Yet in spite of these challenges, the speed at which decisions must be
made does not slow down (Wally & Baum, 1994).
The tools of rational decision making, for example, data collection, budgets,
timelines, analysis, and alternatives evaluation was noticeably absent from many of the
interviewees with the thought leaders when the described the processes that occurred
within the group. If these kinds of activities were mentioned, they were used to depict
activities that were going on beyond the thought leader group to the rest of the
organization.
Rather many described their own intuitive natures and decision-making prowess in
great detail. Several went on to describe how inherent the skill was in the thought leader
group but was not anywhere near as prevalent in the rest of the LITC organization. The
innovator, as well as four other interviewees described themselves as highly intuitive;
only one did not. Several of the interviewees shared with me that they had scored high
on the Myers Briggs Personality Assessment on intuition. Example after example was
provided of how intuition was manifested at various decision points in the organizational
learning process.
119
Isenberg (1984) found that executives used intuition in the following ways: to sense
a problem, perform pre-programmed behavior patterns, produce an integrated picture,
check rational analysis, and as a way to by-pass analysis. Sadler-Smith & Sheffy (2005)
found that executives also use intuition as feeling and intuition as expertise to help make
decisions. The finding supported Sadler-Smith & Sheffys theory that executives also
use intuition as expertise to help make decisions but did not find any evidence to support
their theory that executives use intuition as feeling to help make decisions.
Using Agors (1989) definition of intuition as the non-conscious ability to code, sort,
and access the meaningfulness or relevance of the outcomes of past decisions efficiently,
it would appear that the interviewees use intuition regularly in their decision-making and
are comfortable in doing so. This finding supported Isenbergs theory that executives use
intuition to sense a problem (when the innovator sensed a problem in the first place),
perform pre-programmed behavior patterns (routinely scan the environment for new
information), produce an integrated picture (determined ways to merge the Flexible
Foundation with the Mess for Less message), check rational analysis (as provided by the
annual report and earnings statement), and as a way to by-pass analysis (since no
evidence o f analysis was found throughout the interviews).
Parikh (1994), in his work on executive intuition, found that there are functional
areas in which managers felt that they were more apt to use intuition than others. These
included corporate strategy and planning; marketing, human resource development,
research and development, public relations, investments and acquisitions, and mergers
and alliances. This finding supports Parikhs work in that many of the functional areas
120
that Parikh mentions, the thought leaders were engaged in while performing work on the
Flexible Foundation.
In my previous work done on this same group, Wangemann (2006) explored the
kinds of tasks intuitive executives did on a daily basis by looking at electronic journal
entries for 2005 and found that the executives studied spent most of their time involved
in critical contract issues, strategic sales pursuits, and innovation. The findings also
demonstrated that the executives are quite diverse in their daily activities that give them
of wealth of knowledge and experience to draw upon in business scenarios. While they
are characterized as intuitive, they have a wealth of knowledge structures available to
them from which to draw to make decisions. In support of Eisenhardts (1999) study, the
executives showed diversity in the work they perform on a daily basis illustrating that
intuitive people tend to operate in many different spheres of activity. Lastly, executives
were each put in situations frequently in which they were working with internal and
external resources to the organization such that they can continually learn new
information and validate it with a variety of sources. They were involved in activities
that both exploit existing components of the organization as well as explore new
opportunities for business.
The interplay throughout the organizational learning between the group of thought
leaders (perceived as using intuitive decision making) and the other groups within LITC
(perceived as using rational decision making) demonstrates a reliance on both forms of
decision-making needed to move an idea from the individual to the organization. Several
of the interviewees discussed how the innovator was a single point of contact between
121
the thought leaders group and the rest of the corporation. This pivotal role and the fact
that it was predominantly played by one player seems to lend further support to Finding 2
around convergence and divergence and may help to explain that while both types of
decision making is required throughout the process, it is critical that those types of
decision making occur at time most conducive to the process. For example, the fact that
the innovator played a critical role in the creation of the idea and tended to rely on
divergence and intuition followed by a period of turning it over to the corporation to get
some other groups involved and thus moving to a convergence and rational decision
making model. Then the group of thought leaders getting involved, again using
divergence and intuition to broaden the concept followed by the leader of Portfolio
Management making it a more convergent process and using existing business
methodologies and thus rational based models.
Sadler-Smith and Sheffy (2004) felt that businesses are often contradictory and
ambiguous places that are becoming increasingly complex and unpredictable. Fast, highquality, strategic decision-making in this context represents a fundamental and dynamic
capability in high-performance organizations (Sadler-Smith & Sheffy, 2004, p. 76).
But unlike the traditional rational method of decision-making in which information is
collected, collated, analyzed and interpreted, alternatives are formulated and a conscious
choice is logically arrived at, Sadler-Smith and Sheffy (2004) advocate adding an
intuitive component to help improve decision making capacity. They espouse a joint
solution of rationality and intuition to yield superior decisions.
122
This finding supports Sadler-Smith and Sheffys joint solution of rationality and
intuition in decision-making process and seemed an important part of the success of this
project in organizational learning.
Finding 5
There was congruence between individual decision making and group decision
making.
The thought leaders in this group had been working together for one to two years
when this project began and up to four to five years by the time the interviews were
conducted. The Flexible Foundation project was one of many projects that the group
worked on throughout that period. Consequently many decisions were made on various
projects during the time this group worked together.
Based on the previous finding, the thought leaders perceived themselves to be very
intuitive individually and their perception was that as a group, they tended to act more
intuitively than other groups within the company. The interviewees felt that the decisions
made with respect to the Flexible Foundation were consistently made for the most part.
When the group was making decisions on its own, they tended to follow similar
processes.
This finding supports the work of Stanovich and West (2000) by identifying intuition
as a System 1 cognitive system characterized by responses that are automatic, effortless,
associative, emotionally-charged, governed by habit and difficult to control or modify.
Several interviewees described the decision making process as it just made sense or we
didnt think much about it. One interviewee described how there wasnt the time or
123
inclination to use more rational-based decision making models to move the project
forward. Several described emotion surrounding decision making or the passion that
propelled the project forward. As such, many of the characteristics described by
Stanovich and West around System 1 cognitive processes seemed to have occurred in this
group as they consistently worked together over the years. Given that Stanovich and
West describe intuition as a System 1 cognitive process and the thought leaders think of
themselves as highly intuitive, this finding appears to be supported by the literature and
consistent in research and practice.
However, as a precautionary note, a similar phenomenon can be going on here as is
frequently cited in science books around two researchers looking at the same beam of
light. A researcher looking for particles of light sees particles while a researcher
looking for waves of light sees waves even thought the light is the same. Similarly the
interviewees, just like all of us, have a predisposition toward their own points of view. A
self-proclaimed intuitive may have a predisposition to see the processes of a group as
intuitive. Similarly, if other members of this group were selected, those with a
predisposition towards rational decision making, they may have been more inclined to
see and report out on rational decision making models used throughout the process.
Finding 6
There existed a safe place for the open exchange of ideas at the group level.
This finding was first suggested by one of my committee members and then
validated by a further review o f the interview data. Dr. Williamson, a member of the
thought leadership team that was the subject of this research used the example of two
124
cartoon characters with thought bubbles over their heads. Each bubble has something
different in it and the only way that the two characters reach consensus is by developing a
common language through which the two of them can speak and then by dialoguing with
each other so that each character can help the other understand what image is in their own
head. When looking at the thought leaders typical interactions, both through his
observation, my observation and the interviewees perceptions, it became clear that the
LITC organization provided a structure for the thought leaders group that acted as a safe
place for them to discuss ideas and share their views on topics of use to the company.
Each person is coming at this with their own point of view and so their
own feeling of comfort.. .And we can change that through the dialogue
and discussion as they begin to understand whats in other peoples heads
or begin to see what the images are that we each have inside of our heads.
Buts its the setting up [of] that linguistic network that we talked about so
that there is an understanding of the terminology or a tactical or semantic
understanding. You know the language that you are using is not literal or
metaphorical so it is difficult for me to convey the image that I have in my
brain so that it is exactly replicated in your brain. It just doesnt happen.
That why we have these extended conversations in these meetings and
stuff to try to get that idea across (Interviewee C).
As I reviewed the interview data, there were frequent mentions of individuals

meeting with other individuals either one-on-one or at the group level to make sense of
125
what was going on around them. The group meetings became a place where people could
suggest new ideas, refine their thoughts, and continue to be respected for the work that
they performed. The group acted as almost a validation ground to help modify the
original vision to help move it forward across the company.
While this validation ground was made up of highly intuitive people, they seemed to
rely on some very rational decision making tools during this process. In further support
of this finding is the work done by Eisenhardt on rational decision-making. By looking at
the tasks that Eisenhardt stated that functional areas perform when doing rational decision
making, we see tasks that are typically seen in the charters for various departments within
an organization.
Real time information - defined as collecting and utilizing data from both internal
and external sources. In this case study, this would have been the typical job of the
thought leaders group to continually scan the environment to collect new data and
determine how it could be applied within the company. This was further validated in the
previous study done on the daily work habits of the thought leadership group
(Wangemann, 2006).
Multiple simultaneous alternatives - defined as keeping more than one alternative
open at all times to ensure that options remain open and decision makers dont commit to
only one option too early in the process. In this case study, a decision wasnt made
initially to support the new Vice President Portfolio Management plan of your mess for
less. Nor was the decision made initially to support the thought leaders Flexible
Foundation. Rather a decision was made somewhere high enough in the organization to
126
allow both alternatives to exist concurrently for a while. As part time thought leaders and
full time operations personnel for the LITC organization, the thought leaders operated on
both sides of these alternatives. In their role of thought leaders, they were trying to drive
the Flexible Foundation proposition; in their role of LITC operations personnel, they
were supporting the current leadership direction of your mess for less. As such, they
were supporting multiple simultaneous objectives.
Two-tier advice process - defined as using advisors or counselors to help with the
decision making process. The LITC organization was using the consulting services of
Meld Corporation to help figure out its new role in the marketplace and the thought
leaders were privy to many of those conversations. Further, the real validation for a new
marketing approach is customer interest and, in their role as company ambassadors, the
thought leaders were able to secure ongoing customer dialogue about the ideas being
developed.
Consensus with qualification - defined as allowing people to provide conditions on
their consent in a decision so that the team can move forward with the decision. In this
case study, there were points at which individuals within the thought leadership
organization went on record to state that they were not in favor of the changes made to
the idea but supported it anyway either because they felt that they had no choice or fought
it but couldnt get it changed. In the end they gave their consent on it moving forward
but still emphasize the parts of the decision that they did not agree with when describing
the process. With varying degrees of emotion and angst, they were able to let go of
difficult decisions that failed to go their way.
127
Decision integration -defined as ensuring all components of the organization are

represented in the decision making process. The Flexible Foundation concept took over
several years to get adopted. Throughout that time, the thought leadership team
interjected the idea for the Flexible Foundation into established functional areas, for
example, the new Vice President, the marketing organization, and the Strategy and
Planning organizations. Once it was introduced into those areas, those areas had
processes in place that integrated this new idea with other decisions being made
throughout the organization. For example, Strategy and Planning had to work with
Marketing, Sales and Portfolio Development in order to put forth a brand that would
represent the whole of LITC. The thought leader group played a pivotal role in initiating
and making these conversations take place. Further, they played a role in continuing to
deliver the message across the organization in spite of changes in direction, leadership
and commitment.
Synthesis of Case Study
This study sought to provide insight to three specific research questions. In this
section, I provide a synthesis of the case study in the form of responses to the research
questions.
Research Question 1: What specific activities did the executives undertake when
making a decision about how a piece of knowledge from an individual gets
institutionalized?
The executive thought leaders that were interviewed for this study undertook a wide
variety of activities in making decisions throughout the process of institutionalizing
128
knowledge from the individual to the organization as documented in Chapter IV. This
feed forward process was illustrated by Crossan et al. (1999), for example, through
meetings initiated, presentations made, one-on-one meetings, and moving on with the
project after difficult decisions were made. Similarly, there was evidence demonstrating
the feed back process activities in which the organization and even beyond the
organization influenced the actions of the group of thought leaders and eventually the
innovator himself.
process: individual, group, organization, and beyond the organization (Finding 1). As the
idea moved through each phase of organizational learning, there were periods of
divergence and convergence of ideas (Finding 2). A fabric of decisions occurred
continuously throughout the organizational learning process across multiple levels
(individual, group, organization and beyond the organization) that impacted this process.
(Finding 3).
Research Question 2: Did executives naturally do specific activities that support
rational decision-making?
Research Question 3: Did executives naturally do specific activities that support the
use of intuition in decision making?
Due to the commingling of the data, these two research questions will be handled
together. There was a perception by the thought leaders that rational decision-making
seems to have predominantly occurred outside the thought leadership team. Since the
scope of the study focused on thought leaders, it cannot be validated whether, in fact,
129
these rational decision-making processes were occurring outside the thought leadership
team.
Similarly, there was a perception by the thought leaders that intuitive decision
making seems to have predominantly occurred inside the thought leadership. These
perceptions were supported by the self-proclamations by many of the interviewees that they were,
as individuals, highly intuitive. As such, the interviewees felt that there was a similar decision
making process used by the thought leaders for each decision and there was congruence between
individual decision making and group decision making (Finding 5).
Yet, the actions described in those decision making processes had components of
rational decision making. For example, when asked what was the easiest decision you
had to make on the project, most interviewees said that getting involved in the process
was easiest, but individuals came made that decision using different criterion thereby
suggesting use of a more rational decision making approach. Further, there was variation
in what the difficult decisions were and the level of impact to the team members. One
interviewee stated that for an intuitive all decisions are easy ones (Interviewee F).
Given the fact that there were some difficult decisions (as stated by the other
interviewees) means either that 1) the strict adherence to intuition was not appropriate in
all contexts, yet the interviewees stated that they felt that there was a similar decision
making process used by the thought leaders for each decision or 2) the intuitive answers
arrived at had to be justified using more rational based models that were not, by their own
admission, the strong suit of the interviewees.
In addition, there was variation in level of occurrence and emotion around decisions
made by the group that the individual was not personally sure about. Finally, given that
130
there was variation in perception on decision-making boundaries and the decision-making

processes used in the groups, again illustrating a great deal of rational thought processing
and minimal use of intuition and once again a range in the amount of personal impact due
to the decision-making differences, one might suspect that even though intuition is
verbalized as the decision-making method of choice, there are still huge components of
thoughtful rational decision-making in use even though they are not articulated as such.
From the interview data, the group of thought leaders had a safe place for the open
exchange of ideas at the group level that helped them to reconcile these differences between
decision making styles needed for organizational learning (Finding 6).
In closing, it is this researchers opinion that for an idea to move from the individual to
the institution, thereby facilitating organizational learning, and both intuitive and rational
decision making activities are required (Finding 4).
Conclusions
Four key conclusions can be drawn from this study.
The model by Crossan et al. may be enhanced to include outside organizations that
can impact organizational learning.
process but were supported by a fabric of decisions throughout.
Stated usage of intuitive or rational decision making may be driven by an
interviewees point of view or critical reflection.
131
A combination of intuitive and rational decision making methods are used at each
decision point in the organizational learning process and in both the feed forward and the
feed backward processes.
Conclusion 1: The model by Crossan et al. may be enhanced to include outside
organizations that can impact organizational learning.
The model proposed by Crossan et al. (1999) for organizational learning was
supported by this study. Further this study suggests that the model can be extended
beyond the organizational boundaries to include groups outside the organization that
impact whether organizational learning can occur. (Finding 1)
Conclusion 2: Major decisions occurred at four different points in the organizational
learning process but were supported by a fabric of decisions throughout.
process: individual, group, organization, and extended beyond the organization (Finding
1). As the idea moved through each phase of organizational learning, there were periods
of divergence and convergence of ideas (Finding 2). A fabric of decisions occurred
continuously throughout the organizational learning process across multiple levels
(individual, group, organization and beyond the organization) that impacted this process
(Finding 3).
132
Conclusion 3: Stated usage o f intuitive or rational decision making may be driven by an

interviewees point of view or critical reflection.
Interviewees may say they do one thing but describe something different. For
example, many said that they were highly intuitive decision makers yet used rational
decision making methods when describing their process.
While the thought leaders felt that there was congruence between individual and
group decision making because they both tended to focus on intuitive decision making,
the actions described in those decision making processes had components of rational
decision making. For example, when asked what was the easiest decision you had to
make on the project, most interviewees said that getting involved in the process was
easiest, but individuals came made that decision using different criterion thereby
suggesting use of a more rational decision making approach. Further, there was variation
in what the difficult decisions were and the level of impact to the team members. One
interviewee stated that for an intuitive all decisions are easy ones (Interviewee F).
Given the fact that there were some difficult decisions (as stated by the interviewees)
means either that 1) the strict adherence to intuition was not appropriate in all contexts,
yet the interviewees felt that there was a similar decision making process used by the
thought leaders for each decision or 2) the intuitive answers arrived at had to be justified
using more rational based models that were not, by their own admission, the strong suit
o f the interviewees. One might suspect that even though intuition is verbalized as the
decision-making method of choice, there are still huge components of thoughtful rational
decision-making in use even though they are not articulated as such.
133
In this case, even self-proclaimed intuitives tended to use very rational model based
explanations when describing how they made their decisions. Polanyi (1958), for
example, believed that non-logical processes were incapable of being expressed in words.
This conclusion can either be based on Polanyis view that intuition is a non-logical
process for which words dont work or that there does not exist a sufficient enough
vocabulary for an intuitive to use to describe their decision-making.
Determining whether decisions throughout the organizational learning process were
made using intuitive or rational decision making methods is influenced by the point of
view of the interviewee and maybe even the sheer act of asking the question how were
the decisions made?) Further, there was a perception expressed by the thought leaders
that rational decision-making seems to have predominantly occurred outside the thought
leadership team. Since the scope of the study focused on thought leaders, it cannot be
validated whether, in fact, these rational decision-making processes were occurring
outside the thought leadership team. Similarly, there was a perception expressed by the
thought leaders that intuitive decision-making seems to have predominantly occurred
inside the thought leadership. These perceptions were supported by the self
proclamations by many o f the interviewees that they were, as individuals, highly
intuitive. As such, the interviewees felt that there was a similar decision making process
used by the thought leaders for each decision and there was congruence between
individual decision making and group decision making (Finding 4).
134
Conclusion 4: A combination o f intuitive and rational decision making methods are used
at each decision point in the organizational learning process and in both the feed forward
and the feed backward processes.
4) A combination of intuitive and rational decision making methods are used at
each decision point in the organizational learning process: individual, group, organization
and beyond the organization. Further, a combination of intuition and rational decision
making methods are used in both the feed forward and the feed backward processes.
In conclusion, the findings support that intuitive and rational decision making were
used throughout the organizational learning process (Findings 1, 2, 3, 4) Further, the
executive thought leaders that were interviewed for this study undertook a wide variety of
activities in making decisions throughout the process of institutionalizing knowledge
from the individual to the organization as documented in Chapter 4. This feed forward
process (Crossan et al., 1999) was illustrated, for example, through meetings initiated,
presentations made, one-on-one meetings, and moving on with the project after difficult
decisions were made. Similarly, there was evidence presented of the feed back process
activities in which the organization and even beyond the organization influenced the
actions of the group of thought leaders and eventually the innovator himself.
From the interview data, the group of thought leaders had a safe place for the open
exchange of ideas at the group level that helped them to reconcile these differences
between decision making styles needed for organizational learning (Finding 6). This safe
place may have contributed to the interviewees feeling that their individual decision
making was congruent with the group decision making process because there was this
135
opportunity for people to discuss their differences in opinion and make sense of new
information coming in (Finding 5). For an idea to move from the individual to the
institution, thereby facilitating organizational learning, both intuitive and rational
decision making activities are required (Finding 4).
Limitations of Study
Single case study
As a single case, the study is bounded by a specific group of people on a specific

project at a specific period of time. It was selected because the event was bounded well
enough to provide a detailed analysis of its inception, development, and evaluation and
still provide useful research data. The findings therefore are not necessarily generalizable
to other settings, however, the findings presented here can further inform this area of
study and lend themselves to additional inquiry in other settings. For example, one of the
conclusions drawn from this study is that when the interviewees described intuitive
decision making they used rational model decision making words and processes. This
may be worthy of future study because the language used to support intuitive decision
making may be not as robust as that of rational decision making and thus becomes
troublesome for true intuitives to describe what they did during the decision making
process.
Temporal aspect o f the study
The aspect of time played both a useful and detrimental role in this study. It was
useful in that the project went through its complete life cycle within a three year period of
time which gave natural boundaries helpful to the research agenda. On the detrimental
136
side, interviewees were asked questions about events ranging from 6 months to 3 years
ago. Several interviewees had to go back through emails and be refreshed through the
researchers analysis of journal entries to ensure dates and timeframes were accurate.
This retrospective remembrance of the study may have caused the participants to attribute
more rationality to their decision making than had they been asked immediately after
making their decisions. On yet another positive side of this issue, people had a chance to
have some temporal distance from the project and tended to look it the events rather
objectively.
Researcher bias
As a former thought leader with this group, I had lively, thought provoking
exchanging with the interviewees as part of this process. The candid dialogue offered
fresh perspectives on the data as well as a way to triangulate the data across interviewees.
The previous shared experiences and mutual respect between the researcher and
interviewees allowed robustness in the interview process that I believe would have been
unmatched had I been an outsider.
Uniqueness o f the thought leadership program
In conducting this research, the uniqueness of the thought leadership program within
the LITC organization became apparent. The fact that there were a group of people who
could work outside of organizational boundaries to push this project forward seems to be
a key attribute of its success. Further, that LITC allowed a structure to exist within the
company that allowed these thought leaders the time and resources to process this idea
137
and move it forward seems unique in the marketplace and warrants further study on its
role in the organizational learning process.
Recommendations for Future Research
The nature o f intuition in the context o f decision making
A future study could build upon this research design to look specifically at intuition
in decision making. My recommendation is that it be conducted on a project that is
happening concurrently so that the interviewees have just recently made their decisions.
Getting closer to the actual decision point in time may reveal a more spontaneous and
meaningful response about how intuitive decisions were made. In this case, I believe the
length of time from the actual decision to the reporting on that decision, could have
detrimentally hindered an accurate description of how decisions were made, particularly
with regard to intuitive decisions. There is not as great a risk for rational decision
making because often times that process results in artifacts that can be later reviewed.
Intuitive decisions dont typically have an artifact associated with them.
The role that a small group o f thought leaders plays within an organization
As previously mentioned, this group of thought leaders appeared to have played a

pivotal role in the success of this organizational learning project. Future studies could
entail a research design consisting of a release of a new idea into two different
organizations; one with a thought leader group and one without to see if, in fact, this kind
of group can routinely enhance the organizational learning success rate. Alternatively,
the study could look at an idea that was rejected by the organization to determine if the
decision making patterns were the same or different as those presented here. Finally, a
138
study focusing on the impact of gender and cultural diversity on decision making process
would help to determine if these findings were germane across various sample groups.
Applying concepts from other disciplines to organizational learning
Theories from other disciplines may be able to shed great light on how
organizational learning really takes place within an organization. I suspect cross
fertilizing with the work on structuration, chaos, economic, anthropological, and even
biological theories can yield rich and robust insights. As elementary examples, the work
o f economist Herbert Simon and structuralist Stephen Barley helped to inform this work.
Recommendations for Practice
The decision making process
This case study purposely focused on a positive event. As stated at the onset, most
people view the Flexible Foundation as a positive strategy for the LITC organization.
Similarly, the people interviewed for this study were primarily interested in making this
idea a reality. In hindsight, the interviewees could point to the decisions that they made
and declare success. In some ways, this study was a seeming utopia for decision making
to move organizational learning to occur. The interviewees created the idea, moved it
forward, declared it a success and are now responding to questions about that success.
Most organizational learning initiatives within a company do not have all of this
positive energy surrounding it. Oftentimes there are groups diametrically opposed to new
ways o f doing things and the individual with the idea begins to quickly realize they are
facing an uphill battle. Looking at how decisions are made when conditions are not as
139
ideal, coupled with this study in which they were, may help to inform this topic by
presenting a more balanced view of decision making in organizational learning..................
A key defining factor to this successful project was the group of thought leaders
championing it throughout the organization. Given the fact that these leaders were
dispersed throughout the entire organization and were able to push the idea forward in a
manner that was appropriate for them seemed paramount to people connecting with
individuals who they believed could drive the idea forward. As indicated by this study,
the idea did not progress in a hierarchical or linear fashion. Work was being done on the
idea and decisions were being made about the idea at each organizational level
simultaneously.
Recommendation: When an organization wants to initiate a large scale adoption of
an idea, surround the idea with people across the organization that can influence the idea
across the entire organization. While most organizations may not have a group
designated as thought leaders as this organization did, this group can be made up of
people with positive feelings about the idea and a willingness to champion the idea across
the organization and even beyond the organization. As this study on a successful idea
institutionalization indicated, a hierarchical or linear approach to decision making may
impede the ideas progress because too many people along the way can just say no.
Accepting the non-linear and perhaps haphazard pattern from idea to institutionalization
that developed here may be more indicative of an idea that can flourish between and
around the chains of command rather than through it. Allowing a group that operates
140
around the chain of command, as the one in this case did, may allow a higher success rate
of idea incubation and eventual implementation.
The attributes o f the idea
One area of potential concern for future researchers studying decision-making in

organizational learning is that all ideas that come from individuals are not inherently
good for the organization. The ideal situation is one in which the organization has some
mechanism to conduct early evaluation on whether an idea is good for the organization
over the long term. To my knowledge, this skill set has not been made into a verifiable
science, as such it is pure speculation spiced with a little business savvy and acumen that
the executives must rely on to determine which ideas should be moved forward. Looking
at the organic things that an organization does to reject a bad idea versus move a good
idea forward would be a fascinating look at what happens in organizations and would
result in great practical applicability.
Eisenhardf s (1999) idea of keeping multiple alternatives open was another critical
component of this successful idea to implementation. While focus and minimizing
alternatives and risks are usually paramount for most organizations in an effort to control
themselves and their response to the environment, in this case study, multiple ideas
moved forward simultaneously without any indication of which one would eventually
win out. Further, even within the Flexible Foundation project itself, there were periods of
divergence o f ideas moving towards periods of convergence of ideas. Finally, in the
project, there were separate tracks that were pursued simultaneously to help bring the
idea to fruition. An outsider looking at this situation may see quite a bit of ambiguity and
141
lack of focus. Yet from all of this chaos emerged a solution that all the thought leaders
could support as well as the various parts of the organization and even beyond the
organization.
Recommendation: If an organization can live with ambiguity for a period of time, it
seems to give the people responsible for the eventual implementation of the idea, time to
internalize a new direction and move at a pace comfortable for them to support it. Quick
convergence on an idea may precipitate a negative response from the people needed to
implement the idea; rather a period of divergence allows people the ability to help mold it
and refine it into something that they can actually support.
Intuition
This study focused on the decision points that occurred in a context of organizational
learning in an effort to determine if rational models or intuitive models were used. While
the study showed that both types of decision making models occurred, there was a
predominance o f examples in which interviewees felt that they had used intuitive
decision making yet described it using rational models. This finding may provide a
glimpse that even though intuitive decision making is clearly used in organizations today,
there is still a problem with the language of intuition and, as such, needs to be supported
with rational decision making tools (or at least words) to justify its usage either
concurrently or after the fact. When confronted with this lack of language, intuitive
decision makers resort to rational decision making explanations using a language that
proves inadequate and inaccurate.
142
Recommendation: As studies in addition to this one have shown that intuition is a

crucial element in organizational decision-making, there also needs to be recognition that
the language to support those intuitive decisions is not fully evolved. In order to reap the
fully benefit potential of intuitive decisions, there needs to be a language that supports its
existence and its various facets.
Concluding Remarks
Harnessing the power of individuals new ideas to stimulate organizational learning
will be the mantra as we move through the 21st century. Those organizations that are able
to select the best ideas, align the human capital and be agile enough to learn from them
will be our market leaders. Accepting the non-linear path of organizational learning
coupled with the fabric o f intuitive and rational decision making necessary through all
levels of the organization and the divergence and convergence required to move an idea
forward requires modification to existing business models. However, an organization that
can succeed in doing so by supporting a diverse team with passion to nurture the idea;
accommodating the ambiguity necessary to drive the best ideas forward, and developing
and using a common language around intuitive decision making will be able to more fully
harness that power.
143
144
APPENDIX A
First Interview Protocol
Note: For the interviews, the correct terms for the company, project and group were used
Collect demographic information.
Age:
Location:
Length as a fellow
Job before you became a fellow
Main area of expertise
Research project introduction
Request for questions
Interviewee Research Questions
Can you describe your role with the Agile Enterprise?
How long have you been with it?
What all have you been involved with?
How did you come to join the Agile Enterprise project?
Did you have a choice in joining the Agile Enterprise project over another
assignment?
Describe the process through which you decided to join the project.
Describe the Agile Enterprise in as much detail as you can?
How would you characterize this project in terms of success; what made it so?
How would you characterize this project in terms of failures; what made it so?
145
As you reflect on the Agile Enterprise, list for me each of the key decisions that had
to be made during the life cycle of the project. Identify them.
Working with this list in #12 above, ask the participant for each one separately, to
identify actions that they personally had to undertake that assisted in the decision process.
Pleas provide as much detail as possible. Well work through each decision in the same
order that you gave them to me.
Of the decisions listed above, which ones were most instrumental in getting the
project to its end state, as described in #9
146
147
APPENDIX B
Second Interview Protocol
Note: Interviewees were given a preference as to whether they wanted to combine
this with the first interview or schedule a separate time.
How were decisions made with respect to Agile Enterprise?
Describe the process; did this apply to all decisions; how were decisions that this did
not apply to, made.
Refer back to Intv#l Question # 12.. .was this same process used for each decision?
How was your personal decision making process the same or different from what
you have described here?
Where are there overlaps and similarities; in what way are you different, in the way
you make decisions?
Identify the group decisions that had to be made. How were they the same and
different from what you described?
What was the easiest decision that you made of all of these that you have listed.
Describe the process that you went through in making that easy decision.
What was the most difficult decision that you made on the project? How was the
process with that decision different from others?
What decisions were left on the table and never finalized?
Were there any decisions that were made that you personally were not sure about?
Describe the processes involved in those instances. Did you ultimately join/make a
decision? What did you base the decision on?
148
What decisions were made within the group? What decisions were made outside of
the group? Was the process noticeably different to you?
Did the differences between processes personally affect you?
Is there anything that you want to say on that matter of the decision process that we
have not covered?
149
150
REFERENCES
Agor, W. H. (1989). Intuition in organizations. Newbury Park: CA: Sage.
Allinson, C. W. & Hayes, J. (1996). The cognitive style index: A measure of intuitionanalysis for organizational research. Journal o f Management Studies, 33 (1), 19-35.
Balgoun, C. W. & Johnson, J. Organizational restructuring and middle manager
sensemaking, (in press).
Barnard, C. F. (1938). The functions o f the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business
Press.
Bocchino, J. M. (2004). Could the transformational essence of leadership be influence? A
relationship between self and other. In conference proceedings of the Conference on
Human and Organizational Studies, November 7-8, 2004 at The George Washington
University in Ashbum, VA.
Burrell, G. & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis.
London: Heinemann.
Cahill, T. (2005). CEO Sensemaking in Turbulent Environments. Dissertation for The
George Washington University.
Clore, G. L. & Parrott, W. G. (1991). Moods and their vicissitudes: thoughts and feelings
as information. In J. P. Forgas (Ed.) Emotion and social judgments. International
series in experimental social psychology. Oxford, England: Pergamon.
Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999). An organizational learning

framework: from intuition to institution. The Academy o f Management Review, 24
(2), 522-537.
151
Cyert, R. M. & March, J.G. (1963). A behavioral theory o f the firm. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Davis, S. H. & Davis, P. B. (2003). The intuitive dimensions of administrative decision
making. Lanham: Scarecrow.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Making fast strategic decisions in high-velocity environments.
The Academy o f Management Journal, 32 (1), 543-576.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1999). Strategy as strategic decision making. Sloan Management

Review, 40, (3), 65- 72.
Epstein, S. (2003). Cognitive-experiential self-theory of personality, in Theodore Millon

and Melvin J. Lemer, eds., Comprehensive handbook o f psychology, Volume 5:
Personality and social psychology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley and Sons, 159-84.
Erikson, E. (1975). Life history and the historical moment. New York: Norton.
Gilbert, D. (1989). Thinking lightly about others: automatic components of the social
inference process, in James S. Uleman and John A. Bargh, eds., Unintended thought.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 189-211.
Gilbert, D. (2002). Inferential correction, in Thomas Gilovich, Dale Griffin, and Daniel
Kahneman, eds., Hueristics and biases: The psychology o f intuitive thought. New
York: Cambridge University Press, 167-88.
Hatch, M. J. (2003). Lecture on postmodernism in organizations. In G. W. U. ELP 16
(Ed.). Ashbum, Va.
Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the
literatures. Organizational Science, (2), 88-115.
152
Huber, G. P. & Daft, R. L. (1987). The information environments of organizations. In F.

M. Javlin, et al. (Eds.). Handbook o f organizational communications. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Isenberg, D. J. (1984). How senior managers think. Harvard Business Review.
(Nov/Dec), 81-90.
Kahneman, D. Ritov, I. and Schkade, D. (1999). Economic preferences or attitude
expressions? An analysis of dollar responses to public issues. Journal o f Risk and
Uncertainty, (Dec), 19, 203-35.
Kahneman, D., & Taversky, A. (1982). On the study of statistical intuitions. Cognition,
11, 123-141.
Kim, D. H. (1993). The link between individual and organizational learning. Sloan
Management Review, 33 (1), 37-50.
March & Olsen. (1978) The uncertainty of the past: Organizational learning under
ambiguity. European Journal o f Political Research, 3,147-171.
McDougall, P. In search of agility, Information Week, Oct 4, 2004.
Meehl, P. E. (1957). When shall we use our heads instead of the formula? Journal o f
Counseling Psychology, 2, 102-109.
Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San
Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Mezirow, J. (1998). On critical reflection. Adult Education Quarterly, 48 (3), 185-198.
Mezirow, J. (1991). Perspective transformation: How learning leads to change.
Transformative dimensions o f adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
153
Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M., (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook o f

new methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation.

Organizational Science, 5, (1), 14-37.
Newell, A. (1992). Duncker on thinking: an inquiry into progress in cognitioa In S. Koch

& D. Leary (Eds.) A century o f psychology as a science. Washington, D.C.:
American Psychological Association.
Parikh, J. (1994). Intuition: The New Frontier o f Management. Oxford, England:
Blackwell Business.
Sadler-Smith, E. & Sheffy, E. (2004). The intuitive executive: understanding and
applying gut feel in decision-making. Academy o f Management Executive, 18, 4,
76-91.
Schwandt, D. R. & Marquardt, M. J. (2000). Organizational learning: From world-class
theories to global best practices. Boca Raton, FL: St. Lucie Press.
Seidman, I. (1998). Interviewing and qualitative research: A guide for researchers in
education and the social sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Shaw, K. E. (1978). Understanding the curriculum: The approach through case studies.
Journal o f Curriculum Studies, 10(1), 1-17.
Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal o f

Economics, (Feb.), 69, (1), 99-118.
Simon, H.A. (1965). Administrative decision making. Public Administration Review, 25,
31-37.
154
Simon, H.A. (1989). Making management decisions: the role of intuition and emotion. In
W.H. Agor (ed.) Intuition in organizations: Leading and managing productively.
Newberry Park, CA: Sage.
Simon, H. A. (1991). Bounded rationality and organizational learning. Organizational
Sciences, 2 (1).
Stanovich, K. E. & West, R. F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications

for the rationality debate? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, (5), 645-665.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art o f case study research (First ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Vaill, P. B. (1996). Learning as a way o f being. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Wally, S. & Baum, J. R. (1994). Personal and structural determinants of the pace of
strategic decision making, The Academy o f Management Journal, 37, 4, (Aug), 932956.
Wangemann, M. A. (2006). What is the Nature of Intuitive Fellows Work Behavior?
Unpublished manuscript.
Weick, K. (1979). The social psychology o f organizing (2nd ed.). New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Weick, K. (1995) Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: the art and method of qualitative interview
studies (First ed.). New York: The Free Press.
Wilson, T. (2002). Strangers to ourselves: Discovering the adaptive unconscious.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
155
Wolf, W. B. (1995). Facts and figures regarding Chester I. Barnard: a review of William
G. Scotts Chester I. Barnard and the guardians of the managerial state.
International Journal o f Public Administration. Vol.18, No. 12, 1859-1904.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (Third ed. Vol. 5).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
156

Decision-Making in An Organizational Learning Context PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Decision-Making in An Organizational Learning Context PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Decision-Making in an Organizational Learning Context

May 18, 2007

UMI N um ber: 3260165

All rights reserved.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company

To my parents, Bob and Lorraine Pater, who taught me to follow my dreams.

Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation: Nonaka (1994)......32

Summary of Methodology and Design................................................................ 51

Fabric of Decision Making Examples.................................................................. 76

Uniqueness of the thought leadership program................................................. 137

First Interview Protocol................................................................................................ 145

Figure 1: ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING: DRIVEN BY INTUITION OR

Figure 1: Organizational Learning: Driven by Intuition or Rational Decision-Making

Organizational Learning: Driven by Intuition or Rational

Research Question: What form generates decisions at each point

D ecision-M aking P r o c e s s C ontinuum

irg an izatio h al L earn in g C o n tinuum

Summary of the Methodology

The limitations of this study are as follows:

This research represents the findings of one particular instantiation of an idea

Definition of Key Terms

For purposes of this study, rational decision-making occurs when information is

The role of intuition in executive decision-making has experienced a significant ebb

to A. A. Lowman, President of Northwestern Bell Telephone Company, said

System 1 and System 2 Processing

executives tended to be involved in problem solving, creative selling and innovation as

Sensemaking is driven by plausibility, rather than by accuracy. The sensible need

Nonaka (1994) broke from traditional theory conceptualizing an organization as a

shifting competitive advantages. To do this, managers create an ongoing dialogue in

In their longitudinal, qualitative study examining middle-manager sensemaking

CEOs Sensemaking in Turbulent Environments: Cahill (2005)

opportunity to understand how this process of institutionalizing one persons idea

Ethical considerations will be given to the recruitment of participants. I requested

recorded by each executive. The data is downloaded into an Excel spreadsheet. It

the institutionalization and whether those activities tended to be based on intuitive or

This research is a qualitative case study designed to gain an understanding of the

interview candidates across the full range of participation so as to get better

At the beginning.. .1 was originator o f the whole concept of agility from

to fruition.... So my involvement lasted probably one year. He was involved in the

Overview o f the Thought Leadership Program

Large Information Technology Company (LITC) - Company Overview

LITC is a global information technology consulting company that defined the

Organization Decision Point Examples

to move it to the next level so by the second meeting we had some

Beyond the Organization Example

We sort of compartmentalized what we did. If I remember correctly, we

One group focused on an internal subsidiary to join forces in going to market.

improved an organization we could take new flexibility scores and we

Now when VP Portfolio Management [former president of the acquired

I think, you know, Interviewee A has a tendency to be a little out there;

Another company being targeted for business applications was Typco.

I was involved with CTO of Typcowe worked together long ago in a

Finding 3: A fabric of decisions occurred continuously throughout the organizational

Figure 2: Codes for Each Level of Decision Making

Level of Decision Making

Individuals making decisions to impact themselves as individuals

Individuals making decisions to impact the group of thought leaders

Individuals making decisions to impact the LITC organization

Individuals making decisions to impact beyond the LITC organization

Group making decisions that impact their own group

Group making decisions that impact an individual within the group

Group making decisions that impact the LITC organization

Group making decisions that impact beyond the LITC organization