New Research Identifies "4 P's" of Decision-Making
Researchers at the company Meseekna have created a new cognitive assessment called the Decision Making Performance Index (DMPI).
The DMPI identifies your decision-making style based on how you perform in a simulated decision-making environment.
Styles are divided into four categories: productivity, proactivity, pressure-tolerance, and people-centrism.
Personality tests tend to follow a simple formula: rate yourself on a series of statements such as “I feed off of the energy of others” or “I am prone to overthinking a situation” or “I rely on logic more than intuition” to find out what “type” of person you are.
But researchers at Meseekna, a company focused on the science of decision-making, are changing the equation.
They believe that the best way to understand ourselves is to observe how we interact in a simulated decision-making environment. This is why they have created the Decision Making Performance Index (DMPI), a tool that rates people on four core decision-making styles—productivity, proactivity, pressure-tolerance, and people-centrism—based on their performance in a 30-minute game of geopolitics.
“The DMPI builds on a rich heritage of scientific research and study into human meta-cognition and complex thinking,” says Akhila Satish, CEO of Meseekna. “Over 500 peer-reviewed publications and 50 years of research have contributed to the development and design of simulation systems engineered to capture and quantify the ‘how’ of thinking, a key variable in predicting success.”
According to the researchers, the DMPI fills in a missing piece of evaluation and training.
“A significant portion of survey style assessments, such as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), rely on our perceptions of who we are, who we think we appear to be, and who we think we should be,” says Satish. “By contrast, our tool focuses on how we make decisions, which allows us to provide structured feedback to help people improve the quality of their decisions, in organizational contexts and elsewhere.”
Here’s how it works. Participants in Meseekna’s DMPI are asked to play the role of president of a fictitious country, called Aquzile. They are faced with a series of decisions, such as how to respond to the provocations of neighboring countries and how to deal with infrastructure failures. Based on people’s performance in the simulated decision-making environment, Meseekna’s algorithm provides feedback to help them become a more well-rounded decision-maker.
“Although people tend to gravitate toward one or two decision-making styles across most situations, we find that the best decision-makers are those who are able to invoke the decision-making style that best matches the needs of the situation,” says Satish.
Meseekna’s approach meshes with other research on the importance of “versatility” in leadership. For instance, a recent paper published in Consulting Psychology found that leaders who adopted a versatile leadership style—characterized by a flexible combination of forceful, enabling, strategic, and operational leadership—were more effective at managing teams through the pandemic.
The DMPI evaluates people’s decision making across four categories, described here:
Productivity. Productivity is an indicator of one’s ability to prioritize, plan, and execute on specific, interrelated, and disparate tasks.
Proactivity. Proactivity is a reflection of one’s ability to be ahead of the curve, with several well-designed game plans and strategies ready to implement when needed.
Pressure-tolerance. Pressure-tolerance is an indicator of one’s ability to execute on tasks, integrate information, and make strategic decisions under stressful, chaotic circumstances.
People-centrism. People-centrism is a reflection of one’s ability to communicate, facilitate, and be responsive to the needs of others around them.
Feedback is tailored to help individuals better understand their decision-making style and to identify areas for improvement. Individuals have the opportunity to advance their learning with interactive courses specific to each style, or workbook reflection exercises.
The tool also offers feedback on which roles might be a good fit given a person’s performance in the game. For example, someone who shows an aptitude on the dimension of people-centrism might be well-suited for a job in human resources, business development, or sales, while someone who excels in pressure-tolerance might do well in a health care or military role.
The researchers are quick to point out that there is no “best” decision-making style, just like there is no “best” personality or cognitive style.
“There is no single style that tends to perform best in the game,” says Satish. “And there really is no perfect or best score. It’s all about matching your strengths and opportunities with the role you are in.”