Content uploaded by Johannes Ulrich Siebert
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Johannes Ulrich Siebert on Jun 25, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Scientific Contributions
Decisions: Problems or Opportunities?
How you can prevent unpleasant decision situations
Many individuals and organizations face and address decision situations as
problems, which are to be solved. However, decisions are the only way to
influence actively what is important. This paper differentiates decision
problems and decision opportunities and illustrates how proactive, value-
focused decision making can create attractive decision opportunities and
help reduce the chance of some unwanted decision problems.
FH-Prof. PD Dr. habil. Johannes Ulrich
Siebert
is professor at the Management Center Inns-
bruck and Private Lecturer at the University
of Bayreuth.
Prof. Dr. Ralph L. Keeney
is Research Professor Emeritus at Duke Uni-
versity (US).
Keywords: Decision theory, proactive decision-mak-
ing, value-focused thinking, decision problems, de-
cision opportunities
1. Decision situation are perceived and faced as
problems
Decisions are the only way to influence what is important
for you or your organization (Keeney, 2020). Nevertheless,
decision situations are often perceived and faced as prob-
lems. In academia as well as in practice, this is even mani-
fested in the language – decisions are referred to decision
“problems”. There are several reasons for this. For exam-
ple, making a decision means taking over responsibility,
reducing one‘s decision freedom in the future (someone
who buys a house today invests his or her financial re-
sources for this purpose and cannot use them to buy a car
tomorrow), and using cognitive effort to think through the
decision situation. As a consequence, many individuals as
well as organizations tend to procrastinate in making their
decisions.
Many individual and organizational decision-makers are
content with the status quo even if they are not satisfied
with it or they perceive that the status quo degrades over
time. They behave reactively instead of proactively. For ex-
ample, married couples seek marriage guidance on average
seven years too late. Then, the level of suffering is already
at a high level and there is a “severe problem which is very
difficult to solve”.
The following example illustrates a situation, which many
families may have to face if they only make reactive deci-
sions over a long period.
Mary and Anton, both 55 years old, are living in a small
town in Tyrol. They are supporting three children, one of
which is going to school and two are studying at a universi-
ty. Twenty-five years ago, the couple decided that Mary, a
trained office clerk, should quit her job to take care of the
children and the home while Anton, a trained industrial
mechanic,wouldbethesolewageearner.Antonisworking
for a medium sized automotive supplier with 800 employ-
ees of which 200 are industrial mechanics.
A large international enterprise buys the company in Tyrol
and announces on short notice to relocate the production
to Asia. Subsequently, Anton looses his job and therewith
hisfamily’slivelihood.Antonfacesseveredifficultiesget-
ting a new job, in particular because not only he but also
199 other industrial mechanics with similar qualifications –
and many of them younger and therefore cheaper – are
searching for new jobs. Without Anton‘s salary, the parents
https://doi.org/10.15358/0340-1650-2020-6-E4, am 25.06.2020, 13:21:46
Open Access - - https://www.beck-elibrary.de/agb
cannot support the education of their children. The family
cannot pay the monthly instalment for the large house and
has to move into a smaller house in a cheaper neighbor-
hood. Anton feels a failure because he cannot provide for
his family anymore and spends most of his time sitting on
the sofa in a very bad mood. This strains his relationship to
his wife Mary substantially. In such situations, entire fami-
lies are threatened to break apart.
Needless to say that the family is facing a serious problem.
In such a situation, many individuals complain about their
fate and conclude that it was just bad luck since they could
not have done anything about it the company being sold,
the production relocated, and the employees laid off. It is
correct that employees usually do not have substantial in-
fluence on whether their company is sold. However, on an
individual basis, there were likely several opportunities to
influence one‘s life proactively (for example, by reducing
the probability of getting laid off, and in case it occurs, by
increasing at the chances to find an appropriate job).
This paper differentiates decision problems and decision
opportunities and illustrates how proactive, value-focused
decision-making cannot only reduce the probability of seri-
ous decision problems but also can help to identify very at-
tractive decision opportunities.
2. Value-focused Thinking vs. Alternative-focused
Thinking
The typical and most commonly used decision process in
practice consists of four steps. In the first step, the decision
problem is identified. This is often triggered by dissatisfacti-
on with the current situation related to a wish for improve-
ment. In the second step, the decision maker searches for
potential solutions for his or her decision problem and iden-
tifies quickly and without much effort a couple of “obvious”
alternatives. Often, one or more already identified alternati-
ve(s) serves as a starting point. For example, if a family really
enjoyed their vacation on the island Corfu in Greece last year,
then similar alternatives are developed when planning the
next holiday without substantial changes, for example, Cor-
fu, Rhodes, Samos, or Crete. However, the North Sea, Spain,
and Turkey will not be identified as alternatives. It may also
happen that an unforeseen alternative opens up and the de-
cision between this and the status quo has to be made. In
both cases, the decision maker selects in the third step a
couple of criteria representing his or her perspective on the
relevant consequences of the alternatives. In the fourth step,
the decision maker examines the gathered information and
makes his or her decision on that basis.
Keeney (1992) refers to such an orientation on obvious alter-
natives in the decision making process as alternative-focu-
sed thinking. For many individuals, alternative-focused
thinking seems to be the “natural” way of making decisions.
Already the first decisions in early childhood, for example the
decision between ice cream or chocolate, as well as experien-
ces with later decisions make individuals perceive decisions
as the choice among given alternatives. Despite the fact that
alternative-focused thinking is widely applied, it has several
severe deficiencies. The choice among obvious alternatives
may, at first glance, “solve” the decision problem. On closer
inspection, it becomes however clear that it cannot be the
primary goal just to solve decision problems reactively. Inste-
ad, decisions should be used to shape the environment acti-
vely and to achieve what you want. It is a coincidence if the
potentially best alternative was amongst the obvious ones
(Siebert and Keeney, 2015). The reason for that is that the
identification of alternatives happens in a “vacuum” and is
not clearly related to the values and objectives of the decisi-
on maker (Keeney, 1992, S. 44 pp).
Exactly this relationship is the core idea of value-focused
thinking. Values define what is important for a decision
maker and are fundamental for all that this decision maker
undertakes. Therefore, these values should guide the deci-
sion making process. The values of a decision maker are the
reason why he or she should invest time and cognitive ef-
fort in decision making (Keeney, 1996, S. 537). In compari-
son to alternative-focused thinking, value-focused thin-
king implies a change of paradigm becoming apparent by
three aspects. First, a significant effort is spent to become
aware of, clarifying, and formulating the values. Second,
logical concepts state the values as objectives and organize
them. Third, the objectives are used explicitly to identify
more and better alternatives and decision opportunities
(Keeney, 1996, pp 537).
In the last years, several empirical studies suggesting the
need for and the effectiveness of proactive, value-focused
decision-making. Bond et al. (2008) showed that decision
makers are only aware of the half of their objectives rele-
vant to their decision situation. However, how could you
make good decisions if you are not aware of your objecti-
ves? Siebert and Keeney (2015) analyzed the ability to iden-
tify alternatives in decision situations. In their first study,
the decision situation was about creating alternatives that
could contribute to achieving one‘s objectives during an
internship, for example, to get a full-time offer, to develop
certain skills, or to network. The participants were business
students who had already carried out an internship or who
were planning an internship currently. Therefore, it can be
assumed that the participants had already spent substanti-
al effort thinking about this decision situation. Even
though, without help the participants were able to identify
only about one third of the alternatives relevant to them.
More than half of the participants even overlooked their
potentially best alternative. In four further studies, the au-
Scientific Contributions
https://doi.org/10.15358/0340-1650-2020-6-E4, am 25.06.2020, 13:21:46
Open Access - - https://www.beck-elibrary.de/agb
thorsshowedthatusingobjectivesasstimulusleadstomo-
re and better alternatives. In the task of finding a title for
an academic paper, more experienced participants usually
create better titles. However, undergraduate students sti-
mulated with objectives were able to create alternatives as
good as more experienced graduate and PhD students not
prompted with objectives (Siebert, 2016).
Proactive, value-focused decision-making of individuals in
decision situations can be described with six dimensions. The
two dimensions “showing initiative” and “striving for impro-
vement” relate to aspects of proactive personality. The di-
mensions “systematical identification of objectives”, “syste-
matic identification of alternatives”, “systematic gathering of
relevant information”, and “using a decision radar” measure
the proactive cognitive skills of individuals in decision situa-
tions (Siebert and Kunz, 2016). Proactive decision-making
explains about 50 % of the variation of decision satisfaction
and also about 35 % of the variation of life satisfaction (Sie-
bert et al., 2020). If you internalize the differences between
decision problems and decision opportunities discussed in
this paper and search for decision opportunities more active-
ly, then you act more proactive in decision situations. As a
consequence, you significantly enhance your chance to be
more satisfied with your life in the long run!
3. Decision problems vs. decision opportunities
It is important to differentiate between decision problems
and decision opportunities. However, many decision ma-
kers are not aware of the difference.
”Decision problems are decisions that you must face as a
result of others’ decisions and/or circumstances beyond
your control” (Keeney, 2020). These decision problems are
to be “solved”. Decision makers often consider only the ob-
vious alternatives, those used in the past in similar situati-
ons, or alternatives suggested by others.
If someone loses his or her job due to a reorganization of
the company, this is a problem and it requires one or more
decisions to find a new job. What if someone offered you
unexpectedly a very attractive job in an interesting compa-
ny, which would mean a career jump for you? In this decisi-
on situation, you have to make one or more decisions, too.
Nevertheless, does this pose a “problem”? Although it is
positive situation, it is still a decision problem because you
have to react to such a decision of another person or orga-
nization (Keeney, 2020).
Decision makers purposely create and control decision op-
portunities. In order to better understand decision oppor-
tunities, the following question is very helpful: who should
make your decisions? The answer is trivial: you should ma-
ke your decisions. Contrarily, the answer to the next ques-
tion seems to be for many individuals not so trivial: who
should decide which decision situations you should deal
with? Ideally, it is again you; maybe not always, but as of-
ten as possible.
Consider an example that is relevant for many people. Paul
has to commute more than one hour in a train every day.
He got used to using this time by playing with his smart
phone or surfing the Internet. Paul does not have a pro-
blem. Nevertheless, he could create a decision opportunity
proactively by asking how he could use the time more ef-
fectively. He could do something he is interested in, rela-
xes him, saves him time, he really enjoys, etc.
4. Reactive vs. proactive decision-making
The difference between reactive, alternative-focused deci-
sion-making and proactive, value-focused decision-making
can be illustrated with Claudia‘s health. Claudia is a reacti-
ve decision maker. Initially, everything is fine with her he-
alth. Then, when playing soccer, she twists her ankle resul-
ting in a torn ligament. She has to face a decision problem:
which doctor should she visit? Subsequently her doctor has
a decision problem: which tests should be used for diagno-
sis? Afterwards, Claudia and the doctor have another deci-
sion problem: which treatment should be used? If every-
thing goes well, Claudia can play soccer again a couple of
weeks later. However, in a couple of months, she twists her
ankle again and the procedure repeats, as in every season.
She always seems to have bad luck, or does she? Not neces-
sarily. She could have dealt with her foot injuries proacti-
vely when she had no injury. Her objectives are obvious;
she wants to prevent her foot injuries and continue playing
soccer. What could she do so that she does not twist her
foot so often (or ideally not at all)? There are numerous op-
tions! For example, she could use special shoes or orthope-
dic bandages. Furthermore, she could do special exercises
to strengthen her muscles and ligaments, or she could avo-
id playing on artificial turf if she always twists her ankle on
this surface.
There are many studies linking a high body mass index, in-
sufficient exercise, alcohol consumption, or smoking in the
long run with substantial health problems. Reactive decisi-
on makers tend to wait until one of these potential pro-
blems becomes acute. Then they are confronted with seri-
ous decision problems to be solved, for example, which he-
art surgery is the best one. Instead, proactive decision ma-
kers recognize potential problems in the future and take
measures for prevention proactively. For example, they
exercise a little more, drink less alcohol, have a better diet,
etc. Nevertheless, it is important to emphasize that there is
no sure way to avoid problems; people can really have “bad
luck”. However, proactive decision making can reduce the
likelihood of undesired events.
Siebert/Keeney, Decisions: Problems or Opportunities?
https://doi.org/10.15358/0340-1650-2020-6-E4, am 25.06.2020, 13:21:46
Open Access - - https://www.beck-elibrary.de/agb
Affected by th
e
outcome of the
decision
Quality
of life
Quality
of life
today
Decision
situation
recognized
pursuing a decision opportunity
increases your quality of life
above its previous level
Alternative
implemented
Alternative
chosen
Affected by the
outcome of the
decision
Quality
of life
Quality
of life
today
Decision
situation
recognized
Alternative
implemented
Alternative
chosen
solving a decision problem
restores your quality of life
to near the previous level
Milestones in decision situationsMilestones in decision situations
Average value
Range of values
Average value
Range of values
Figure 1: The quality of life at four milestones of decision situations for decision problems and decision opportunities based on Siebert and
Hannes (submitted)
5. How decision situations influence the quality of life
An essential difference between decision problems and de-
cision opportunities is how they affect what is important to
the decision maker. In the case of individuals, we will focus
in the following on the most general construct the quality
of life; examples for more specific constructs include satis-
faction, fitness, health, income,etc.
In case of decision problems, the quality of life will have
deteriorated due to an event beyond the decision maker‘s
control, for example, the car is broken, the leave of absence
is denied, a tornado destroys the roof, one gets the flu, etc.
The quality of life is thus reduced. So the decision maker
tries to solve the decision problem: the car will be repaired,
the roof tiled, a doctor’s appointment arranged, etc. When
the problem is solved, the quality of life is more or less res-
tored in most cases which is illustrated on the left side of
Figure 1. However, on average a slightly lower level of the
quality of life is assumed (Keeney 2020). For example, if
Claudia ruptures her ligaments regularly, then it is likely
that the functionality of her foot will be deteriorated in the
long run. Figure 1 indicates the average value and the ran-
ge of values for the consequences of potential alternatives
solving decision problems.
The quality of life does not worsen if a decision opportunity
is not pursued. However, for example, if Claudia decides to
strengthen her ligaments and muscles with physiotherapy
and regular gymnastics, she may reach a higher level of
functionality of her feet over time and thus reduce the pro-
bability of rupturing her ligaments in the future, which
would lead to a higher quality of life. The quality of life
over time for decision opportunities is illustrated on the
right side of Figure 1. It indicates the general consequen-
ces of pursuing decision opportunities over time. Pursuing
decision opportunities improves the quality of life on ave-
rage (Keeney, 2020).
6. How to prevent problems proactively
In context of health, many people try to avoid or minimize
the probability of undesired conditions through active pre-
vention. People take preventive actions or arrangements al-
soinotherareasoflife,eveniftheprobabilityoftheevents
is extremely low, e.g. flooding, traffic accidents, or a nucle-
ar meltdown in the nearby power plant. Such preventive ac-
tions (alternatives) are obvious and are in most of the cases
presented to the decision makers by someone else, for
example, by insurance agents or sales representatives for
survival kits and nuclear shelters for your garden. The deci-
sion makers can choose the most feasible alternative with
only little effort. If there are no such alternatives presen-
ted, many people remain in their status quo until an event
beyond their control significantly deteriorates the quality
of their life. The consequences of such passive behavior can
be dramatic.
In the following, the example of the reactive sole wage ear-
ner Anton from Tyrol is considered and it is shown how the
problem might have been alleviated or even prevented. An-
ton and Mary should have started acting systematically and
proactively in their decision situations 25 years ago. In par-
ticular, they should have thought about which alternatives
might help to reach their objectives.
As a starting point, it is necessary to identify Anton and
Mary’s objectives. For this purpose, it is very helpful for
them to think about desirable and undesirable consequen-
ces. For sure, losing their livelihood is a severe and undesi-
Scientific Contributions
https://doi.org/10.15358/0340-1650-2020-6-E4, am 25.06.2020, 13:21:46
Open Access - - https://www.beck-elibrary.de/agb
rable consequence. Hence, “maximizing financial security”
can be identified as one fundamental objective. Beside this
objective, there are certainly other relevant objectives. In
order to keep this paper concise, only this one objective is
used to illustrate Anton and Maria’s proactive decision-ma-
king process. However, in practice it is highly recommen-
ded to consider also other relevant objectives. Thus, here
the question is: what opportunities did the family have to
achieve their objective “maximizing financial security” in
case of Anton’s dismissal?
Mary could have taken a part-time job which she could
increase if necessary
Mary could have – at least in the last 10 years – improved
her qualifications and worked for an organization from ho-
me
The children could have financed their studies with scho-
larships or part-time jobs
The family could have bought a smaller house for which
they would not have had to take a loan, they have now
difficulties paying back
In the following, we look at the opportunities of the sole
wage earner Anton that have not been considered yet. In
particular, we focus on his professional activities: how can
employees achieve their fundamental objective “maximi-
zing financial security”? For example, by pursuing the ob-
jectives “reducing the probability of being dismissed” and
“increasing the probability of getting an appropriate job
quickly in case of dismissal”. Which decision opportunities
might Anton have pursued to achieve these objectives?
Anton could have been continuously improving his quali-
fications. Thereby, he could have thought of which skills
would gain relevance in his professional field in the futu-
re and focused on them, for example IT, robotics, team
leadership, English, etc.
Anton could have networked better, for example by parti-
cipating at certain events for employees and employers in
his field
Anton could have informed himself on a regular basis ab-
out potential employers
This list is certainly not complete. Anton would not have had
to pursue all opportunities at the same time. Investing one
to two hours per week in pursuing some of these opportuni-
ties would likely have been sufficient. Such an investment of
time seems to be more than reasonable in comparison to po-
tential undesirable consequences. Many sole wage earners
like Anton would now wish to have spent such an effort in
the last years. Furthermore, the improved skills could also
enhance the chance of getting promoted so that the “invest-
ment” would very likely be amortized soon.
7. Conclusion: How you get what you want
Many individuals and organizations perceive and face decisi-
on situations as problems to be solved. This basic attitude is
reactive and focuses in most cases on restoring the status to
that before the problem occurred. In contrast, Keeney (2020)
suggests addressing decision situations proactively by iden-
tifying decision opportunities systematically. The example of
Anton from Tyrol illustrates how proactive, value-focused de-
cision making can reduce the probability of future decision
situations with severe negative consequences.
Proactive, value-focused thinking can also increase the pro-
bability of getting what you dream about. For this, you have
to first identify your values and objectives and then use them
to systematically create decision opportunities. For example,
many students consider their thesis as a tiresome obligation,
i.e. as “a problem to be solved”. In this case, you should “re-
frame your decision situation” by changing the decision pro-
blem to a decision opportunity. Identify your objectives. If
you wish to work for a certain company, think about how you
could use your thesis as a means to achieve this. Maybe the
company is facing challenges suitable for a thesis, or you
identify in your thesis an urgent need to act in a new field, in
which you will gain certain expertise interesting for the com-
pany. A different student may want to pursue an academic
career. In this case, she may organize your thesis so that she
can work closely with her supervisor on a hot and relevant re-
search topic. She may get to know the researchers in the lab,
realize whether she enjoys working as researcher, and, ideal-
ly, lay the foundation for her first publication. Other examp-
les for decision opportunities include choosing the field of
studies and the specialization, or studying abroad. Proactive,
value-focused decision making does not only enhance the
quality of life but also strengthens the empowerment of acti-
vely shaping one‘s life. Take advantage of this opportunity!
Literature
Bond,S.D.,Carlson,K.A.,Keeney,R.L., Generating Objecti-
ves: Can Decision Makers Articulate What They Want?, in:
Management Science, Vol. 54 (2008), 56–70.
Keeney, R. L., Value-focused Thinking, A Path to Creative
Decision Making, Cambridge 1992.
Keeney, R. L., Value-focused thinking: Identifying decision
opportunities and creating alternatives, in: European Jour-
nal of Operational Research, Vol. 92(3)3 (1996), 537–549.
Keeney, R. L., Give Yourself a Nudge: Practical Procedures
for Making Better Personal and Business Decisions, Cam-
bridge 2020.
Siebert, J. U., Can Novices Create Alternatives of the Same
Quality as Experts?, in: Decision Analysis, Vol. 13(4) (2016),
278–291.
Siebert/Keeney, Decisions: Problems or Opportunities?
https://doi.org/10.15358/0340-1650-2020-6-E4, am 25.06.2020, 13:21:46
Open Access - - https://www.beck-elibrary.de/agb
Siebert, J. U.; Hannes, C., The relative benefits of pursuing
decision opportunities and decision problems (submitted.
Siebert, J. U., Keeney, R. L., Creating More and Better Alter-
natives for Decisions Using Objectives, in: Operations Re-
search, Vol. 63 (2015), 1144–1158.
Siebert, J. U., Kunz, R., Developing and Validating the Multi-
dimensional Proactive Decision-Making Scale. In: Special Is-
sue on “Behavioral Operations Research”der Zeitschrift Euro-
pean Journal of Operational Research, 249(3) 2016, 864–877.
Siebert, J. U., Kunz, R., Rolf, P., Effects of proactive decision
making on life satisfaction. European Journal of Operational
Research, 280(1) 2020, 1171–1187.
Siebert, J. U., von Nitzsch. R., Das Jobauswahlproblem für
Berufseinsteiger: Eine entscheidungstheoretische Anwen-
dung – Teil 1: Problemstrukturierung in Ziele, Alternativen
und Unsicherheiten, in: Wissenschaftliche Beiträge, Wirt-
schaftswissenschaftliches Studium, Vol. 47(10) (2018), 4–
11.
Scientific Contributions
https://doi.org/10.15358/0340-1650-2020-6-E4, am 25.06.2020, 13:21:46
Open Access - - https://www.beck-elibrary.de/agb
