This paper examines how the Big Five personality traits — conscientiousness, extraversion, openness, and agreeableness — shape the decision-making approaches of different managerial types. It analyzes how each personality profile frames objectives, responds to uncertainty, and performs under high-stress conditions. The paper also explores which situational stressors are most disruptive for each managerial type, drawing on heuristics research and the role of neuroticism as a predictor of stress. A personal reflection concludes the analysis, describing how the author's own decision-making style shifts in response to managers with different personality profiles.
The conscientious manager frames a decision-making situation as an opportunity to set an objective and then take the steps necessary to attain it. This type of manager views decision-making as part of his or her duty and approaches the task rationally. An objective is established, and information is gathered. That information is assembled rationally with the objective in mind. The decision is not made until the manager is confident that due diligence has been conducted and that the choice is the right one. In the face of uncertainty, this type of manager seeks more information to eliminate ambiguity. This takes the form of adjustment from an anchor (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974), which constitutes the known information combined with an estimate of the unknown. In a highly stressful situation, this type of manager is prone to taking too long to make a decision — high pressure is not congruent with their managerial style. The need for perfect information and a perfect response is detrimental to self-efficacy among this personality type (Page, Bruch & Haase, 2008).
The extraverted manager views decisions with a sense of urgency. These managers set objectives and then move ahead quickly on a course of action. The objectives are assumed rather than confirmed. The decision is made swiftly, with energy and exuberance. This manager will feel that they are making the right decision but will not know for certain that this is the case. In the face of uncertainty, this type of manager will push ahead with a decision anyway. Their preferred heuristic is representativeness, as they are quick to pass judgment. These managers thrive in high-pressure situations, specifically because of their willingness to act decisively. Their biggest mistake is becoming overly reliant on heuristics and failing to gather all pertinent information, as urgency begets impulsivity for this group (Whiteside & Lynam, 2001).
The open manager views decision-making as an opportunity to gain new knowledge and experience. The process and the knowledge gained through it are as important — if not more so — than the decision or its outcomes. This type of manager is less goal-oriented but will engage enthusiastically with decision-making processes that allow for the acquisition of new knowledge or experience. More routine decisions are not given the same attention. In the face of uncertainty, this manager may respond by seeking more information. Scenarios aid the open manager's ability to conceptualize a decision, allowing them to use their creativity to envision solutions. In high-stress conditions, these managers may make a decision quickly, but it will not be their most informed one. These managers generally prefer to dictate the pace of the decision-making process.
An agreeable manager views decision-making as an opportunity to build consensus and strengthen relationships within the organization. This manager's approach involves more stakeholders, ensuring at least some degree of satisfaction among all relevant parties. Agreeable managers will not finalize a decision until they have done their best to ensure that all concerned parties are satisfied. In the face of uncertainty, this manager seeks certainty by soliciting the input of others. Any heuristic may be employed, but the decision will need to be inclusive. Under high-stress conditions, these managers may panic, though they may also attempt to reduce the stress level before committing to a decision.
The types of situations that cause stress for each of these managers vary according to their personality profile. Overall, it is the degree of neuroticism that is the best predictor of stress, rather than the other four dimensions (Cox et al., 1999). The other personality traits, however, are valuable for determining the specific types of stressors each manager is most susceptible to.
Conscientious managers are most stressed when they are unable to gather the information they feel they need to make a decision. Even under pressure, such managers will remain calm enough to seek out that information. This task-focused coping mechanism allows them to deflect stress and solve problems (Matthews et al., 2006). It is only when such information is unavailable that the conscientious manager becomes uncomfortable with the decision-making process.
Extraverted managers enjoy most high-stress decision-making situations. They are prone to the errors typical of managers who decide quickly and rely on biases and heuristics, but the stress level of the situation itself is less of a factor. These managers are more stressed by having to spend long hours researching and carefully deliberating over decisions. They will have made up their minds early in the process and will not understand the point of continuing further.
Open managers are stressed most by routine decisions. Such decisions are viewed as tedious and therefore receive less attention, leading to decision-making that fails to consider the full scope of relevant information.
Agreeable managers are stressed by situations that are antagonistic in nature. Decisions that have a negative impact on others — such as layoffs — cause them the most stress. They are prone to delaying such decisions and may choose to mitigate the resulting harm rather than follow through on the required course of action. They can become overly cautious in situations where they may cause harm to others.
"Author's adaptive responses to different managerial styles"
"Academic references supporting the analysis"
You’re 62% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.