ISSN: 2349-5677

Volume 2, Issue 3, August 2015

Intuition and Strategic Decision Making – a study

of health care sector in Uttarakhand, India
Prof. S.P. Singh
Professor, Faculty of Management Studies,
Gurukul Kangri University, Haridwar, Uttarakhand (India).
[email protected]

Himani Singhal
Research Scholar, Faculty of Management Studies,
Gurukul Kangri University, Haridwar, Uttarakhand (India).
[email protected]

Abstract
Purpose- Intuition is a way of knowing without conscious reasoning. Rational
thinking allows the person to take decision on the basis of certain data and
calculations. There are occasions where rational thinking does not suffice for
decision making. Top level executives rely on their intuition to solve complex
problems where rationality cannot help.

Design/ Methodology/ Approach- This research paper employ ex post facto

research design. Questionnaire has been used to collect data from the doctors.

Findings- Results revealed that, there was a significant association between

intuition and intuitive strategic decision making.

Originality Value- Two traditional theories in decision making includes

analytical and intuitive decision making. Though intuition is used in decision
making and could be of importance for the whole decision making process,
there is not much field research performed on this subject. This present paper
strives to empirically test the impact of intuition in strategic decision making.

Keywords- intuition, strategic decision making

Paper Type – Empirical research paper

56
 ISSN: 2349-5677
Volume 2, Issue 3, August 2015
Introduction
Strategic decision making implies both intuitive and rational processes as
they are equally important for a strategic decision maker, but there is not much in
the way of role of intuition in strategic decision making. A part from many
popularized treatments of intuition in the literature today, there is only a handful
of serious scholarly works on the subject. Of these, the majorities are essentially
theoretical in nature; field research in management setting is virtually nonexistent.
One of the most basic assumption about management is that systematic and
careful analysis yield superior choices than those coming from intuitive processes.
(Mintzberg, 1994).
A frequently discussed topic is that the rational decision making model
often is not adequate for the modern decision maker. The complexity of the
environment and the abundance of information may lead to cognitive overload.
The modern decision maker has to deal with this complex environment and
develop skills to be able to survive.
Nelson, Quick and Khandelwal (2011) contend that the definitions of
intuition put forward by various authors share some common assumptions. Firstly,
intuition is fast; secondly, intuition is used at a level below consciousness; thirdly,
it involves learned patterns of information and lastly, it appears to be a positive
force in decision making. Further, it is of positive use in business for decisions
involving problem identification, managing information, recognizing patterns,
dealing with conflict and forming strategies in tune with the evolving
environment.
Rational analysis is a useful and indispensable tool in strategy making
which even Mintzberg (1994), a strong critic of strategic rationality, concedes.
The stand of this study is that, a theory of strategic decision making has to take
into account both rational and intuitive processes (Pondy, 1983; Simon, 1987). As
Jonas Salk, the discoverer of polio vaccine, noted: ‘if we combine our intuition
and our reason, we can respond in an evolutionary sound way to our problems’
(cited in Ray & Myers, 1990: 249).
Though intuitive processes are used with decision making and could be of
importance for the whole decision making process, there is not much field
research performed on this subject. Though, there are quite a few treatments on
the subject in recent literature, but they are mainly theoretical from origin instead
of based on field research within the context of a management environment
(Khatri& Alvin, 2000). Researchers suggest that there is nothing mystical or
magical about intuitive processes and that they are not paranormal or irrational
(Simon, 1987).

57
 ISSN: 2349-5677
Volume 2, Issue 3, August 2015
Barnard (1938) recognized the role of both logical (analytical) and non-
logical (intuitive) thinking in the business context. Barnard uses forceful
language to drive home is point: ―logical reasoning processes are increasingly
necessary but are disadvantageous if not in subordination to highly developed
intuitional processes. Concurring with this view point Mintzberg (1989) notes that
effective business decision making is possible only through the coupling of logic
(right hemisphere style) with intuition (left hemisphere style). In situations of
inadequate information managers make decision on the basis of hunches
(intuition). Mintzberg further comments that at senior levels analysis must coexist
with intuition - a fact that many analysts and planners have been slow to accept.
Similarly, Isenberg (1984) discusses managerial use of intuition to check on the
results of rational analysis, to integrate scattered data and to find solutions
bypassing in-depth analysis. Agor (1986) discusses managerial use of both
intuition and rationality. The organization can, therefore, make better use of the
existing talent. Yukl similarly emphasizes that effective managers use an
appropriate mix of intuition and conscious reasoning for the type of decision
situation confronting them (Yukl, 1994).
Jagdish Parikh (1991) conducted a landmark survey of thirteen thousand
managers worldwide and reported that they credited eighty percent of their
business success to intuitive decision making. Cooper and Sawaf (1997) describe
case studies of products (such as scotch tape, postit notes) which were introduced
in the market only on the basis of intuitive hunches amidst stiff opposition and
were resounding successes. Further, they suggest that as individuals practice
intuitive thinking, it forms a habit and takes the form of Intuitive Flow where
intuitive thinking spontaneously flows in all aspects of work and personal life.
Klein (2002) notes that the key to success at work is acting on one‘s
intuitions and making quick, savvy decisions based on experience and sometimes
just a strong gut feeling. He also notes that an increasing number of top-level
managers, including CEOs, are openly admitting to the use of 'gut feeling' or
intuition in their decision-making. Klein emphasizes that even those who claim
that they do not rely on intuition are, and have to, without being consciously
aware of it.
Tata Sons executive director, R. Gopalakrishnan (2007), stresses that
intuition, not analysis, is the key to becoming an effective leader.
The need for the study arises from the lack of research as well as cohesive
opinion regarding the nature of intuition in general and especially in the context
of business. Compared to theoretical published work on intuition, the empirical
research work on intuition is scarce. Psychological factors (such as questioning
one-self and curiosity) that have been stressed repeatedly by intuitive
58
 ISSN: 2349-5677
Volume 2, Issue 3, August 2015
professionals in books and theoretical articles have been ignored entirely in
empirical studies. The primary need for the study is, therefore, to measure
intuition in the Indian context and analyze the intuition categorically with
intuitive strategic decision making. The study was undertaken with the objective
to examine intuition and strategic decision making, individually as well as
collectively.

Methodology
Based on the theoretical framework the following research hypotheses were
formulated.
H0 (1): there is no significant intuition in health care sector.
H0 (2): there is no significant intuitive strategic decision making in health care
sector.
H0 (3): there is no significant association of intuition with intuitive strategic
decision making.

Research Design
This research work employ ex-post facto research design as it sought to
investigate the role of intuition in strategic decision making in health care sector
in Uttarakhand State.
Measures
Different scales were used to attain the objectives, to measure the intuition &
strategic decision making of doctors. Questionnaire was designed in three parts;
first section sought the demographic details, Second section covers the scale on
intuition followed by the third section which covers the scale on intuitive strategic
decision making. The first instrument consisted of 34 items concerning 6
dimensions as curiosity, emotional awareness, faith in intuition, self-questioning,
inadequate information, knowledge based on experience. Items for the first scale
are a combination of adopted items and self framed items.The second instrument
consisted of 22 items concerning 4 dimensions as stability, expansion, divestment
and entrepreneurship. Both scales used 5 point likert scale ranging from
1=strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree. Items for the second scale were
developed by the researcher for the present study.

The internal reliability of the scale was measured by Cronbach Alpha method.
Cronbach’s alpha for scale on Intuition is 0.782 and for strategic decision making
is 0.738, which shows adequate reliability of the scale. Validity was tested
through KMO measure the sampling adequacy which should be greater than 0.5

59
 ISSN: 2349-5677
Volume 2, Issue 3, August 2015
(Kaiser, 1974) for a satisfactory factor analysis to proceed. Content validity was
tested through experts from different institutions in India.
Table 1
*Significant @ 0.05
Sample and Sampling Technique

Scale Cronbach’s Alpha KMOof

A sample Bartlett’s
100 Nursing
Intuition 0.782 Homes/
0.631*Hospitals was
randomly selected from a
S.D.M 0.738 0.639*
list of Nursing
Intuition and S.D.M 0.818 0.519*
Homes/Hospitals issued by
Figure 1 C.M.O of different districts.

Administration
Both the questionnaires were administered on medical doctors having their
own hospitals or nursing homes from Uttarakhand state. A total of 220
questionnaires were distributed out of which 153 were recovered giving a return
rate of 69.54% but 141 questionnaire were found to be usable for data analysis.

Analysis & Findings

The data collected were analyzed using percentages, frequencies and chi
square. The criterion variable or dependent variable was strategic decision
making, while the predictor variable was intuition.

60
 ISSN: 2349-5677
Volume 2, Issue 3, August 2015
Results- Table 2
S.No. Demographic Criteria Frequency Percentage
1 Age 31-40 44 31.4
40-50 54 38.8
50-60 20 19.9
60 and above 13 9.9
2 Gender Male 92 65.2
Female 49 34.8
3 Qualification B.D.S, B.U.M.S 14 8.5
D.G.O, D.L, 21 9.2
D.ORTH
F.R.C.S 1 .7
M.C.H 4 2.8
M.B.B.S 26 18.4
M.D, M.S 75 22
4 Family Background Business 76 53.9
Service 65 46.1
5 Spouse in same Yes 79 56
profession No 62 44
6 Average Number of 0-30 37 2.1
patients attended (daily) 31-60 74 14.2
Above 60 32 64.5
Above 1 crore 23 16.3
7 Membership of medical 0-1 24 17
association 2-3 94 66.7
4-5 7 5
6-7 8 5.7
Above 7 8 5.7
None 30 14.1
8 Has a website of their Yes 13 9.2
hospital/nursing home No 128 90.8

61
 ISSN: 2349-5677
Volume 2, Issue 3, August 2015
Majority (80.8%) of the doctors were male with the age ranges from 40-50 years
and the qualification of M.D, M.B.B.S & D.G.O having an average experience of
10-20 years. A good (54%) percentage of doctors belonged to family having their
own business and 56% doctors have their spouse in same profession. Most of the
doctors attended 60 patients a day. Majority (84%) of respondents having
hospitals/ nursing Homes, invested capital ranging between 25 lakh- 1 crore
employing about 6-10 nurses and attendants. Majority of doctors attended on an
average 13 seminars/conferences with membership of 3 medical associations.
Nearly 80% of doctors have reported their presence on social networking websites
Table 4 Chi-Square Tests
Value Df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 12.663a 4 .013

Likelihood Ratio 15.652 4 .004
Linear-by-Linear Association 5.084 1 .024
N of Valid Cases 141
a. 4 cells (44.4%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 3.64.

such as Face book/ twitter. Majority (90.8%) of respondents did not have website
of their hospitals/ nursing homes.

Table 3 Intuition * S.D.MR Cross tabulation

S.D.MR Total
Low Moderate High
Count 9 7 4 20

Low Expected Count 4.3 11.9 3.8 20.0

% within IntuitionR 45.0% 35.0% 20.0% 100.0%
% within S.D.MR 30.0% 8.3% 14.8% 14.2%
Count 62 19 102
IntuitionR Expected Count 21.7 60.8 19.5 102.0
Moderate
% within IntuitionR 20.6% 60.8% 18.6% 100.0%
% within S.D.MR 70.0% 73.8% 70.4% 72.3%
Count 0 15 4 19
Expected Count 4.0 11.3 3.6 19.0
High
% within IntuitionR 0.0% 78.9% 21.1% 100.0%
% within S.D.MR 0.0% 17.9% 14.8% 13.5%
Count 30 84 27 141
Expected Count 30.0 84.0 27.0 141.0
Total
% within IntuitionR 21.3% 59.6% 19.1% 100.0%
% within S.D.MR 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

62
 ISSN: 2349-5677
Volume 2, Issue 3, August 2015
For the purpose to see the association between intuition and its role in strategic
decision making chi square test has been used. The responses from both the scale
were categorized in three ranges- people with low intuition, moderate intuition
and high intuition.
Table 5- Ranges of Intuition and Intuitive Strategic Decision Making

Scale Limits Low Moderate High

Lower Upper Limit of Upper Limit of
Minimum Score 34 124 148
Limit “Low” “Moderate”
Intuition Upper
Average-1S.D 124 Average+1 S.D 148 Maximum Score 170
Limit
Lower Upper Limit of Upper Limit of
Minimum Score 22 62 80
Limit “Low” “Moderate”
S.D.M Upper
Average-1S.D 62 Average+1 S.D 80 Maximum Score 110
Limit

The chi square test yielded a p value of 0.013 which is smaller than 0.05. The test
provides evidence that intuition matters in intuitive strategic decision making in
the sample. There is a significant association between intuition and intuitive
strategic decision making.
Highest score is attained by moderate range. Further it can be interpreted that
respondents belonging to moderate intuition category use their intuition in taking
strategic decision making the most followed by respondents belonging to low
intuitive category and low intuitive strategic decision making.

Results & Limitations

Numerous studies conducted on intuition in business decision making across the
globe provide conclusive evidence of the increasing recognition and worth of
intuitive decision making. CEOs are now openly acknowledging the reliance on
intuition for critical decisions. Results of the present study are in tune with the
earlier studies on of the study found intuition to be an important strategy process
factor which top level personnel often exhibit in their strategy decision making
(Khatri & Alvin, 2000). Another study found that there were major perceived
differences between entrepreneurs and executives answers in terms of how their
decisions are made. Executives tend to exhibit more characteristics of analytical
decision making the entrepreneur’s do (Paprika, 2006).
A very important issue is that whether a combination of intuitive synthesis and
rational analysis would be better than using either rational analysis or intuitive
synthesis alone. For example, Pondy (1983) noted that the rational and the
intuitive are equal partners, each providing a context within which the other can

63
 ISSN: 2349-5677
Volume 2, Issue 3, August 2015
operate. Similarly, Simon (1987) observed that, to be effective, any organization
has to combine analysis and intuition in strategy making.
Naturally, definitive conclusions cannot be drawn from this single study. In fact,
several limitations of the study warrant mention. First, the study controlled for
geography, size, and industry influences in an effort to assure more conclusive
evidence. But, further work is needed on samples of small and large firms drawn
from diverse geographical and industrial contexts. Another limitation of this
research is that the self-report measures it used may not truly reflect the
phenomena of interest. Personal bias, values, and misperceptions may influence
responses. Future research is needed to verify and extend the findings presented
here.

References
 Agor, W.H., (1986), ―The logic of intuition: how top executives make
important decisions‖, Organizational Dynamics, vol.14,p.5-18.
 Barnard, C.I.,(1938), ―The Functions of the Executive‖, Harvard
University Press.
 Cooper, R. and Sawaf, A. (1997), ―Executive EQ : Emotional
Intelligence in Business‖, Orion Business Books.
 Gopalakrishnan, R, (2007), ―The Case of the Bonsai Manager: Lessons
from Nature‖, Penguin.
 Isenberg, D.J.,(1984),―How Senior /managers Think‖, Harvard Business
Review, Nov-December,p.81-90.
 Kaiser, H.F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31-36.
 Khatri, N. & Alvin, H., (2000). The Role of Intuition in Strategic Decision
Making, Human Relation, Vol.53, pp. 57-86.
 Klein, Gary A.,(2002), ―Intuition at work‖,1st ed, Doubleday.
 Mintzberg, H. (1994). The rise and fall of strategic planning. The Free
Press: New York.
 Mintzberg, Henry, (1989), Chapter 4 ―Coupling Analysis and Intuition in
Management‖ in ―Mintzberg on Management: Inside Our Strange World
of Organizations‖, p. 372-373, 354-355.

64
 ISSN: 2349-5677
Volume 2, Issue 3, August 2015
 Nelson, D., Quick, J.C. and Khandelwal, P., (2011), ―An Innovative
Approach to Learning and Teaching Organisational Behaviour‖, ORGB,
Cengage Learning India Pvt Ltd, 2011.
 Paprika, Z.Z. (2006). Analysis and Intuition in Strategic Decision Making
the Case of California, California.
 Parikh, Jagdish,(1991), ―Managing Yourself‖, Oxford, 1991. p45.
 Pondy, L.R. The union of rationality and intuition in management action.
Introduction: common themes in executive thought and action. In S.
Srivastava and associates (Eds), The executive mind. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass, 1983, p. 181.
 Ray, M. & Myers, R. Practical intuition. In W.H. Agor (Ed.), Intuition in
organizations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1990, pp. 247–62.
 Simon, H.A. Making management decisions: The role of intuition and
emotion. Academy of Management Executive, February 1987, 57–64.
 Yukl, Garg, ―Leadership in organizations‖ (1994); 3rd edition; Prentice
Hall; p. 275-276, 442-444.

65