Fast and high‐quality decision‐making: The role of behavioral integration

• Published date: 01 December 2023
• Author: Neil Shepherd,Erik Mooi,Said Elbanna,Bowen Lou
• Date: 01 December 2023
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12573

SPECIAL ISSUE ARTICLE

Fast and high-quality decision-making: The role of behavioral

integration

Neil Shepherd

1

| Erik Mooi

2

| Said Elbanna

3

| Bowen Lou

1

1

Lancaster University Management School,

Lancaster, UK

2

Faculty of Business and Economics, University

of Melbourne, Carlton, VIC, Australia

3

College of Business and Economics, Qatar

University, Doha, Qatar

Correspondence

Neil Shepherd, Senior Lecturer, Lancaster

University Management School, Lancaster,

UK, LA1 4YX.

Email: n.shepherd1@lancaster.ac.uk

Abstract

Decision speed and quality are both vital for organizational survival and prosper-

ity. However, they are assumed to be in tension, and there has been limited theory

development concerning whether, and if so how, both are attainable. To address

this gap, we turn to behavioral integration which captures the intensity of intra-

team interactions. While behavioral integration is considered an antecedent of

decision quality, it is presumed to slow decision-making, and overall, there

remains a “black box”surrounding the mechanisms, behaviors, and processes

which transmit behavioral integration to decision outcomes. Our theoretical

account challenges the notion of behavioral integration being an impediment to

decision speed, and we present new theory and evidence—comprising a mixed-

method field study—explaining how behavioral integration acts as a key driver of

both decision speed and quality while theorizing decision uncertainty as a new and

important boundary condition.

KEYWORDS

behavioral integration, decision quality, decision speed, decision uncertainty, strategic decision-making

INTRODUCTION

Strategic decisions are novel, ill-structured, and complex;

they cut across organizational functions, require signifi-

cant financial investment, and have profound, long-term

ramifications (Eisenhardt & Zbaracki, 1992; Mintzberg

et al., 1976). Moreover, a commonly held assumption

among top managers is that “we can have good decisions

or fast ones, but not both”(De Smet et al., 2019, p. 2).

Indeed, decision speed and quality are widely assumed to

be in tension (Forstmann et al., 2008; Ratcliff &

Rouder, 1998), and the so-called “speed-accuracy”trade-

off is one of the oldest and most widely studied effects in

decision-making research, and in general, slower deci-

sions are assumed to be more accurate than faster deci-

sions (Donkin et al., 2014). However, it is now more

imperative than ever for organizations to make strategic

decisions that are both fast and effective, owing to

extreme events such as spiraling inflation, a global energy

crisis, and conflict in Europe, aside from the lingering

effects of the COVID-19 pandemic—all of which are

compounded by fierce competition, rapid technological

innovation, and globalization (Dykes et al., 2019).

However, the literature presents a puzzle. It suggests

that firm performance requires firms to make high-

quality strategic decisions (Forbes, 2007), while at the

same time, and especially in dynamic and munificent con-

texts, requiring them to make fast strategic decisions

(Eisenhardt, 1989; Shepherd et al., 2021); yet theory

development explaining how firms can achieve both out-

comes is limited. While prior research has examined in

isolation the antecedents of decision speed

(e.g., Bakker & Shepherd, 2017; Clark & Maggitti, 2012)

and decision quality (e.g., Amason, 1996; Olson

et al., 2007), considerable uncertainty remains concerning

whether, and if so how, both are attainable—despite fre-

quent, long-standing calls in the literature for such

research (cf. Eisenhardt & Zbaracki, 1992;

Elbanna, 2018; Elbanna et al., 2017).

To advance knowledge of how decision quality and

speed both might be attained, we turn to behavioral inte-

gration, which is viewed as a significant refinement of

DOI: 10.1111/emre.12573

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided

the original work is properly cited.

© 2023 The Authors. European Management Review published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Academy of Management (EURAM).

European Management Review. 2023;20:679–697. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/emre 679

upper echelons theory (Halevi et al., 2015;

Hambrick, 2005) and is associated with a wide range of

positive effects, including enhanced firm performance,

preventing organizational decline, as well as promoting

organizational ambidexterity (e.g., Carmeli, 2008;

Carmeli & Schaubroeck, 2006; Lubatkin et al., 2006).

Despite the strong evidence base attesting to the positive

effects of behavioral integration, when teams collaborate

and coordinate the activities of multiple team members

to reach decisions jointly, there are likely to be down-

sides. Indeed, the originator of the construct, Donald

Hambrick, commented that “this group property can

impede speed, diffuse responsibility, and waste manage-

rial resources”(Hambrick, 1994, pp. 189–190).

However, the theory and empirical evidence we pre-

sent in the current article suggest the opposite—and far

from being a slow and cumbersome team trait, we theo-

rize that behavioral integration is a key driver of both

decision quality and decision speed. Drawing from the

social psychology literature, we provide a theoretical

explanation concerning the “black box”which converts

behavioral integration into decision quality and decision

speed (see Figure 1).

Our first contribution is therefore to unravel and

explain this black box, and our theoretical account con-

tends that the within group “multiway interchange”

which epitomizes behaviorally integrated teams

(Hambrick, 1994) fosters the social heuristic of informa-

tion symmetry—that is to say team members have equal

access to salient information. In turn, information sym-

metry affects two fundamental team decision-making

processes—on the one hand, it contributes to procedural

justice in the decision-making process which helps to effi-

ciently build consensus and in doing so dampens distor-

tive political behavior. On the other hand, information

symmetry helps teams to develop a common language

and shared understanding (Sutter, 2006) through the

rapid synthesis of tacit knowledge distributed among

team members (Heavey & Simsek, 2017). Indeed, infor-

mation symmetry generates a wide pool of information,

ideas, and hypotheses in a short timeframe, thereby

speeding up the decision process while at the same time

increasing the probability of reaching an effective

judgment (Bachrach & Mullins, 2019; Heavey &

Simsek, 2015). In this way, behavioral integration facili-

tates the rapid processing of more information, contrary

to the popular view that fast decision-making necessitates

“frugal”information processing.

The importance of behavioral integration is perhaps

best illustrated with an analogy. Take for instance a team

of medical professionals charged with caring for a patient

with multiple organ failure and requiring urgent admis-

sion to the intensive care unit (ICU) (example adapted

from Schippers et al., 2014). The team faces considerable

challenges pertaining to the rapid and accurate diagnosis

and treatment of the patient to prevent imminent loss of

life. The team’s decisions though may be excessively

influenced by the ICU consultant, who sits at the apex of

the hospital and is similar in some ways to CEOs. Con-

versely, the team might be inadequately influenced by a

respiratory physician particularly if their input is not

requested or valued despite them possessing unique infor-

mation about the patient’s symptoms. Consequently, the

team would fail to integrate and develop implications of

the full repertoire of information held by its members

(Woolley et al., 2008). Similarly, team conclusions may

not be updated in the presence of new information, if, for

example, the ICU consultant’s preferences dominate,

thereby restricting discussion of alternative diagnoses and

treatments. Worse still, as other team members’perspec-

tives are sidelined, the team naturally becomes divided

and dysfunctional. As we theorize in this article, behav-

ioral integration enables teams to avoid such information

failures and intrateam dysfunctionality, through contin-

ual multiway interchange enabling the real-time integra-

tion of the full extent of information, assessments,

concerns, or hunches distributed within the team.

Strategic decisions have been characterized as inher-

ently uncertain (Shepherd & Rudd, 2014), and while

empirical evidence shows that decision uncertainty

reduces information exchange while stimulating distor-

tive political behavior (cf. Dean & Sharfman, 1993;

Papadakis et al., 1998), there is little theory and evidence

concerning how organizations can cope with the uncer-

tainty facing organizations throughout the world. Indeed,

teams often struggle to integrate different opinions and

FIGURE 1 Opening up the black box of behavioral integration.

680 SHEPHERD ET AL.