Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 90 (2013) 278 – 287

6thInternational Conference on University Learning and Teaching (InCULT 2012)

Managerial Decision Styles of Deans in Institutions of Higher

Learning
Leele Susana Jamiana*, Gurnam Kaur Sidhub, Parmjit Singh Aperaparc
abcc
Faculty of Education, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam, 40200 ,Selangor, Malaysia

Abstract

Numerous studies in the area of Management and Leadership indicate that one’s decision making style (DMS) is reflective of
one’s leadership style. Using the Decision Making Styles Inventory (DMSI) developed by Rowe and Boulgarides (1992), this
paper attempts to explore and report the managerial DMS among 54 deans from four randomly selected Malaysian public
universities. The scores derived from DMS inventory were categorized into four decision styles namely: Directive,
Behavioural, Analytical and Conceptual. Results revealed that a majority of deans adopted at least one very dominant or
dominant DMS intensity level for Behavioural DMS along with one or two back- k up decision styles. These findings indicate
that most of the deans possessed more than one style category implying that they have considerable flexibility in their
managerial DMS. These findings have implications for leadership training

©2012 TheAuthors.
© 2013 The Authors.Published
Published byby Elsevier
Elsevier Ltd.Ltd.
Selection and/orpeer-review
Selection and/or peer-review under
under responsibility
responsibility of theof the Faculty
Faculty of Education,
of Education, Universiti
University Teknologi
Technology MARA, Malaysia.
MARA, Malaysia.

Keywords:Decision Making Styles, Leadership, Deans, Institutions of Higher Education (IHE), Leadership Flexibility.

1. Introduction

The external changes which take place in the real world have somehow affected the academic landscape of
institutions of higher education (IHE) all around the globe (Bensimon and Neumann, 1993, as cited in Wolverton
et al., 2001). This situation has brought a great impact on the roles and responsibilities of managers cum leaders
at all levels in IHE including deans. Initially, deans were much regarded as managers of academic institutions and
their duties focused mainly on the administration of students which include managing, planning, budgeting,
advocating, fundraising and cultural perspectives (Wolverton et al., 2001).

_____________

*Corresponding author. Tel.: +603-55227431

E-mail address: leelephd@yahoo.com

1877-0428 © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of the Faculty of Education, University Technology MARA, Malaysia.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.07.092
 Leele Susana Jamian et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 90 (2013) 278 – 287 279

However, with the twin impact of globalization and internationalisation, the roles and responsibilities of deans in
IHE are far more challenging as they are regarded to act as both managers and leaders of change. Hence, a
synergy between these two roles: as a manager and a leader, requires deans of IHE to make numerous decisions
in the effort to build effective academic organization.

In such circumstance, the effectiveness of leadership is always being measured. In measuring one’s leadership,
Boulgarides and Cohen (2001) have applied the leaders’ managerial decision making styles inventory (DMSI) as
a tool to measure and reflect leadership style. They indicated that leadership style is “a consistent pattern of
behaviour displayed by a leader over time” (p.1). Thus, based on past empirical research, both scholars disclosed
that “a leader’s style is reflected in his style of decision making” (p.1). In the same vein, Jones (2005) emphasizes
that decision making is one of the important competency components in leadership. He noted that both decision
and decision-making processes are explicitly “fundamental to all leadership and management processes” (p. 121).
In relation to leadership, Drucker (1967, as cited in Harrison, 1999) stated that what determines an effective
organization will always fall back to an effective leader who is also an effective decision-maker.

Leonard, Scholl and Kowalski (1999) agree that decision making serves as the fundamental function in any
organizations. This is because the quality of decisions made would influence the effectiveness of the managers
and consequently, this affects the success of the whole organization. Likewise, Hammond (1999) advocates that
the success in all the roles orchestrated by a manager in an organization reflects decisions that he or she made.
Above all, Rue and Byars (2000) state that a manager must first be a good decision maker before he or she could
be a good planner, organizer, staffer, leader, and controller (regardless of any organization).

As to date, managerial decision making related area has been commonly investigated in relation to
organizational performance among corporate managers and leaders in private and business organizations
worldwide. In addition, there are also a number of studies carried out among school principals at school levels
globally but very little has been conducted in the local Malaysian university setting particularly among deans.
Considering the fact that one’s decision making could affect the effectiveness of an organization, the researchers
embarked on the current study with the aim to explore and identify DMS of deans in Malaysian public
universities.

2. Background

Rowe and Boulgarides (1992) affirm that there is a need to measure decision making styles since “individual’s
decision styles form the backbone of effective decision making” (p.22). Drucker (1966, as cited in Rowe and
Boulgarides, 1992) accentuated that effective decision-maker will try to concentrate only on few important
decisions, to search for what is constant in a situation, and to think through what is strategic and generic rather
than to solve problems. Above all, the notion of style flexibility has given more dominant effect rather than one
best style only. This is because a flexible style can be matched to suit the change in a specific situation, thus
improves effectiveness. Further, DMS help to probe the psychological structure of the mind and they also could
clearly display how an individual thinks differently based on his or her perceptions and values.

Decision making style inventory (DMSI) employed in the study was based on four driving forces and situations
confronting decision-makers as developed by Rowe and Mason in 1987. The scores derived from the inventory
will categorize decision-makers into four basic decision styles namely: Directive, Behavioural, Analytical and
Conceptual styles. Measuring individual’s style pattern is significant since this would predict how one will react
to various situations. In an absolute sense, decision styles are the tabulated scores that one receives after
answering a set of questions in the DMSI. However, in a relative sense, DMSI is the “way” where style is utilized
based on decision making situations. They further added that effective decision-makers are the ones whose style
matches the requirements of the decision situations. In short, decision style is referred to as “the way in which a
280 Leele Susana Jamian et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 90 (2013) 278 – 287

manager perceives information and mentally process that information to arrive at decisions” (Rowe and
Boulgarides, 1992, p.28). With this understanding, DMS is seen as relevant variable to be measured since this
would reveal implication as to whether academic managers do have considerable flexibility or rigidity in
changing their DMS based on situation warrants (Rowe and Boulgarides, 1992). Thus, this paper attempts to
reveal findings on deans’ decision making styles according to DMS model and to discuss the implications of such
identified styles in relation to leadership.

3. Statement of the Problem

To date there has been scant empirical research concerning deans in Malaysian IHE. Among the studies
conducted on deans is the Profiles of Deanship in Malaysian Public Universities (Parmjit, et al., 2009). These
researchers reiterated that much literature agreed that deans should be able to lead and above all possess
management skills in order to navigate effective academic organizations. However, the study also revealed that
both deans and deputy deans along with heads of departments, ranked decision-making skills as the highest
management competency required by deans. This is followed by other management skills such as communication
skills, problem-solving skills, interpersonal skills, public relation skills, negotiation skills and lastly ICT skills
(Parmjit et al., 2009). Even though this study managed to illuminate empirical data on the most needed
management skills among deans in Malaysian universities, little is known concerning their managerial decision
making styles and skills.

Past literature had claimed that the effectiveness of a manager would give impact to either the success or
failure of an organization (Alqarni, 2003; Leonard, Scholl and Kowalski,1999; Yulk 1994; Barnard 1938). Thus,
many empirical studies in the area of leadership particularly the managerial decision making were conducted and
tested using different models of decision making. As early as in 1975, Harrison accentuated that decision theory
was a relatively new field and again in 1999, Harisson stated that decision theory as in “the academic discipline is
relatively young” (pg.9). Most of the earlier decision making orientations were found to have strong quantitative
emphasis which focuses on the “decision itself rather than the process within the choice takes place” (Harisson:
1975, pg 16). In view of this, few theories of decision making were constructed, built and tested by numerous
leadership researchers in the quest to search for empirical evidence. However, a dispute between rational and
cognitive decision making models used in decision making investigation was identified as a heated and debatable
issue among scholars in decision-making related area.

Hambrik (1987) states that the rational models of decision making have often ignored the characteristics of
individual decision-makers, and presumed that information processes and arriving at a decision process are rather
similar in all individuals. Bourgeois and Eisenhardt (1988), and Rajagopalan, Rasheed and Datta (1993, as cited
in Leonard, Scholl and Kowalski, 1999) affirm that the rational models have somehow ignored the actual
decision process and how individual differences affect that process. In the same vein, Hoy and Miskel (2005) add
that the structure of decision making process in rational models is rather similar in all individuals regardless of
the types of organizations be it in the military, educational or industrial organization. In short, most scholars in
decision making related area advocated that the universality of the rational models in decision making is the same
regardless the specific context or task. Correspondingly, even though educational organizations are different from
any profitable organizations in a great many essential ways, decision making process is assumed to be similar
regardless of individuals and organizations.

On the other hand, as a result of the severe limitations of the classical models in the rational decision making
models, the evolution of theory in decision making continues to take place. When cognitive decision making
model or also known as cognitive style came into being, Eisenhardt and Zbaracki, (1992, cited in Leonard, Scholl
and Kowalski, 1999) indicate that the rational models are very much contradictory to the cognitive models. They
argued that observations over the actual decision making situations revealed decision making behaviour is
 Leele Susana Jamian et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 90 (2013) 278 – 287 281

typified by numerous differences in many fields such as the number of criteria used, type of information
searched, sources of information used, number of alternatives generated and the use of heuristics in making
decision. Thus, they concluded that fundamentally cognitive decision model is based upon individuals’
characteristics that are linked to individuals’ differences in decision behaviour and decision process information.
As numerous investigations in cognitive style emerged, exploration on leadership attributes particularly decision
making styles became prominent and timely. Due to the differences of both decision models, the researchers
believe that the cognitive decision model could provide a better platform in understanding one’s leadership in
terms of their decision styles rather than the universality of one’s rational decision skills. Having to consider both
models, the researchers embarked on the managerial decision styles based on the cognitive decision model.

4. Literature Review

Due to complexities and variations, Rowe and Mason (1987; as cited in Jacoby, 1996) proposed the term
decision making style (DMS) as “the way a person uses information to formulate a decision” (p.5). In fact, they
further emphasized that DMS is still a cognitive process which encompasses one’s personality that is highly
correlated to one’s needs, values, and self-concept. Rowe and Boulgarides (1992) asserted that “individual
decision making styles form the backbone of effective decision making” (p.22). However, due to the complexity
of individuals, one may not expect organizational leaders to “neatly fit into only one category of decision making
style” (p.31). Indeed, typical organizational leaders have at least one dominant style with at least one and often
two back-up styles. Therefore, the notion of one best style may not be ideal and this has been replaced with the
idea of style flexibility that can be modified to suit a specific situation. According to management scholars, the
flexibility in decision making style apparently can improve effectiveness.

4.1 Rowe and Mason’s Decision Making Style Inventory (DMSI)

The Decision Making Style Inventory (DMSI) was developed in 1987 by Alan Rowe and Richard O. Mason.
Rowe and Boulgarides (1992) clarify that decision making styles (DMS) builds on two key elements: values and
perception. DMS describes the way managers make decisions. It involves factors such as the context in which
decision is made, the way the managers perceive and understand cues, and what managers value and judge as
essential. In brief, DMS reflects the manner in which managers react to a given situation. This includes how
managers interpret and understand cues, what managers believe and how they respond to numerous demands and
forces. The theorists above stated that DMS can be measured using an instrument called the decision making
style inventory (DMSI) which probes the psychological structures of one’s mind.

A complete decision-style model by Rowe and Mason (1987) reflects a person’s cognitive complexity and
values. Figure 1indicates the model which describes an individual’s personality, self-competence, interpersonal
competence, situation awareness and problem-solving capability. This model is divided into four styles namely:
Directive, Analytical, Conceptual and Behavioural styles. DMS model has two components such as cognitive
complexity and values orientation. The lower half of Figure 1 indicates Directive and Behavioural styles
preferred structure and the upper half preferred complexity. Based on the figure too, the values dimension
separates the left and right halves and covers task and people dimensions. The left half of the figure indicates the
Analytic and Directive styles that prefer task. The right half indicates the Conceptual and Behavioural styles that
preferred people. Description of each style is also presented.
282 Leele Susana Jamian et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 90 (2013) 278 – 287

Left hemisphere Right hemisphere

(logical) (relational)
Analytical Conceptual
Complexity Enjoys problem solving Is achievement-oriented Leaders
Wants best answers Has a broad outlook
Tolerance Wants best control Is creative Thinking
For ambiguity Uses considerable data Is humanistic/artistic (Ideas)
Enjoys variety Initiates new ideas
Is innovative Is future-oriented
Cognitive Uses careful analysis
Directive Behavioural
Complexity Expects results Is supportive
Is aggressive Uses persuation
Acts rapidly Is emphathetic Managers
Need for Uses rules Communicates easily
Structure Uses intuition Prefers meetings Doing
Is verbal Uses meetings (Action)
Uses limited data
Task/Technical People /Social
Values Orientation

Figure 1: Complete Decision Style Model by Rowe and Mason

(1987, as cited in Rowe and Boulgarides, 1992).

1. Directive Style - is characterized by autocratic and internal orientation. Individuals with this style have low
tolerance for ambiguity and low cognitive complexity. The focus is on technical decisions which involve a need
for speed, efficiency and limited alternatives. They prefer specific information to be given verbally and like to
dominate others. They are also results-driven yet constantly search for security and status, focused, structured,
aggressive and rigid managers. Their orientation towards the internal organization is always short range with
tight controls.

2. Analytical Style - is characterized by an autocratic bent. Individuals with this style have a much greater
tolerance for ambiguity and more cognitive complex personality. They always need more information and
consideration for alternatives since they focus on technical decisions. They are typified by the ability to cope with
new situations, enjoy more problem solving and always strive to achieve the maximum. Position and ego seem to
be important characteristics and they often reach top posts in a company or start their own company since they
need more control. However, they are not rapid in decision making but enjoy variety and prefer written reports.
They also welcome and enjoy challenges and examine every detail in a situation.

3. Conceptual Style - is characterized by high cognitive complexity and people orientation. Typically,
individuals under this category are thinkers rather than doers. Hence, there is trust and openness in relations.
They share goals with subordinates, tend to be idealists, and emphasize more on ethics and values. They are also
creative and can readily understand complex relationships. They tend to use data from numerous sources and
consider many alternatives. They focus on long range with high organizational commitment. They are
achievement-oriented, value praise, recognition and independence. They prefer loose control to power and
exhibit participation.

4. Behavioural Style – is characterized by supportive and friendly orientation (concerned with subordinates’
well being and are people-oriented). Individuals with this style have a low cognitive complexity scale but they
 Leele Susana Jamian et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 90 (2013) 278 – 287 283

have deep social concern for organizations and development of people. They normally provide counselling, are
receptive to suggestions, communicate easily, portray warmth, empathetic, persuasive, compromising and accept
loose control. They focus on short term range and uses meetings for communicating. They tend to avoid conflict,
seek acceptance but sometimes are insecure.

The amount that each of the DMS intensity is used can be determined from the score specified on the decision
making style inventory (DMSI). There are four levels of intensity namely: 1. Least preferred level of intensity
which indicates that the individual rarely uses the style but when required could do so, 2. Back-up level of
intensity which indicates that the individual will use the style occasionally and reflects the typical score on the
decision style inventory, 3. Dominant level of intensity which indicates that the individual will frequently use this
style in preference to other styles (however, in general, individuals can have more than one dominant style and
they can also switch from one to another) and 4.The Very dominant level of intensity which indicates the highest
level that describes the compulsive use of the style preferred by individuals. This level of intensity becomes the
focus of individuals and will override other styles that have less intensity level (however, there are individuals
who do have more than one very dominant style). Table 1 is used to determine the level of intensity as well as
interpreting the scores for an individual’s style based on the scores obtained on the DMSI instrument. For
instance a person with a score of Directive = 55, Analytic = 95, Conceptual = 80 and Behavioural = 70 would
have the following levels of intensity:

Directive = 55 marks : Least preferred Analytic = 95 marks : Back up

Conceptual = 80 marks : Back up Behavioural = 70 marks : Dominant

Based on the example stated, a person with the scores shown above has one dominant DMS, i.e. Behavioural,
two back-up DMS, i.e. Analytic and Conceptual and one least preferred decision making style, i.e. Directive.
DMSI aims at testing ones’ preferences when approaching a decision situation. DMSI instrument consists of 20
questions. Each question consists of 4 responses that concern typical situations facing managers. Respondents are
to rank behaviours in each question using the scale of 8, 4, 2, and 1. A ranking of 8 indicates the response is most
like you, 4 indicates moderately like you, 2 indicates slightly like you and 1 indicates least like you.

Table 1: Decision Making Style Intensity (DMSI) Levels (Rowe and Boulgarides, 1992)

Intensity
Style Least Back-up Dominant Very Dominant
preferred
Directive Below 68 68 to 82 83 to 90 Over 90
Analytic Below 83 83 to 97 98 to 104 Over 104
Conceptual Below 73 73 to 87 88 to 94 Over 94
Behavioural Below 48 48 to 62 63 to 70 Over 70

4.2 The Nature of Decision Making in the Educational Management.

Lunenberg and Ornstein (2004) define ‘decision making’ as the process of choosing from among alternatives.
This is significant to an understanding of educational administration because “choice processes play an important
role in motivation, leadership, communication and organizational change” (p.182). Decision making permeates
all parts of administrative functions such as planning, organizing, staffing, directing, coordinating and controlling
in the education setting. Both scholars also added that all decisions result in some influence on the performance
of the faculty and students. Therefore, educational managers must develop their decision making aspect such as
284 Leele Susana Jamian et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 90 (2013) 278 – 287

decision styles and skills for they make many decisions which eventually affect the whole working organization.
Further, educational managers are also being evaluated on the results of their administrative decisions. In this
case, the quality of the decisions is crucial in evaluating their effectiveness. The quality of numerous decisions
made will not only reflect an impact to the clients but above all, will transcend the values held by educational
managers who represent the educational organization.

The decline in the world ranking of Malaysian universities in the past few years has gained major attention of
all stakeholders including students, administrators of higher education, the government, academicians and even
the public. With the deteriorating state of Malaysian public universities, the issue of quality decision making
particularly by the heads (deans) has been identified as one of the potential areas that needs to be investigated. A
study conducted by Nik Maheran indicated that indirectly, the issue has to do with the management of IHE. She
encourages top managers in universities to be more democratic leaders than autocratic ones and ensures the
“reform undertaken deliver the right prescriptions for the well known weaknesses or shortcomings” (2009, p.4)
This is mainly due to the reason that the autocratic leadership style in IHE may create poor management and
indirectly lead to poor decisions. Eventually, all these may lead to the falling standard of IHE in Malaysia
(Magoha, 2004). Nonetheless, scholars in the area of leadership always believe that rigorous empirical researches
on leadership need to be carried out in order to investigate academic excellence in academic organisations. Zairi
(2009) the author of the book entitled the Total Transformational Thinking in Academic Leadership - A New
DNA asserted that a new DNA is required in becoming a leader in the academic environment. He defends that it
is crucial to understand the key attributes of an effective leader in an academic setting. He further mentions that
IHE needs to conduct investigations and determine individuals’ capacity as in “Who are they?” since this
information would help to build the leadership of academic leaders.

5. Methodology

The main aim of this study was to investigate the decision making styles of deans in four randomly selected
Malaysian public institutions of higher learning. A survey using the questionnaire of managerial Decision
Making Styles Inventory or also known as DMSI (developed by Rowe and Mason, 1987) was used to measure
and identify deans’ managerial decision styles. 60 sets of questionnaires were sent to all 60 deans from the four
randomly selected Malaysian public universities. The population sample consisted of two research intensive and
two non-research universities. Questionnaires were sent via the drop-off survey method where it allows the
respondents to answer the survey at their own convenience. The strength of this method as compared to the
traditional mail survey is that it allows the researcher to make personal contact with the respondent, to explain the
importance of the survey, and to answer any questions or concerns the respondent might have. Out of these 60
deans, 90% (n=54) completed and returned the questionnaires. To reiterate, this study aims to explore the
following research question:What are the managerial decision making styles intensity (DMSI) levels among
deans of public universities in Malaysia?

6. Results and discussions

Table 2 indicates findings on Deans’ managerial Decision Making Styles Intensity (DMSI) levels Profile. It is
apparent that among all the four decision making styles, 31.5%, (n=17) of the deans scored within the very
dominant and 24.1% (n=13) scored within the dominant DMSI levels of Behavioural decision style. When these
results were combined, they form the biggest percentage and number of deans (55.4%, n=30) hence suggesting
that more than half of the deans of public universities in Malaysia perceived themselves as Behavioural decision-
makers. The findings also revealed that 42.6% (n=23) and 33.3% (n=18) of the deans are more likely to employ
Analytical and Conceptual decision styles as their back-up. In addition, 50% (n=27) and 44.4%, (n=24) of the
deans indicated that their least preferred decision making styles would be Directive and Conceptual styles.
 Leele Susana Jamian et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 90 (2013) 278 – 287 285

Table 2: Deans’ Managerial DMSI Profile (frequency and percentage)

Managerial Least Back-Up Dominan Very Total

Decision Style Preferred t Dominant
Behavioural 10 14 13 17 54
(18.5%) (25.9%) (24.1%) (31.5%)
Analytical 17 23 7 7 54
(31.5%) (42.6%) (13%) (13%)
Conceptual 24 18 7 5 54
(44.4%) (33.3%) (13%) (9.3%)
Directive 27 15 7 5 54
(50%) (27.8%) (13%) (9.3%)
Total 78 70 34 34 216
(36.11%) (32.41%) (15.74%) (15.74%) (100%)

These findings suggest that more than half of the deans were dominantly Behavioural decision-makers.
However, it is also important to note that many of them are able to switch to Analytical and Conceptual decision
styles as their back-up. Half of them do not embark on Directive decision style as it recorded the least preferred
decision style. Overall, these findings imply that many of the deans are flexible decision-makers who do not
confine themselves to only one style (which reflects rigid decision-makers). This is in line with the theory put
forward by Rowe and Boulgarides (1992) which indicates that as managers they are rather flexible in their
decision styles and are able to change and suit their decision styles from one particular situation to another with
little difficulty.

Rowe and Boulgarides (1992) characterize Behavioural decision-makers as those who formulate decisions
based on their cognitive process which are usually deeply rooted in people-orientation and have social concerns
for organization. This implies that more than half of the deans’ decision style is mainly based on people-relations
which require more personal attention rather than intellectual aspect. Nevertheless, the scholars also emphasized
that those who adopted Directive and Behavioural styles are action-oriented and they operate as first-line
managers. However, they highlighted that the upper levels of managers who adopt the Behavioural decision style
are often “seen as being inconsistent, and leave their subordinates in a weak position because they cannot be sure
of what to expect” (pg.34). Based on this statement, it can be inferred that the dominance ofBehavioural decision
style among deans in this current study should be highlighted since deans are regarded as the top academic
managers who lead the academic organization which requires consistency in their academic performance.
Nonetheless, when compared to studies pertaining to decision styles at a global level, the current study portrays
rather similar results with those involving the educational setting using the same instrument. For instance a study
by Abdulrahman AlQarni (2003) entitled “The Managerial Decision Styles of Florida State University Library
Managers” indicated that the majority of Florida university libraries’ managers (n=40 or 47% out of 85
respondents) scored within the very dominant and dominant Behavioural DMSI levels and was followed by
Conceptual decision style (n=28 or 32.9% out of 85 respondents).

A similar result was also reported in a recent doctoral thesis by Ismail Hussein Amzat (2010). His study
involving 1,117 university teaching staff investigated decision making styles and their relationship with Job
Satisfaction in five Malaysian public universities. The findings uncovered that three out of the five public
universities in Malaysia had actually displayed the Behavioural decision style, while the remaining two had
somehow displayed the Analytical and Conceptual decision styles.

Besides being dominantly Behavioural decision-makers, the findings also suggest that half of them do not
embark on Directive decision style as it recorded the least preferred decision style. Rowe and Boulgarides, (1992)
286 Leele Susana Jamian et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 90 (2013) 278 – 287

highlighted that an effective manager is the one who has a combination of Directive and strong back-up
Behavioural DMS. The combination of both styles will lead to an action-oriented manager. In view of the study,
only 22.3% (n=12) of the deans scored within the very dominant and dominant, and 27.8% (n=15) scored within
the back-upDMSI levels of Directive. Overall, these findings imply that only half of the deans are characterized as
the autocratic managers who are results-driven and have low tolerance for ambiguity and low cognitive
complexity. Hence, this would raise some implications to the organization.

7. Implications and Conclusion

The current paper investigated the managerial Decision Making Styles (DMS) of 54 deans from four randomly
selected Malaysian public universities which corresponded to the complete human cognitive model brought by
Rowe and Mason (1992). Findings on deans’ DMSI levels revealed that more than half of the deans rated
themselves within the very dominant and dominant Behavioural, back-up Analytical and the least preferred
Directive and Conceptual DMSI levels. Concurrently, findings also indicated that many deans perceived
themselves as flexible decision-makers when they occasionally rated few other styles as their back-up and the
least preferred DMSI. A few implications can be derived from the findings. First, the exploration and
identification of managerial DMS of deans are essential since findings help to illuminate the current leadership
practices of deans in Malaysian public universities cum the educational management setting. It is also important
to note that the majority of deans can be said to be rather flexible in their decision styles as they are able to
change and suit their decision styles from one particular situation to another with little difficulty since majority of
them rated one or two very dominant or dominant DMSI levels along with one or two back-up DMSI levels.
Second, the findings are valuable since they help researchers to chart a strategic leadership course among deans
towards academic effectiveness. Rowe and Boulgarides, (1992) highlight that an effective manager is the one
who has a combination of Directive and strong back-up Behavioural DMS. The combination of both styles will
lead to an action-oriented manager. Nevertheless, findings from this study indicated that more than half of the
deans possessed the very dominant and dominant Behavioural DMSI instead of a mixture of a few decision
styles. Hence, these findings cannot be used as a benchmark for the training of novice deans in Malaysian public
universities. Instead, what can be recommended is training be provided to expose deans to the various decision
styles and strategies on how these styles could shape them to be not only effective managers but leaders in the
academic management setting. Rowe and Boulgarides (1992) disclose that for researchers the exploration and
identification of managerial DMS reflect ones’ leadershipwhich helps to form and strengthen relationship of a
manager-to-a-group. Thus, training in managerial DMS is relevant and highly recommended.

References

Abdulrahman Alqarni, (2003). The managerial decision styles of Florida’s State University libraries’ managers. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation.The Florida State University. Retrieved July 1, 2007, from http:www.worldcat.org/title/managerial-decision-styles-of-
floridas-state-university-libraries-managers/oclc/54616665
Birt, T. (2010, January 28).Connecting Brain Dominance and Learning Capabilities.
Retrieved December 22nd, 2010, from http://ezinearticles.com/?Connecting-Brain-Dominance-and-Learning-
Capabilities&id=3657378
Boulgarides, J. D. & Cohen, W. A. (2001).Leadership style vs. leadership tactics.The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship,
6, (1), 59-73.
George J. and Ellis Jr. (1982).Using Awareness of Brain Sidedness To Build More Effective Teams.Journal of Management Education 1982;
7; 33. DOI: 10.1177/105256298200700407. Retrieved November 27 th, 2007,from: http://jme.sagepub.com by Jennifer Karlin on
November 27, 2007. Published by: SAGE Publications. On behalf of: Organizational Behavior Teaching Society.
Hambrik, D.C. (1987). ‘Top management teams: Key to strategic success’. California Management Review, 3, 88-108.
Hammond, J.S. (1999). Smart choices. Boston: Harvard Business School Press
Harrison, E. F. (1999). The Managerial Decision-Making Process. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Hoy, W. K. and Miskel, C. G. (2005). Educational Administration.Theory, Research and Practice. Boston: McGraw Hill
Ismail Hussein Amzat (2010). Management and decision making styles and their relationship with academic job satisfaction in some
Malaysian public universities.Doctoral Thesis, University of Malaya, 2010.
 Leele Susana Jamian et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 90 (2013) 278 – 287 287

Jacoby, J.M. (2006). Relationship between principals’ decision making styles and technology acceptance and use.Doctoral Thesis, University
of Pittsburgh, 2006. Retrieved August 31, 2010 from http://etd.library.pitt.edu/ETD/available/etd-01022007-
223237/unrestricted/jacobyjm2_etdPitt2006.pdf
Jones, J. (2005). Management Skills in Schools. London: Paul Chapman Publishing – A SAGE Pub.Co.
Leonard, N. H., Scholl, R.W. & Kowalski, K. B. (1999). ‘Information processing style and decision making’.Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 20, (3), 407-420.
Lunenberg, F. C. and Ornstein, A. C., (2004).Educational administration.Concepts and practices. (4thed.). Belmont USA: Thomson
Wadsworth.
Magoha, P. W. (2004). “A critique for the modernization of management in higher education institutions of developing nations”.World
transactions on Engineering and Technology Education, 3,(1), 105-110.
NikMaheranNik Muhammad, FilzahMd Isa, SitiNorezam Othman and Rosli Abdul Rahim. (2009). Decision making Quality of Higher
Education Institution Leaders in Malaysia: Leadership Style, Decision Style, Managerial Process and Competitive Intensity
Relationships. Research Report for the AkademiKepimpinanPengajiantinggi (AKEPT), KementerianPengajianTinggi Malaysia.
Retrieved November 30, 2010 from http://www.nikmaheran.com
Ornstein, R. (1975). The Psychology of Conciousness.Pelican Book.
Parmjit, S., Sidhu, G. K., Chan Y. F., HazadiahMohd.Dahan, HabibahAshari, SitiKorataAini&ZalizanMohdJelas.(2009). Profiles of Deanship
in Malaysian Public Universities. Asian Journal of University Education, 5, (2), 1-26.
Rowe, A. J. and Mason, R. O. (1987).Managing with style: A guide to understand, assessing, and improving decision making.San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publisher.
Rowe, A. J. &Boulgarides, J. D. (1992).Managerial decision making: A guide to successful business decisions. New York: McMillan.
Rue, L. W. &Byars, L. L. (2000). Management, Skills and Application. New York: McGraw Hill.
Wolverton, M., Gmelch, W., Montez, J. &Nies, C. (2001).The changing nature of the academic deanship. ERIC Digest. Retrieved November
29, 2010 from http://www.ericdigests. Org/2001-4/deanship.html.
Zairi Mohamed (Ed.) (2009). Total transformational thinking in academic leadership - A new DNA. Bradford: European Centre for Best
Practice Management (ECBPM) Publishing House UK.