Table of Contents

Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 2
Analytical Thinking ................................................................................................................. 2
Intuitive Thinking .................................................................................................................... 3
Comparing both thinking models in organizational context ............................................... 5
Recommendations .................................................................................................................... 7
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 7
References ................................................................................................................................. 8

Introduction
When it comes to solving an everyday, practical problem, should the problem be approached
analytically or intuitively? When one leads a work team toward achieving a project deadline or
makes a decision about where to attend college, will analysis or intuition lead to a better
solution? Should one focus on the pros and cons of two alternatives, identify the relevant
information, and solve the problem logically, or is it better to rely on an intuitive approach in
which one trusts ones feelings and hunches about the situation (Pretz, 2008)? Identifying
which thinking mode, intuitive or analytical, yields better decisions has been a major subject
of inquiry by decision-making researchers (Rusou, Usher, & Zakay, 2013). In this paper,
discussion will be done on both the thinking and decision making model, that is, the analytical
thinking model and the intuitive thinking model. Besides that, the application of both the
thinking model in organizational context will also be introduced. Finally, several
recommendations on the thinking model in organizational context will also be explained.

Analytical Thinking
Analytical thinking is the system of information processing that enables individuals to
learn information deliberately and engage in analyses in an attentive manner (Kahneman, 2003).
Some scholars also introduced other names for this thinking model, Epstein (2002) refer to this
thinking model as Rational thinking or Rational Problem Solving Approach. Such model is
activated when an individual approaches a problem systematically and deliberately, and it
generally occurs in a linear or sequential manner (Baer, Dane, Oldham, & Pratt, 2011). Other
than that, there are also some other definitions provided for analytical thinking, Ryan (2013)
defined analytical thinking as the abstract separation of a whole into its constituent parts in
order to study the parts and their relations. Besides that, the Epsteins model describes the
explicit/analytical/rational thinking as intentional, effortful, logical, more rapidly and easily
changed, context general, and active and conscious (Pretz, 2008). Baer et al. (2011) believes
that rational problem solving involves using a structure to produce a logical, linear pattern of
thought. Rational problem solving occurs through adopting elements often associated with the
prototypical rational decision-making model. For example, individuals may develop taskspecific criteria in advance and attempt to generate ideas in line with these criteria.
According to Ryan (2013), analytical thinking is the best approach to solve big,
complex problems. He believes that by breaking a problem down into parts then doing the
2

research to fully understand these parts as well as the second and third order effects of them, it
lends itself to making the best decisions fomplex problems, usually through logical and rational
processes and calculations (Ryan, 2013). However, Ryan (2013) also stated that the biggest
downside of using a detertmined analytical thinking process is time. He believes that such
process is slow and time inefficient. Therefore, he does not recommend this model as an option
to solve the problems that has to be figured out in minuted or even hours (Ryan, 2013). Other
than that, Hammond et at. (1987) also suggested that analytical tasks are chatacterized by
quantitative presentation, objective measures, and an organizing principle readily available.
Wilson and Schooler (1991) stated that analytical deliberation is adequate for task that involve
objective, easily verbalized attributed but is less adequate for tasks that involve a large affective
component or in which the dimensions of the stimuli are ill-defined.

Intuitive Thinking
Intuitive thinking involves the automatic and relatively effortless processing of
information (Kahneman, 2003). The cognitive operations of this system tend to be inaccessible
to consciousness (Dane & Pratt, 2007). Just as analytical thinking, some scholars also
introduced other names for this thinking model, Epstein (2002) refer to this thinking model as
Experiential thinking or Experiential Problem Solving Approach. It is because numerous
scholars that intuitions arise through the experiential system of information processing
(Hogarth, Educating intuition, 2001). As such, intuitions are posited to be nonconscious, rapid,
affectively charged, and holistic (Dane & Pratt, 2007). Although the mental steps precipitating
intuitions generally cannot be logically grasped, their outcomes, intuitive judgments, represent
the conscious manifestations of experiential processing (Baer, Dane, Oldham, & Pratt, 2011).
Intuitive thinking is also defined as the thoughts and preferences that come to mind quickly
and without much reflection (Ryan, 2013). Besides that, intuition is also increasingly defined
as a knowable cognitive process based largely on unobservable, nonconscious modes of dealing
with reality, applying learned experience, tacit knowledge, and pattern recognition (Duggan,
2007; Mitchell, Friga, & Mitchell, 2005; Sinclair & Ashkanasy, 2005). Intuition is
experientially built, situationally applied, and individually executed in particular contexts, so
difficulties arise in operationalizing its use in ways that are predictive of behavior. Intuition
always seems something that has been used effectively, but it cannot be said that it will be used
effectively. (Morris & Cunningham, 2013). In contrast to analytical thinking, intuitive problem
3

solving occurs when individuals give credence to their gut judgments and do not attempt to
systematically and analytically solve a problem, such as by developing and applying
taskspecific criteria (Baer, Dane, Oldham, & Pratt, 2011). Besides that, the Epsteins model
characterized the implicit/intuitive/experiential thinking as holistic, automatic, effortless,
affective, slower and more resistant to change, context specific, and passive and preconscious
(Pretz, 2008).
According to Ryan (2013), intuitive thinking is suitable to be used when the person
have deep knowledge and experience in the fields and areas. He believe that the intuition
humans acquire is in fact, a snap judgement based on the knowledge, education and life
experience the person has received. Hence, intuition naturally works best in areas that the
person deeply understand. Ryan (2013) also illustrated the concept with several example such
as he believes that if an undercover police or a detective thinks something bad is about to
happen, he is probably right. A mechanics intuitive thought on whats wrong with a car is
probably right. A PhD economist or a longtime bankers guess on an economic situation is also
probably right (Ryan, 2013). Besides that, Ryan (2013) also regarded intuitive thinking as a
time efficient thinking approach. Intuitive thinking helps to make a decision when there is
limited time available for decision making or problem solving. However, he does not encourage
decision maker or problem solver to use intuitive thinking where the persons backgroud
knowledge if poor or insufficient.
Other than that, Hammond et at. (1987) also suggested that intuitive tasks usually
acquire the characteristics of high familiarity, pictorial presentation, subjective measure, and
unavailability of an organizing principle or algorithm to integrate cues. Epstein (1994)
emphasized that the intuitive mode is more adequate when nonverbal information and concrete
stimuli are involved, while less preferred when abstract problems are solved through symbols
and logical inference. Also according to Epstein, the intuitive model is usde when processing
emotion-arousing stimuli that represent events in a manner similar to how they are experienced
in real life (Epstein, Integration of the cognitive and psychodynamic unconscious, 1994).
Hogarth (2005) proposed that tasks are more likely to be processed through the intuitive mode
when their context and form promote visual reasoning.

Comparing both thinking models in organizational context

In an economy dominated by information and knowledge, analysis ceases to be the sole and
sufficient source of knowledge. Managers seek alternative ways of obtaining and interpreting
information and knowledge. Here, intuitive thinking begins to play an important role. Not all
processes and phenomena can be predicted and planned based on logic and previously proven
algorithms of action, prompting decision-makers to use their intuitive potential, which is
defined as the ability to acquire knowledge without rational reasoning and inference. A
competent manager can use rational, analytical and synthetic decision parameters for
establishing the risk-return relationship. Logic and deduction facilitate the decision-making
process only up to a certain stage, and making effective decisions requires the use of intuition.
Intuitive thinking, according to top-level management practitioners, is one of the most
important abilities used in decision making and to improve management efficiency (Malewska,
Intuition in Managerial Decision-Making: The Results of the Empirical Study, n.d.). Before we
start to compare both analytical and intuitive thinking for application in organizational context,
both the thinking models are reviewed in Table 1 below (Parselle, 2005).
Analytical thinking is historically quite recent, whereas intuitive thinking has been
mankind's chief possession since the dawn of time. As far as Western civilization is concerned,
the classical Greeks invented analytical thinking; the Romans built really straight roads with
it, the Dark Ages lost it, and the Enlightenment rediscovered it. We can partly attribute the
triumphs and perils of our modern civilization to the relative imbalance in the importance
afforded to analytical versus intuitive skills over the last four hundred years (Parselle, 2005).
Analytical thinking is powerful. It is focused, sharp, linear, deals with one thing at a
time, contains time, is deconstructive, contains no perspective, is subject to disorientation, is
brain centered, and tends to the abstract. Analytical thinking is efficient in the following
conditions, that is, sufficient time, relatively static conditions, a clear differentiation between
the observer and the observed. It is best suited for dealing with complexities, and works best
where there are established criteria for the analysis. It is necessary when an explanation is
required, seeks the best option, and can be taught in the classroom to beginners (Parselle, 2005).
Intuitive thinking has contrasting qualities. It is unfocused, nonlinear, contains no
time, sees many things at once, views the big picture, contains perspective, is heart centered,
oriented in space and time, and tends to the real or concrete. Intuition comes into its own where
analytical thinking is inadequate, that is, under time pressure, where conditions are dynamic,
5

where the differentiation between observer and observed is unclear. It works best where the
observer has experience in the particular situation, is difficult to teach in the classroom,
eschews seeking the best option in favor of the workable, and is prepared to act on feelings
or hunches where explanations are either not required or there is no time for them. Intuition is
experience translated by expertise to produce rapid action (Parselle, 2005).
Intuition is limited where the task is complex and uncertain, where the observer lacks
experience, or the observation is distorted by biases or fixed ideas. Intuition is ineffective for
predicting the stock market, or for discovering that the heart is a pump, or for dissecting a legal
problem (Parselle, 2005).
Table 1
Comparison between Analytical Thinking and Intuitive Thinking
Analytical Thinking

Intuitive Thinking

Sufficient time

Limited time

Static

Dynamic

Linear

Non-linear

One thing

Many things

Small picture

Big picture

Focused

Non-focused

Deliberative

Instataneous

No perspective

Perspective

Classroom taught

Experience taught

Objective

Subjective

Best option

Workable option

Needed when explanation required

Needed when action required

Deconstructive

Constructive

Object differentiation

Pattern matching

Brain centered

Heart centereed

Disoriented

Oriented

Historically new

Historically old

Abstract

Concrete

Lawyers

Firefighters

Recommendations
Humans cannot absolutely or decisively conclude which thinking model is superior to another.
Therefore, balancing both thinking models in accordance to the cases and scenarios is the best
solution for problem solving and decision making. When analytical and intuitive thinking
models and abilities are combined, the result would be Holistic thinking, which is the best of
both worlds. In order to resolve settlements and solve problems, it is necessary to move people
out of rights, obligations, win-lose mindset into a needs, interests, mutual gain mindset, which
is what mediation and moderation is all about. And it requires holistic thinking abilities
(Parselle, 2005). Just as Bauer, Matzler, and Uzelac (2014) raised, intuition and deliberation
cannot be separated but go hand in hand in most of the decisions. Just as intuitive hunches
influence the objects of our deliberate considerations, they also serve as a pull factor, enabling
decision makers to recognize new opportunities, which are then backed by deliberate thoughts.

Conclusion
Modern organizations operate in a rapidly changing environment, which deepens the
complexity and uncertainty in decision-making at all levels of management. The pace of
changes taking place simultaneously in many areas and the need to adapt to them is a huge
challenge for members of any organization, especially at the strategic level. Before they have
managed to fully adjust to one change, they face another, which brings new uncertainties and
increases the complexity of decision-making problems. The great challenge for leaders is to
work under rapidly changing conditions. Time pressure and information overload leading to
communication chaos do not help managements to carry out reliable decision-making
processes. Consequently, they need to adopt intuition thinking model as well, which enables
them to analyze signicant information resources and identify these that are crucial from the
perspective of decision-making (Malewska & Sajdak, The Intuitive Manager and the Concept
of Strategic Leadership, 2014). Finally, the decision making and problem solving approach that
is best for all people in all situations shall be the holistic thinking model, which emphasizes on
balancing and using both thinking model suitably in accordance to the uniqueness of each case
and scenarios.

References
Baer, M., Dane, E., Oldham, G. R., & Pratt, M. G. (2011). Rational Versus Intuitive Problem
Solving: How Thinking Off the Beaten Path Can Stimulate Creativity. Psychology
of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5(1), 3-12. doi:10.1037/a0017698
Bauer, F., Matzler, K., & Uzelac, B. (2014). Intuitions value for organizational
innovativeness and why managers still refrain from using it. Management Decision,
52(3), 526-539. doi:10.1108/MD-08-2013-0404
Dane, E., & Pratt, M. G. (2007). Exploring intuition and its role in managerial decisionmaking. Academy of Management Review, 32, 33-54.
Duggan, W. (2007). Strategic intuition: The creative spark in human achievement. New
York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Epstein, S. (1994). Integration of the cognitive and psychodynamic unconscious. American
Psychologist, 49, 709-724.
Epstein, S. (2002). Cognitive-experiential self-theory of personality. In T. Millon, & M.
Lerner, Comprehensive handbook of psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 159-184). Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley.
Hammond, K. R., Hamm, R. M., Grassia, J., & Pearson, T. (1987). Direct comparison of the
relative efficiency on intuitive and analytical cognition. IEEE Transactions on
Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 17, 753-770.
Hogarth, R. M. (2001). Educating intuition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hogarth, R. M. (2005). Deciding analytically or trusting your intuition? The advantages and
disadvantages of analytic and intuitive thought. In T. Betsch, & S. Haberstroh, The
routines of decision making (pp. 67-82). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice. American Psychologist, 58,
697-720.
Malewska, K. (n.d.). Intuition in Managerial Decision-Making: The Results of the Empirical
Study. European Conference on Management, Leadership & Governance (pp. 254261). Academic Conferences & Publishing International Ltd.

Malewska, K., & Sajdak, M. (2014). The Intuitive Manager and the Concept of Strategic
Leadership. Management, 18(2), 44-58. doi:10.2478/manment-2014-0041
Mitchell, J. R., Friga, P. N., & Mitchell, R. K. (2005). Untangling the intuition mess:
Intuition as a construct in entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 29(6), 653-679. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2005.00102.x
Morris, J. L., & Cunningham, G. K. (2013, December). An Exploration of Intuition among
Senior Leaders. The Exchange, 2(2), 51-63.
Parselle, C. (2005, November 11). Analytical / Intuitive Thinking. Retrieved from
EzineArticles Submission - Submit Your Best Quality Original Articles For Massive
Exposure, Ezine Publishers Get 25 Free Article: http://ezinearticles.com/?Analytical/-Intuitive-Thinking&id=94800
Pretz, J. E. (2008). Intuition versus analysis: Strategy and experience in complex everyday
problem solving. Memory & Cognition, 36(3), 554-566. doi:doi:
10.3758/MC.36.3.554
Rusou, Z., Usher, M., & Zakay, D. (2013). Pitting intuitive and analytical thinking against
each other: The case of transitivity. Psychon Bull Rev, 20, 608-614.
doi:10.3758/s13423-013-0382-7
Ryan, T. (2013, April 26). Total Survivalist Blog: Analytical Vs Intuitive Decision Making.
Retrieved from Total Survivalist Blog:
http://www.totalsurvivalist.com/2013/04/analytical-vs-intuitive-decision-making.html
Sinclair, M., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2005). Intuition: Myth or decision-making tool?
Management Learning, 36(3), 353-370. doi:10.1177/1350507605055351
Wilson, T. D., & Schooler, J. W. (1991). Thinking too much: Introspection can reduce the
quality of preferences and decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
60, 181-192.