Your Tough Questions about Decision-Making in the Workplace
Four Themes from GAABS’ April 2026 Webinar
By Deborah Braidic, MABC, MSc
GAABS Executive Board Member, Research Board Member, Editorial Board Member
What do you say to an executive who truly believes that their organisation is making great decisions now and who is about to issue a hard pass on your offer of taking a look at decision-making in your workplace? This is the question that GAABS wanted to tackle for its first webinar for 2026. To start, we wanted questions that were derived directly from lived experience. No pre-judgments or baseless biases here. No, no. Just gathering some sharp-pointed arrows for you to place in your quiver.
Where did we look? Well, of course, we looked to our brilliant study co-leads from our 2025 study on Decision-Making in the Workplace. Dr. Melina Moleskis, Dr. Sheheryar Banuri, and Dr. Umar Taj graciously agreed to serve as panelists. And they helped us source some of their favorite tough questions with us and shared their best answers.
What’s Below
READ: A TLDR summary
WATCH: A 30-day free link to view the recording
(after 30 days, check our member portal if you’re interested in viewing this great session)READ: A summary of the four key themes from the discussion with a few fave quotes from our panelists
TLDR Summary
Intelligence doesn’t always translate to decision-making competence — this is its own skill.
AI can’t be counted on to replace humans in decision-making processes.
Strategies for improving decision-making need to be implemented BOTH at individual and organizational levels.
When it comes to decision-making, structured decision-making processes should be valued at a higher level than speed.
GAABS's journey with decision-making continues – we’ve got projects kicking off right now to support decision-making and project management, organizational culture, and internal experimentation in human resources.
Summary
AI in Strategic Decision-Making
You can’t discuss decision-making these days without the topic of Artificial Intelligence being raised, and it came up early and often in the webinar. Sheheryar Banuri, PhD, emphasized the importance of structured decision-making processes, particularly in high-pressure situations like pandemic responses, while Umar Taj, PhD, highlighted the need for process expertise alongside domain expertise in leadership roles.
“Domain based decisions need domain experts...strategic decisions need decision experts.”
In particular, AI can support decision-making through structured questioning and help identify cognitive biases, but should not replace human judgment in strategic decisions. When AI works best, Dr. Taj suggested, is when it can be trained to serve as a "decision buddy," or coach, to help the decider follow better decision-making processes (as opposed to being used as a shortcut for speed). Of note: Dr. Taj is currently trialing this concept with an AI decision buddy for personal strategic decisions.
“Strategic decision making should remain inherently human...AI tools should leverage, but not replace human judgement.”
“There is no substitute for [human] thinking. AI is only ‘looking out the back
window’ telling you where to go.”
Balancing Speed and Decision Processes
A good portion of the Q&A focused on the balance between speed and process in decision-making. Dr. Moleskis emphasized that while fast decisions might feel efficient, proper processes actually save time by preventing rework and misalignment, citing high-stakes environments like emergency services as examples.
“We need to develop the muscle of self-awareness.”
Dr. Banuri added that AI serves as a tool for information processing rather than a substitute for human thinking, particularly highlighting the risks of automating bad decisions in the public sector.
“It’s easy to argue with ideas. It’s hard to argue with data.”
Systemic Decision-Making Approaches
The group discussed the limitations of individual decision-making training versus systemic approaches to improving organizational decision-making. Dr. Taj explained that he uses an analogy to explain the problem.
The Analogy Put Simply:
When you’re trying to hit a target, and you keep missing, you can consider whether you fix the aim of the arm or whether you move the target.
Individual training (fixing the individual arm) may not be effective if the entire organisation within which a person is working pushes against their aim. Systemic changes to decision architecture are often considerably more impactful.
Dr. Moleskis shared an example of a introducing a pre-mortem tool with a team who thought it was a great idea but never implemented it, highlighting the challenge of getting people to adopt new decision-making practices.
Dr. Sheheryar emphasized the distinction between individual-level and group-level decision-making, noting that what works at one level may not translate to the other, and that the value of behavioral science is that it combines insights from psychology and economics to address these complexities.
Great First Steps
Dr. Taj discussed the challenges of measuring decision quality and emphasized the importance of recording decisions to track improvements. Dr. Moleskis suggested using decision journals and tying KPIs to specific behaviors to measure quality at both individual and organizational levels.
“To measure behaviours “...you need to tie [KPIs] to something that the organization or the team already cares about.”
Dr. Banuri advised convincing organizations to improve decision-making by using evidence, making incremental asks, and demonstrating value, including highlighting the hidden costs of bad decisions.
“We need to demonstrate the costs of bad decisions - both direct and indirect.”