Humans are rationalization machines. We can justify anything.

I’ve always believed this true, ever since I long ago recognized my own patterns of justification.

You want something a particular way (usually in your own favor) and you immediately have a host of bona fide reasons why that’s the way to go.

Human history is littered with wars, crimes and injustices all rationalized by someone as being the best outcome. They are all results of decisions. And every day at some level many other poor choices are routinely made in both the workplace and our private lives.

Why do we make poor decisions? Are we just self-centered or are there inherent thought processes that drive our selections in some way?

I suspect that everyone reading this believes, as I do myself, that they make outstanding decisions. Leaders and followers alike normally hold this belief. And with every rationalization we either sustain our own confidence or provide ourselves the necessary cover to justify our thoughts and actions.

There’s been much renewed study and progress in comprehending the nature of decision-making over the last decade. Consequently, the understanding and modeling of this process now offers relatively concise explanation of what is involved.

If we step back and look in the mirror we typically find ourselves operating in one of two modes when we make decisions:

• Instant Decisions

Here we immediately draw on our prior experiences and their believed value and applicability. Judgments are typically made on-the-fly.

• Analytic Review

In this case we stop, focus on the issue, perhaps gather specific data and more deliberately evaluate information before a judgment is made.

When we consider ourselves great decision-makers we’re often rating our skills withinstant decisions; these are most of those we implement throughout our day. Oddly, even very capable Execs and Leaders typically have a much lower batting average in this arena than they realize. Flawed perceptions are often buoyed by misplaced confidence and distorted recollection.

Most of us have noticed that if we solicit the opinions of others on any matter, they will bring useful additional insight. Yes, we may get things 80% or even as much as 95% correct and complete on our own. But we should recognize that even small omissions can have significant impact; sometimes wholly changing the planned course of action, or perhaps by elegantly helping us adapt its execution so as to proactively head-off other potential problems.

There is always a different perspective available.

Most decisions (by number, particularly) are more minor and need be made quickly. We cannot reasonably pontificate or research every detailed action that must be taken. However, such omission has a cost. Mistakes get made, feelings get hurt, rifts between individuals can result and people get labeled as irresponsible, inconsiderate or worse. Hardly career enhancing scenarios.

If a problem reads like there may be more involved than meets the eye, or that a poor decision could have unpredictable and significant consequences, we’re better off inAnalytic Review mode. It’s time to get opinions from others.

A different perspective could be offered by a single other person, queried on-the-fly, or by a large group of stakeholders sat down for a formal review. We set the appropriate forumto mitigate the potential risk and secure the best outcome, based on its importance.

The Analytic Review Process is best accomplished by formal means, quickly enacted. Here it’s necessary to look at the Seriousness, Urgency and Impact of decisions on the future. I have covered this in more detail (see Decision-Making) in this material.

Employing a more formal process (where issues and objections can be brought to the table and prioritized) enables stakeholders to engage. Also, providing discussions are crisply executed, those involved see their inputs valued and so more easily respect tough outcomes and priorities. And finally, those participating receive real-time communicationson important matters in progress.

We must always consider who should be in attendance. Again, a formal (Analytic Review) approach can require that just two (or perhaps, many more) people are involved. Likewise, an Instant Decision can be an ad-hoc validation by similar numbers, informally holding discussions over coffee.

The difference in these two processes is defined by the formality, completeness and overall systemization. It is widely accepted that the more rigorous Analytic Review produces much better Decisions.

So, do you make a lot of calls while you’re on-the-run? Know if you’re alienating folks and damaging communication channels with your choices? Just how good is your decision-making?

It’s probably worth taking a look at how you operate and review if you need to slow down (or perhaps even speed up?) some of your judgments!

Ian R. Mackintosh is the author of Empower Your Inner Manager Twitter @ianrmackintosh