Nonprofit Organizational Assessment

These styles are not mutually exclusive within an individual, but there are discernible
pattern differences across people. While not explicitly examined in many JAS studies,
an understanding of these decision-making style differences can inform future
understanding of advice-taking dynamics.
Decision-Making Competence
Judges may differ in their susceptibility to a number of different errors in decisionmaking;
these characteristic differences are considered their specific decision-making
competencies. While decision-making competency has been broken down into
categories in several different ways, one of the most widely accepted frameworks is the
Adult Decision-Making Competence scale (A-DMC), developed by Bruine de Bruin et
al. The A-DMC consists of 7 categories of decision-making competencies that include
dimensions such as Resistance to Framing and Recognizing Social Norms (see Bruine
de Bruin et al., 2007, for a full description). Weaknesses in these different areas make
judges more susceptible to particular errors in judgment and may influence the way
advisor input is received and acted upon.
Trust and Confidence
The level of trust a judge has with an advisor is directly related to the degree to which
advice is taken into account. When judges trust their advisors, they are more likely to
accept the advice given to them, all other factors being equal. [12] Note that the trust
relationship in a JAS is frequently unbalanced due to the greater importance of trust for
the judge than the advisor. This results because the judge must place a certain amount
of trust in the advisors in order to utilize their advice in the decision, which only the
judge is ultimately responsible for. Advisors, on the other hand, typically need not trust a
Page 113 of 211