A variety of models for making decisions are available. Three of these models are paternalistic, informative, and shared decision making.
Discuss the pros and cons of each of these models and the problems that are best suited for the various methods.
Determine which method has the strongest possibility of resulting in permanent change.
The method with the strongest possibility of resulting in permanent change is Shared Decision-Making.
Permanent change requires two critical components that Shared Decision-Making maximizes:
Adherence (Compliance): People are far more likely to commit to and sustain a change when they feel they own the decision. Shared decision-making explicitly incorporates the individual’s values, circumstances, and preferences, directly leading to higher buy-in and adherence.
Internalization (Mindset Shift): Unlike the Paternalistic model (which fosters external compliance) or the Informative model (which can leave the individual uncertain), the collaborative discussion inherent in Shared Decision-Making helps the individual internalize the rationale. By engaging in critical thinking about the pros and cons, the individual develops a deeper understanding of why the change is necessary and how it aligns with their life or role, thereby changing their underlying behavior and mindset permanently.
A variety of decision-making models exist, particularly in contexts like health care, policy, and organizational change. Here is a discussion of the pros, cons, and best-suited problems for the Paternalistic, Informative, and Shared Decision-Making models, followed by a determination of which method is most likely to result in permanent change.
In this model, the decision-maker (e.g., manager, policy maker, or expert) holds the authority and makes the decision based on what they believe is best for the other party, with little or no input from them.