ABSTRACT
The emergence of the field of Naturalistic Decision Making (NDM) has raised issues that previously held little interest for the workplace. This is especially true for tradition-rich organizations such as the U.S. Army. Although doubt about prescriptive procedures for decision making and problem solving existed prior to the emergence of NDM, the field has directed more attention at the intricate and idiosyncratic nature of human thinking. While it has long been recognized that tactical decision making is more than a "black box" phenomenon, NDM has brought more attention to how specific thinking abilities are developed and sustained (Klein, 1989). The NDM movement has brought into question the applicability and sufficiency of rational and formal-based procedures taught and backed throughout Army doctrine. One implication that can be drawn from NDM research findings is that prescriptive, formal models provide limited guidance on how to think and how to prepare to think in complex, ill-defined situations. This has been corroborated through various studies on military decision making (e.g., Fallesen, 1993; Pascual & Henderson, 1997; Serfaty, MacMillan, Entin, & Entin, 1997). Alternatives to the formal, analytic-based approaches for training decision makers are feasible and would provide extended capabilities and increased versatility in thinking.
