S Ulich 2021

sustainability
Article
Management Styles and Decision-Making: Pro-Ecological
Strategy Approach
Adam Sulich 1, * , Letycja Sołoducho-Pelc 2, * and Marcos Ferasso 3, *
1 Department of Advanced Research in Management, Wroclaw University of Economics and Business,

53-345 Wroclaw, Poland
2 Strategic Management Department, Wroclaw University of Economics and Business, 53-345 Wroclaw, Poland
3 Applied Social Sciences Department, Community University of Chapeco Region,
Chapeco 89809-900, SC, Brazil
* Correspondence: [email protected] (A.S.); [email protected] (L.S.-P.);
[email protected] (M.F.)
Abstract: Management style and decision-making create an organization’s culture and influence its
performance also in the pro-ecological dimension. Therefore, this paper’s originality lies in how it
explores the effect of management style to inform our understanding of decision-making when using
a sustainable approach. However, the cause-and-effect relations between decisions and management
style remain vastly unexplored. The paper’s aim is to explore whether the management style serves
as a basis for decision-making or if it is an effect of decisions. This research addresses a research
question: is the management style a basis for decision-making or an effect of the decisions in a pro-ecological
context? We used a comprehensive literature review by using inductive and deductive approaches to
analyze the relations between decision-making and management style. The paper also illustrates how

organizational culture images can inform accounts of business realities influencing organizations’
green strategies. The analogies followed relations between color symbol and guiding metaphor. The
Citation: Sulich, A.; Sołoducho-Pelc,
L.; Ferasso, M. Management Styles
article presents a theoretical discussion on the influence of management style on decision-making in
and Decision-Making: Pro-Ecological the organization, based on original literature research in pro-ecological strategy related decisions. As
Strategy Approach. Sustainability a result, a decision-making style model is proposed. This nonorthodox approach might open up new
2021, 13, 1604. https://doi.org/ avenues of thought in the field of decision-making, management styles, and pro-ecological strategy.
10.3390/su13041604 Theoretical and managerial implications and directions for future research are also addressed.
Academic Editors: Keywords: managerial decision; management metaphors; organizational culture; pro-ecological
Andrzej Raszkowski, Gerard J. Lewis strategy; management style; sustainable development
and Alessio Ishizaka
Received: 5 January 2021
Accepted: 29 January 2021
Published: 3 February 2021
1. Introduction
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral

Modern organizations have to survive in a rapidly changing, competitive business
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
environment, protect the natural environment [1] and act responsibly in society [2]. They
published maps and institutional affil-
also create, through decisions, their pro-ecological strategies [3–6]. This research consid-
iations. ers the following definition of pro-ecological strategy—a “structural strategy aimed at
changing the circumstances in which behavioral decisions are made to protect the natural
environment, such as the provision of recycling facilities” [7].
Decisions are a fundamental element of every human action [8], based on mental
activities [9], but in this research, we are dedicated to discussing the relations between
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
management styles and decision-making in a pro-ecological approach, as opposed to
This article is an open access article
discussing the decision-making process itself [10]. It is not clear if the specific management
distributed under the terms and
styles are decision effects or the opposite. However, there is also a research gap identified
conditions of the Creative Commons in the literature [11–13], related to the cause-and-effect relations between decisions and
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// organization culture. In the scientific literature, there is an awareness of strategy execution
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ barriers in the decision-making process [14,15], and growing attention has been paid
4.0/). to organizations’ strategies related to ecological aspects [16,17]. The scientific literature’s
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1604. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041604 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2021, 13, 1604 2 of 18
dominant view presents the management styles as metaphors [18–21]. An in-depth analysis
of organizations, in the context of the relations between management style and decisions,
is underdeveloped [22,23]. Therefore, in this research, we address the following research
question: is management style a basis for decision-making or an effect of the decisions in a pro-
ecological context? This paper’s primary goal is to answer this scientific question, which
reflects the presented research gap.
In this literature review article, we set future research assumptions by focusing on the
analysis of explicit components of the decision-making process [24]—i.e., the choices [8]
and the key green decision-makers [4]. Therefore, this paper is an overview of some of
the most common management styles [18,23] combined with the decision-making factors
from a sustainable development and greening business approach [25]. This paper is a
comprehensive literature review and serves the prepare planned research with public ad-
ministration entities and organizations dedicated to their management styles and relations
between them in the matter of pro-ecological strategies and renewable energy investments.
This research contributes to the existing body of literature as follows. We postulate that
management style is more fundamental to the process and is not an effect or a result of the
decision-making process in the ecological context. We illustrated our research with our own
proposed figures and model for a pro-ecological sustainable strategy approach. There are a
group of endogenous (internal) organizational factors that influence managers’ decision-
making. This approach allows changes in the organization and evolution of management
style. Among the most important factors are those creating an organizational culture
(with shared views, values, and ideas) related to the organization’s functioning in the
changing business environment [26,27]. Another contribution is that our findings proved
and allowed us to set future research assumptions in the pro-ecological strategy approach.
The article is organized as follows. Firstly, after this introduction, we present a litera-
ture review divided into six subsections, each dedicated to one specific aspect. Secondly,
we discuss our literature review. Thirdly, we consider our research assumptions to be
further discussed. In this section, we also present managerial implications and future
research proposals and the limitations of this study.
2. Theoretical Background
2.1. Organization Culture
Management is science often associated with business [28,29], economics, psychol-
ogy [30], and philosophy [31,32]. In addition to management, a harmonization [30] of
activities within the organization is achieved as a result of acceptance by the participants
of the organization of the system of norms [33] and values embedded in its organiza-
tional culture relating to shared views, ideology, values, beliefs, and expectations [34,35].
There is no consensus on the organizational culture definition; however, its impact on
organizational performance and results are widely recognized [36], especially when a pro-
ecological approach is measured [37]. The internal coherence of this system and the degree
of adjusting the management mechanisms used in the organization are determinants of
the effectiveness of the organization’s functioning [3,38]. Commanding the correctness
of the above observation, we can indicate that the organizational culture creates a kind
of “decision algorithm” that gives meaning and direction to actions carried out by the
organization [39–41].
Failures in adjusting the management mechanisms to the organizational culture cause
the emergence of the phenomenon of dissonance in decision-making processes, which leads
to a reduction in the effectiveness of the organization’s functioning [41,42]. Organizational
culture is not a time-stable monolith [40,43]. On the contrary, under the influence of
changes taking place in the environment, it is subject to changes and transformations [25].
These changes have are slow and related to different strategies [26]. The complexity
of transformation processes is deepened by the nature of organizational culture [25,44].
A culture [45], is a factor stabilizing an organization’s functioning [46] and organizing
decision-making processes. On the other hand, this can be a factor inhibiting the process
inant in the organization [47]. Changes in the organizational culture and management
style are possible but based on a discussion of desirable behaviors, aligned with the
adopted profile of a desirable and constructive organizational culture. In the pro-ecologi-
cal strategy context, failure and instability occur when there is a dissonance between the
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1604 announced strategy and its execution. Employees and customers are very much aware 3 of 18of
the need for conservation and sustainability and they lose their trust if such phenomena
appear [48,49].
Organizations
of introducing changescreate
to thean management
environment stylefor decision-making
[1,23]. However,that impacts
there should the
beorganiza-
a good
diagnosis of the organization’s culture to assess which type of behavior is dominant in theas
tions themselves and the natural and business environment, which can be recognized
organizational
organization [47].culture
Changes [50].
in This internal environment,
the organizational which
culture and supports style
management the decision-mak-
are possible
ingbased
but process,on can be described
a discussion as an organizational
of desirable culturewith
behaviors, aligned [23,27].
the There
adopted is always
profilean of or-
a
ganizational
desirable culture, suchorganizational
and constructive as weather or atmosphere
culture. In the[51,52], which arestrategy
pro-ecological terms often asso-
context,
ciatedand
failure with the organizational
instability occur when management styles orbetween
there is a dissonance organizational characterstrategy
the announced [51] or spirit
and
[53]. These similarities to the natural environment elements are
its execution. Employees and customers are very much aware of the need for conservationjustified due to changes
thesustainability
and pro-ecologicaland approach
they lose induces in the
their trust if organizational
such phenomena culture
appear [54,55]. The changes in
[48,49].
the Organizations
organization’s culture
create an areenvironment
important forfor change management,
decision-making motivation,
that impacts the andorgani-
leader-
ship (Figure
zations 1) [56].and the natural and business environment, which can be recognized
themselves
Organizational
as organizational managers
culture are internal
[50]. This responsible for balancing
environment, which the supports
relative stability of the
the decision-
organizational
making process,culture
can be [33,57].
described This asbalance guarantees culture
an organizational the maintenance of theisorganiza-
[23,27]. There always
antion’s identity and
organizational its constant
culture, such astransformation. This balance
weather or atmosphere is a condition
[51,52], which are forterms
keepingoften up
with changes
associated withinthe
theorganizational
environment [57] while beingstyles
management awareoroforganizational
the difficultiescharacter
that arise[51]both
orinspirit
the processes
[53]. Theseofsimilarities
diagnosingtoand transforming
the natural organizational
environment elementsculture [58]. The
are justified due to im-
portancethe
changes of pro-ecological
managers as an organization’s
approach induces leaders
in theand their influence
organizational on organizational
culture [54,55]. The
changes
culture in the organization’s
is presented in Figureculture
1. are important for change management, motivation,
and leadership (Figure 1) [56].
Figure1.1.Management
Figure Managementstyle
style and
and organizational
organizational culture
culture relations.
relations. Source:
Source: Authors’
Authors’ elaboration
elaboration based
based on [36].
on [36].
Then, leadership
Organizational is an immanent
managers part offor
are responsible thebalancing
managerial theactivity
relativeand, through
stability mana-
of the or-
gerial functions,
ganizational managers
culture influence
[33,57]. This balancetheguarantees
organization’s culture [23,46].
the maintenance On organization’s
of the the other hand,
their management
identity styletransformation.
and its constant influences the leadership andisculture
This balance in thefor
a condition organization
keeping up[56,59].
with
The management style is related to the organizational culture and
changes in the environment [57] while being aware of the difficulties that arisetherefore should
bothbein a
balance between these two organizational characteristics. The interactions
the processes of diagnosing and transforming organizational culture [58]. The importance between man-
ofagement
managers style andorganization’s
as an organizational culture
leaders dotheir
and not indicate
influenceone
onelement as superior—they
organizational culture is
are equal.in Figure 1.
presented
Then, leadership is an immanent part of the managerial activity and, through manage-
rial functions, managers influence the organization’s culture [23,46]. On the other hand,
their management style influences the leadership and culture in the organization [56,59].
The management style is related to the organizational culture and therefore should be a
balance between these two organizational characteristics. The interactions between man-
agement style and organizational culture do not indicate one element as superior—they
are equal.
2.2. Decision-Making Process

Decision-making, either intellectually or practically, is more often a group process
than a single person task [60], since a group makes better decisions due to the bounded
rationality effect of one single decision-maker [8]. In 1960, Raiffa and Schlaifer [61], from
Harvard Business School, initiated decision theory [62]. Strategic decision-making is
currently the subject of research in organizational theory and strategic management [63]
and has become a widely known and well-developed area in business management.
Decisions can be defined as a set of choices between proposed solutions, and can be
expressed in the sentence: “When we make choices, we make a decision” [64]. Decision-
making is a cognitive process that results in the selection of alternatives and the choice of
options or directions of action. In a theoretical approach, decision-making is an intellectual
and rational process. Decisions are taken based on selecting criteria or strategies [25]. In
business practice, decision-making is a less specific process and is influenced by many
factors, such as values, norms, interests, or context. Decision-making is regarded as a
concordance test showing the match between subjective factors related to the decision-
maker and the expected impact of alternative options or actions [65]. Decision problems
require the consideration of many issues and factors and, therefore, they become more and
more complicated because of [62]:
1. having complicated, comprehensive structures;
2. relating to multiple objectives;
3. associatation with uncertainty and risk;
4. relation to multiple stakeholders.
Making decisions means also making choices and solving problems. In a broader
sense, managing an organization concerns setting goals and ways of achieving them and
shaping the organization’s future. Conscious and rational, as opposed to random, choices
are made in the management decision-making process [66]. Making choices should be
preceded by making the right decision. Such a decision is based on relevant information
and brings the expected results. The decision is a process, not a matter of the moment.
The decision itself is important, but most people remember the result of the decision. In
the decision-making literature, the mechanisms are not precisely defined [1,67,68]. The
judgment of the decision-making process is distorted by the influence of intelligence,
intuition, common sense, and luck. Organizations use decision trees, influence diagrams,
simulation models, and alternative forms of decision support to deal with the complexity
of decision-making problems and help make a decision. Additionally, the need to integrate
management with psychological aspects of decision-making [62] is currently underlined.
Decision-making takes place when there are alternative choices that could be made.
One solution is selecting a decision from several potential variants. The choice of a variant
should consider various factors, such as an achievement of the organization’s goals, re-
sources, regulations in force, planned effects, and expected benefits. The dilemma between
priority of decision-making process and management style is comprehensively presented
in Figure 2. This figure shows the decision-making chain as a process of decision-making
and its effects on making a decision. At the exit, i.e., before making a decision, internal
factors (related to the organization) and external factors (determined by the environment)
were taken into account [69,70]. In turn, at the exit—after making a decision—a solution is
chosen and the organization can assess the effects (positive or negative).
Figure 3 shows some critical steps in the decision-making process [46] as a cycle
(not a chain, as in Figure 2). Decision-making is usually preceded by decision analysis.
This analysis step allows us to better understand the problem [71]. The decision-making
process precedes the collection, selection, and analysis of information. As a result, the
decision-maker should obtain knowledge that determines the decision-making process [62].
This provides a framework that will help clarify and formulate the judgment. The starting
point is the judgment of the situation or problem.
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 19
Figure 2. The decision-making chain. Source: Authors’ elaboration.
Figure 3 shows some critical steps in the decision-making process [46] as a cycle (not
a chain, as in Figure 2). Decision-making is usually preceded by decision analysis. This
analysis step allows us to better understand the problem [71]. The decision-making pro-
cess precedes the collection, selection, and analysis of information. As a result, the deci-
sion-maker should obtain knowledge that determines the decision-making process [62].
This provides a framework
Figure that will helpchain.
2. The decision-making clarify and formulate
Source: the judgment. The starting
Authors’ elaboration.
Figure 2. The decision-making chain. Source: Authors’ elaboration.
Figure 3 shows some critical steps in the decision-making process [46] as a cycle (not
a chain, as in Figure 2). Decision-making is usually preceded by decision analysis. This
analysis step allows us to better understand the problem [71]. The decision-making pro-
cess precedes the collection, selection, and analysis of information. As a result, the deci-
sion-maker should obtain knowledge that determines the decision-making process [62].
This provides a framework that will help clarify and formulate the judgment. The starting
Figure3.3.The
Figure Thecycle
cycleofofcrucial
crucialsteps
stepsininthe
thedecision-making
decision-makingprocess.
process.Source:
Source:Authors’
Authors’elaboration.
elaboration.
Bearing in mind Bearingthe assumption

in mind the that management
assumption style influences
that management styledecision-making,
influences decision-making,
we proposedwe to proposed
expand the stages of the decision-making process with
to expand the stages of the decision-making process the management
with the management
style. It is a nonorthodox perspective on
style. It is a nonorthodox the decision-making
perspective process. We are
on the decision-making guided
process. Webyare
theguided by the
assumption that the management
assumption style would have
that the management style awould
crucialhave
influence on influence
a crucial decision-making
on decision-making
in the contextinofthe
pro-ecological strategies (thisstrategies
context of pro-ecological element is elaborated
(this elementinis Section 2.6).in Section 2.6).
elaborated
Figure 3. The cycle of crucial steps in the decision-making process. Source: Authors’ elaboration.
2.3. Manager 2.3.
as a Manager
Decision-Makeras a Decision-Maker
When management When management
Bearing is mind theisassumption
in considered considered
through anthat through an entrepreneurial
management
entrepreneurial and managerial
stylemanagerial
and influences decision
decision-making,
deci-
sion logic [4],logic
we [4], its practical
itsproposed
practical to expand
aspects aspects
arethe arevisible
stages
more more visible
of the [5,72].
At theAt
decision-making
[5,72]. the process
present,
present, environmental
with
environmental protec-
the management
tion
style. is
Itan
is aimportant
nonorthodox topic for a business
perspective on practice,
the which
decision-making
protection is an important topic for a business practice, which needs to formulate a pro- needs to formulate
process. We area pro-ecological
guided by the
strategy
assumption
ecological strategy and decision-making
that the management
and decision-making [73].
[73].styleDecision-making
would have a at
Decision-making at the
crucial highest
influence
the highest organizational
on decision-making
organiza- level
has
in the
tional level has become difficult
contextdifficult
become to manage
of pro-ecological
to manage due to
strategies the
due to the complexity
(thiscomplexity of the changes
element is elaborated
of the changes of an
in Section organization’s
of an2.6).
organization’s face [74,75]
face [74,75]andand duedueto time pressures
to time [76]. [76].
pressures The manager
The manageruses logic
usesand intuition
logic and to control
the Manager
2.3.
intuition to controlprocess of
asthinking
the process and acting.
a Decision-Maker
of thinking A manager’s
and acting. A manager’seffectiveness depends
effectiveness on the techniques
depends
and skills
on the techniques and related
When skills to strategic
related
management thinking
toisstrategic
considered [35].
thinking A [35].
through manager is conceived
anAentrepreneurial
manager as a “multiplied
is conceived
and as
managerial man”,
deci-
a “multiplied whoman”,
sion acts at
logicwho the junction
actspractical
[4], its of two
at the junction worlds:
aspects are of two certainty
more worlds: and uncertainty
visiblecertainty
[5,72]. Atand [9,77].
the uncertainty
present, environmental
[9,77]. Management
protection styles create
is an important topicplans
for aand styles practice,
business of controlwhich
and implementation
needs to formulate (sequential
a pro-
plan
Management and
stylesglobal
create or comprehensive
plans and styles plan)
of control [9].andManager’s thinking
implementation cycles
(sequentialinclude mental
ecological strategy and decision-making [73]. Decision-making at the highest organiza-
plan and globalactivities related to problem-solving, decision-making, and strategic
includeofthinking, and these
tionalorlevel
comprehensive
has becomeplan) [9]. to
difficult Manager’s
manage due thinking
to thecycles
complexity mental
the changes of an
activities
activities related are independent.
to problem-solving, The factor that initiates a manager’s thinking is problem
organization’s face [74,75]decision-making,
and due to timeand strategic
pressures thinking,
[76]. and these
The manager uses logic and
identification. Then, the manager’s thinking considers goals, plans, and action strategies [9].
intuition to control the process of thinking and acting. A manager’s effectiveness depends
Decision-making is an intellectual and strategical process [78] that affects people at
on the techniques and skills related to strategic thinking [35]. A manager is conceived as
different levels of management. In an organization, this activity requires the decision-maker
a “multiplied man”, who acts at the junction of two worlds: certainty and uncertainty
to have appropriate power and use of knowledge, skills, and competencies (including
[9,77].
human cognition, emotions, and social behavior) [79]. The decision-making process must
Management styles create plans and styles of control and implementation (sequential
take into account various factors and conditions that shape this process. A manager’s
plan and global or comprehensive plan) [9]. Manager’s thinking cycles include mental
activities related to problem-solving, decision-making, and strategic thinking, and these
decision is conditioned by the awareness of the necessity to make choices and the assumed
effects of the decisions [80].
The benefits of a decision can be considered in various ways, most often from the or-
ganization’s perspective and other stakeholder groups [81–83]. Making a decision requires
a comprehensive view of the organization and its environment. It is not only economic
criteria that are important in this process. Ethics, morality, social responsibility, and,
more recently, sustainable development are factors that can shape the decision-making
process [16,80].
When making a decision, one should select an action variant [46]. There is a need
to consider the effects and benefits assessed from the perspective of the organization’s
goals and development in the long term [80]. The decision-maker should be responsible
for the consequences of the decision from the point of view of different areas and different
stakeholders [84].
2.4. Management Styles

Over the years, organizations’ management styles have changed dynamically. Or-
ganizations had to adapt employment conditions and the atmosphere of created rela-
tions [17,85,86] to societies’ needs as a socio-economic environment, which is a resource
of employees and customers [33]. The work atmosphere and conditions influence orga-
nizational effectiveness and increase the company’s competitiveness in the market [87].
This translates into better financial results and enhances the organization’s prestige and
image [88].
We adopted Laloux’s concept [20], which is a relatively new concept, and its extensive
use in analyzing the culture of contemporary organizations. Each management style has
specific patterns of action, behavior, rituals, and shared values [89]. The essential features
of each management style are presented as a description and critical breakthroughs in
Table 1. The used metaphors are presented in colors, from a primary organization (red)
to the most developed (teal). These are represented by a range of basic colors to more
complicated ones obtained by modifications to very basic colors. For example, orange is a
result of the mix between the two basic colors red and yellow. There is a strong relation
between color metaphor and guiding metaphor. The red organization is a wolf pack, based
on the will of the leader. The resistance or negation in the execution of such will leads
to “bloody” revenge. This color metaphor then represents not only the organization but
also organizational culture. There are clear differences between organizations described
by the colors in their general connection to the execution of “brown” [90] and green (pro-
ecological) strategies [25]. The indicated colors of strategies in Table 1 is based on the
division between brown (based on the linear approach and resource extensive, based on
fossil fuel consumption) and green economies, where green is a synonym for sustainable,
ecological, and pro-environmental [55,90].
As presented, some organizations have the option to change their management styles,
and some do not. The potential change depends on internal and external factors and the
need for change declared by the organization, and self-awareness about the possibility of
change to be greener and pro-ecological. We can indicate several factors influencing the
possibility of changing the management style. The first is the specificity of the activity or in-
dustry [87]. This has a strong influence on the “color” or metaphor of the organization [79].
As mentioned in the current examples, some industries have management styles other
than the implemented one. Reluctance to change management style may result for various
reasons [33]. The most important thing seems to be not having to make any changes: “We
do not change because we do not have to”. Such organizations implement a management style
that matches their needs, goals, and strategies. It is equally essential that the management
style has proven itself in the history of its existence, allowing it to survive and develop. In
this type of organization, changes occurring in the environment are of no great importance
to them. It can be assumed that even the changes taking place in the world have limited
impacts on the organization’s management style [20]. The style of management translates
into the strategy of the organization. The approach to environmental strategy can be reac-
tive or proactive [25]. Red and orange styles determine the choice of a reactive and brown
strategy, where companies act minimally, resulting from external pressure to formulate an
environmental strategy [15,41]. Green and teal management styles remain in opposition to
the brown strategy. They represent an active, open approach to green strategy, which is a
result of the organization’s priorities, values, and openness to new ideas and conditions for
sustainable development [91].
Table 1. Management styles according to color taxonomy.
Management Guiding Key Current Decision

Description Strategies
Style Color Metaphor Breakthroughs Examples Metaphor
Constant exercise of
power by the chief to Division of labor; Organized
keep foot soldiers in Command crime;
Red Wolf pack. Will.
line. Thrives in authority; Street gangs;
chaotic environ- Despotism. Tribal militias.
ments.
Military;
Highly formal roles Formal roles Most
within a hierarchical (stable and government
pyramid. Top-down scalable organizations
Brown
Pattern/Scheme;
Amber command and Army. hierarchies); (public school
No discussion.
control. The future is Stable and systems, police
the repetition of replicable departments);
the past. processes. Religious
organizations.
The goal is to beat the
competition; achieve
Multinational
profit and growth. Rigid
Innovation; companies;
Management by Procedures;
Orange Machine. Accountability; Investment
objectives (command Machine Oil;
Meritocracy. banks;
and control over Consultations.
Charter schools.
what, freedom
over how).
Focus on culture and The business is
Empowerment;
empowerment to known for Discussion;
Egalitarian
boost employee idealistic Democratic
Green Family. management;
motivation. practices decision;
Stakeholder
Stakeholders as a (Starbucks, Consensus.
model.
primary purpose. Zappos).
Green
Self-management
replaces the
Self-
hierarchical pyramid.
management; A few
Organizations are Living Independence;
Teal Wholeness; pioneering
seen as living entities, organism. Mindfulness.
Evolutionary organizations.
oriented toward
purpose.
realizing their
potentials.
Source: Authors’ elaboration based on [20,33].
2.5. Management Styles as Differentiating Variables of Managerial Decision

According to the research of Rowe and Mason, the style of decision-making has a
cognitive character. It refers to how an individual approaches a problem and uses the
information to make a decision [92]. According to the research of Simon [93], intuition and
emotions play an essential role in the decisions of a manager, and this was also proved in
other research papers [94,95]. These results indicated a new direction of research, where
Sustainability 2021,13,
Sustainability2021, 13,1604
x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 8ofof1819
psychologicalfactors,
psychological factors, not related
related to toknowledge
knowledgeand andprofessional
professional preparation,
preparation, playplayan an
im-
portant role
important roleininthe
thedecision-making
decision-making process
process [55,93]. The intuitive
intuitive thinking
thinkingandandreflexive
reflexive
approachofofdecision-makers
approach decision-makershave haveaasignificant
significantinfluence
influenceonondecision-making.
decision-making.AnotherAnother
featureisisCore
feature CoreSelf-Evaluations
Self-Evaluations(CSEs),
(CSEs),which
whichshapes
shapesthe thedecision-making
decision-makingprocess.process.As As
indicatedby
indicated by[1],
[1],this
thisfeature’s
feature’slevel
levelisisessential.
essential.CSE
CSEisisformed
formedatatan anaverage
averagelevel
levelthat
that
allowsavoiding
allows avoidingthe thetrap
trapofofoverconfidence
overconfidenceand andaffects
affectsthetheachievement
achievementofofbetterbetterresults.
results.
Decision-makers who
Decision-makers who make quick quickdecisions
decisionsuseusemuch
much information
information andand
come comeup with
up
many
with alternative
many alternativesolutions. TheThe
solutions. pace of decision-making
pace of decision-making is influenced
is influenced bybythe
theability
abilityto
tointegrate
integrate strategic
strategic decisions
decisions andand tactical
tactical plans
plans [96].[96].
MakingMaking a strategic
a strategic decision
decision in a
in a chang-
changing, turbulent
ing, turbulent environment
environment is difficult
is difficult [97] because
[97] because the changes
the changes are radical,
are radical, and and it is
it is diffi-
difficult to estimate
cult to estimate thethe course
course ofofchanges.
changes.The Theway
wayto to avoid
avoid making the wrong wrongdecision
decisionisis
through
throughthethe“wait
“waitand andsee”
see”strategy,
strategy,which
whichmeans
meanswaiting
waitingfor forthe
thesituation
situationtotounfold
unfoldoror
following
followingother
otherdecision-makers
decision-makers(benchmarking)
(benchmarking)[98]. [98].InInFigure
Figure4,4,wewepresent
presentourourresearch
research
results
resultson
onthe
therelations
relationsbetween
betweenthe themanagement
managementstyle styleandanddecision.
decision.
Figure4.4.Management
Figure Managementstyle
styleand
anddecision-making
decision-makingoptions.
options.Source:
Source:Authors’
elaboration.
The
Theconducted
conductedtheoretical
theoreticalstudy shows
study showsthatthat
management
management stylestyle
can influence decisions
can influence deci-
(option A, Figure 4). The reverse situation is also possible when decision-making
sions (option A, Figure 4). The reverse situation is also possible when decision-making shapes
the management
shapes style (option
the management B, Figure
style (option 4). More
B, Figure 4). often, we found
More often, a situation
we found where
a situation the
where
management
the managementstyle style
shapes decision-making,
shapes which which
decision-making, can be can
seenbeinseen
organizations such as such
in organizations red
and amber
as red andtaxonomies. These organizations
amber taxonomies. can be defined
These organizations can beasdefined
the opposite
as theofopposite
a participa-
of a
tory management style. We deal with “hard-handed rule” prescriptive, unquestionable,
participatory management style. We deal with “hard-handed rule” prescriptive, unques-
and unchanging
tionable, management
and unchanging styles in such
management organizations.
styles in such organizations.
2.6. The Decision-Making Modalities in a Pro-Ecological Context
2.6. The Decision-Making Modalities in a Pro-Ecological Context
Relating the decision-making to the strategy, one can assume a decision-making
Relating the decision-making to the strategy, one can assume a decision-making
strategy [99]. As indicated in Eisenhardt’s research, in the modern approach to strategy,
strategy [99]. As indicated in Eisenhardt’s research, in the modern approach to strategy,
decision-makers ask themselves the question: Where are we going? They also ask the equally
decision-makers ask themselves the question: Where are we going? They also ask the
important question: How do we want to get there? [100]. Strategic decisions are connected
equally important question: How do we want to get there? [100]. Strategic decisions are con-
to top management. Broadly understood, strategic decisions in terms of scale and impact
nected
are to top
critical management.
to the organization Broadly
over theunderstood,
long term. strategic
Preciselydecisions
because of in their
termsimportance,
of scale and
impact are critical to the organization
strategic decisions are related to the strategy [101].over the long term. Precisely because of their im-
portance, strategic decisions are related to the strategy [101].
Strategic decision-making is a particular type of decision-making in uncertainty [102].
Strategic decision-making
Such decision-making is a particular
involves formulating type
goals, of decision-making
identifying the problem, in generating
uncertainty
[102]. Such decision-making involves formulating goals, identifying
alternative solutions, evaluating, and selecting [103]. The organization’s success strategy the problem, gener-
ating alternative solutions, evaluating, and selecting [103]. The
emerges from the decision-making process, where collective intuition, avoiding political organization’s success
strategy
issues, emerges
shaping from the decision-making
constructive process, where
conflicts, and maintaining momentumcollective intuition, avoiding
in decision-making is
political issues, shaping constructive conflicts, and maintaining momentum
of strategic importance. Making a strategic decision is related to decision effectiveness in decision-
and
makinginismaking
success of strategic importance.
a decision [104]. Making
Referringa strategic
to these decision is related
studies’ results, thetoanswer
decisiontoeffec-
the
tiveness and success in making a decision [104]. Referring to these
question “how?” and the associated manager’s decision-making process shapes the organi- studies’ results, the
answer to the question “how?” and the associated manager’s decision-making
zation [100]. In a strategic decision, decision-making is essential, but the implementation process
ofshapes the organization
a strategic [100]. In
decision is equally a strategicItdecision,
important. decision-making
can be assumed is essential,
that the problems but so
are not the
implementation
much about making of a strategic decision is equally important. It can be
decision, but about its implementation [66,105]. assumed that the
problems are not managers
Even though so much about play making
multiplearoles
strategic decision,
in business but about there
operations, its implementation
are concerns
[66,105].
with top executives’ roles to integrate internal and external challenges in the decision of
Even
strategy though managers
formation [106,107]. play multipletoroles
According in business
Andrews, operations,
a strategy there aredecision-
is a “rational concerns
with top
making executives’
process”, where roles
firmsto are
integrate
lookinginternal and external
for a possibility challenges
to adjust in the
to internal anddecision
externalof
strategyand
contexts formation
conditions[106,107]. According to Andrews,
[25]. “Strategy-making a strategyisisa multi-stage
in organizations a “rational decision-
process
involving numerous individual decisions that are influenced by both internal and external
considerations and which involve contested positions between the key actors involved.
This is no less evident in the field of corporate greening as in other areas of organizational
decision-making” [25]. The environmental strategy defines the organization’s activities that
influence the environment and points to environmentally friendly practices [25,108,109].
In this strategy, companies specify how they manage relations with the natural environ-
ment [41], and they adopt strategic attitudes and general environmental strategies [25].
The environmental strategy should be adapted to the conditions of the organization’s
internal and external environments. Researchers indicate many factors initiating environ-
mental initiatives, resulting from external pressures [110] and internal conditions [111].
Most often, decision-makers in an organization make choices about environmental strat-
egy [4] influenced by factors such as risk management and assessment of market oppor-
tunities, resistance to change, corporate reputation, market growth, product design and
development, operational efficiency, capital budgeting, costing, human resource man-
agement, and the possibility of implementing an environmental strategy [25,69,111,112].
Technological progress and inventions (eco-innovations) are also key factors for the green
performance of organizations [104,105]. Therefore, organizations may choose different
environmental strategies depending on their organizational and ecological contexts. Busi-
nesses can make a variety of decisions on environmental strategies and issues to integrate
environmental challenges into a company’s strategy: from reactive and passive to a more
proactive, innovative, and leadership-based approach [25,113]. Organizations carry out
various environmental activities—a wide range of activities from minimal initiatives to
merging the organization’s strategy with pro-environmental activities. The version of the
merger requires the organization to take into account resources, factors, and interests, and
support from the organizational values and culture [69,114].
3. Discussion and Results

These strategic decisions are related to responsibility and freedom [4,31,115] or elas-
ticity and rigidity [72,116], within the organization and its management style [30,117] in
the pro-ecological strategy context. We assume that management style is a complex, not
fully comprehensible, and ambiguous term. Management style contains several variables
of a business operation—including organizing, planning, leadership, staffing, stimulation,
control, communication, authority delegation, and so on [118]. Additionally, management
styles also involve factors such as a manager’s values, attitudes toward humanity, and
organizational culture [119,120].
Rowe and Boulgarides [121] proposed a classification of decision-making styles from a
psychological perspective. In the proposed theory, they indicated four forces that determine
the style of decision-making [121,122]:
1. Directive style—relates to power and domination, clarity, cognitive simplicity.
2. Analytical style—represents a response to challenges and is characterized by cognitive
complexity, systematic, and a slow decision-making process.
3. Conceptual style—relies on an idealistic, people-oriented, creative, achievement based
on external rewards (such as praise and recognition) style.
4. Behavioral style—represents a people-oriented style, compromise-oriented, and good
communication; it is characterized by cognitive simplicity.
As a result of our literature analysis, we created Figure 5, which combines decision-
making participants (and processes) and organizational culture features: flexibility and
freedom as the axes. Then, an additional axis is added comprising the management style.
The relations between management style and decision-making in an organization de-
pend on several factors. The most important features are the specificity of the organization,
its history, and the business industry. Analyzing the research results on decision-making
and management style, we proposed a graphical presentation of the decision-making
style diagram. We assumed that each of these styles would shape a different approach to
decision-making. Although Figure 5 suggests that the freedom and flexibility drift towards

infinity along with the number of decision-makers, there is a point when the organization
becomes anarchic [41].
Figure
Figure 5. Styles
5. Styles of management
of management in relation
in relation to number
to number of decision-makers.
of decision-makers. Source:
Source: Authors’
Authors’ elabora-
elabora-
tion.
tion.
The Inrelations
Figure 5,between
we show that there is
management impossible
style unlimited growth
and decision-making in the dimensions
in an organization de-
pend on several factors. The most important features are the specificity ofaxis).
of flexibility and freedom (y axis) and number of decision-makers (x Then, we
the organiza-
created
tion, Figureand
its history, 6 where we reversed
the business the axes
industry. (but there
Analyzing the isresearch
a difference between
results decision-
on decision-
making participants and decision-making effectiveness). Therefore, Figures
making and management style, we proposed a graphical presentation of the decision- 5 and 6 are different.
However,
making stylethe numberWe
diagram. of decision-making
assumed that each participants (represented
of these styles on x axis,
would shape Figure 5)
a different ap-and
decision-making participants (y axis in Figure 6) are related. There is a breakpoint of the
proach to decision-making. Although Figure 5 suggests that the freedom and flexibility
effectiveness in decision-making when there are too many decision-makers. Because of
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEERdrift towards infinity along with the number of decision-makers, there is a point when the
REVIEW 11 of 19
this observation, we introduced Figure 6, where the top point represents the breakpoint of
organization becomes anarchic [41].
the effectiveness [15].
In Figure 5, we show that there is impossible unlimited growth in the dimensions of
flexibility and freedom (y axis) and number of decision-makers (x axis). Then, we created
Figure 6 where we reversed the axes (but there is a difference between decision-making
participants and decision-making effectiveness). Therefore, Figures 5 and 6 are different. How-
ever, the number of decision-making participants (represented on x axis, Figure 5) and
decision-making participants (y axis in Figure 6) are related. There is a breakpoint of the
effectiveness in decision-making when there are too many decision-makers. Because of
this observation, we introduced Figure 6, where the top point represents the breakpoint
of the effectiveness [15].
The decision-making effectiveness along with flexibility and freedom are limited. To
avoid anarchy in an organization, there have to be common goals and values shared
among team members. Another condition is to keep coherence between management style
and organizational culture [49,123]. In the directive style, there is no place for flexibility
and freedom in implementing the management style. This style can be described by the
red management style metaphor. Additionally, the decision-making process is confined
to the decision-maker, where employees have no voice. Each subsequent style of decision-
making increases the flexibility and freedom and the participation of employees and
stakeholders in making decisions. In the behavioral style of decision-making, flexibility,
freedom, participation in making decisions is the greatest. In this conceptual paper, we pro-
Figure pose a model tostyles
Figure6.6.Decision-making
Decision-makingstyles
helpand
recognize
andleader’s
different
leader’stypology
decision-making
typologydiagram.
diagram.Source:
styles aselaboration.
Source:Authors’
presented in Figure 6.
In Figure 6, we presented a decision-making styles diagram described by two factors:

decision-making effectiveness and flexibility and freedom. We assumed that a high level
of decision-making effectiveness is possible only in organizations with the appropriate
flexibility and freedom. The optimal level of flexibility and freedom should be neither low
nor too high. This is a situation that organizations strive for, but it is difficult to achieve
The decision-making effectiveness along with flexibility and freedom are limited. To
avoid anarchy in an organization, there have to be common goals and values shared among
team members. Another condition is to keep coherence between management style and
organizational culture [49,123]. In the directive style, there is no place for flexibility and
freedom in implementing the management style. This style can be described by the red
management style metaphor. Additionally, the decision-making process is confined to the
decision-maker, where employees have no voice. Each subsequent style of decision-making
increases the flexibility and freedom and the participation of employees and stakeholders
in making decisions. In the behavioral style of decision-making, flexibility, freedom,
participation in making decisions is the greatest. In this conceptual paper, we propose a
model to help recognize different decision-making styles as presented in Figure 6.
In Figure 6, we presented a decision-making styles diagram described by two factors:
decision-making effectiveness and flexibility and freedom. We assumed that a high level
of decision-making effectiveness is possible only in organizations with the appropriate
flexibility and freedom. The optimal level of flexibility and freedom should be neither low
nor too high. This is a situation that organizations strive for, but it is difficult to achieve and
maintain. We matched the decision-making styles to the management styles. Each decision
style was assigned a color according to the classification of management styles presented
in Table 1. A low level of decision-making effectiveness and flexibility and freedom is
characteristic of the directive and authoritative style.
It is accepted that different managers display different management styles in the
course of their work [33]. Through their management styles, they also create different
organizational cultures [23], one of the most explored characteristics of the organization
in management science since its introduction to the academic debate [14]. On the other
hand, there are well-known examples of managers who were inefficient in new organiza-
tions [41,85] because of the settled organization cultures or were not accepted with their
management style [19,124]. The quality of strategic decisions influences performance [125]
and is also essential for firms’ survival [119]. Then, a balance between responsibility and
freedom, stable or unstable strategies [57] seems to represent the choice dimensions of
management style [10,23,115]
Individuals rule such organizations. In turn, the low level of decision-making effec-
tiveness and the high level of flexibility and freedom cause chaos in an organization where
everyone rules—i.e., no one is responsible for the decisions made. These organizations
are represented by the colors green and teal. The analytical management style marked in
orange is the closest to the optimal situation. This style allows for high decision-making
effectiveness and high flexibility and freedom levels. Bearing in mind the research subject,
we decided that it is worth relating the research results to leadership in an organization.
The decision-making styles diagram allowed the identification of five types of leaders.
Command leader refers to the directive and authoritative style of management. The laissez-
faire leader is a teal behavioral style. The servant leader, on the other hand, is the green
democratic management style. The transformation leader and participation leader refer to
the orange analytic style of management.
In Figure 7, we present previously presented comprehensive ideas about formulating
the green and pro-ecological strategy which results in green decisions. We based the
proposed concept on the model of all known green strategies developed by Worthington.
There are two unequal dimensions for such a conceptual model. The larger internal
business environment inside the organization and external business environment, where
only part of the strategy is communicated but all effects of decisions are visible outside of
the organization (Figure 7).
There are two unequal dimensions for such a conceptual model. The larger internal busi-
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1604 ness environment inside the organization and external business environment, where12 of 18 only
part of the strategy is communicated but all effects of decisions are visible outside of the
organization (Figure 7).
Figure
Figure 7. A conceptual
7. A conceptual model model for a pro-ecological
for a pro-ecological sustainable
sustainable strategy
strategy approach.
approach. Source:
Source: Authors’
Authors’ elaboration.
elaboration.
ThereThere
are other implications
are other related
implications to the to
related sustainability and longitudinal
the sustainability character
and longitudinal of
character
organizational culture and
of organizational management
culture style, where
and management change
style, whereischange
slow, but is affects the affects
slow, but green the
strategy (presented
green in Figure 7).
strategy (presented The division
in Figure 7). Theline shares
division strategy
line shares (there
strategyare(there
sustainable
are sustain-
and temporary
able and temporary strategies) and factors that influence it, and both have external
strategies) and factors that influence it, and both have internal and internal and
characters;
externaladditionally,
characters; the right side the
additionally, of Figure 7 represents
right side of Figurethe7 flexible andthe
represents short-term
flexible and
elements.
short-term elements.
4. Concluding
4. Concluding Remarks
Remarks
Decision-making concerns
Decision-making humanhuman
concerns activities in manyinareas
activities many of areas
personal and professional
of personal and profes-
life [9].
sional life [9]. It is often compared to breathing because this activity is theofessence
It is often compared to breathing because this activity is the essence life andof life
a natural process [62]. Relating decision-making to management and business, it must
and a natural process [62]. Relating decision-making to management and business, it must
be pointed out that this theory is 60 years old, but this is still actual, especially in the
be pointed out that this theory is 60 years old, but this is still actual, especially in the pro-
pro-ecological strategy context.
ecological strategy context.
In this paper, we provided a summary of the management theories by comparing
In this paper, we provided a summary of the management theories by comparing
decision-making with management style. Most prior literature on the decision-making
decision-making with management style. Most prior literature on the decision-making
process has focused on studying the process and looking for an answer to questions: What is
process has focused on studying the process and looking for an answer to questions: What
the process type? Is it ethical, rational, emotional, collective, or data-driven? Researchers focused
is the process type? Is it ethical, rational, emotional, collective, or data-driven? Researchers fo-
on the various factors that shaped the process and its effects on the works on decision-
cused on the various factors that shaped the process and its effects on the works on deci-
making, one of them being a need of natural environment protection and sustainability.
sion-making, one of them being a need of natural environment protection and sustaina-
As a result of our research, we assumed that culture and strategy are potent fac-
bility.
tors in the decision-making process for green strategies. In research on organizational
management As aand
result of our research,
leadership, we assumed
much attention that culture
has been paid to and strategy are
management potent
style. factors
Based
on literature studies and analyses results, we concluded that decision-makers’ influenceman-
in the decision-making process for green strategies. In research on organizational
agement and leadership,
on decision-making could notmuch attention has
be questioned. been paid
However, to management
external factors suchstyle. Based on
as social
opinions, economic trends, and environmental needs have to be taken into consideration. on
literature studies and analyses results, we concluded that decision-makers’ influence
Then,decision-making
green strategies could not be questioned.
or pro-ecological managementHowever,
stylesexternal factors such
are approaches as social
that affect deci-opin-
ions, economic trends, and environmental needs have to be taken
sions and are influenced by the sustainable development idea. The sustainability concept into consideration.
is, without a doubt, the most influential factor on business; however, its impacts on the
management or leadership styles and decision-making are not fully understood.
In this research, we assumed that management style is a factor that shapes decision-
making in an organization Therefore, we answered the research question stated in the
introduction section. Different management styles that decision-makers implement in orga-
nizations influence the course of decision-making. A change in management style should

initiate changes in decision-making, which may or may not occur. Some organizations have
not changed their management styles in the long run. In this situation, decision-making
also does not change.
Our contribution to scientific development sheds light on ongoing discussions about
research topics such as management styles, decision-making, culture, and pro-ecological
strategies. We enriched the previous literature studies with a few suggestions, and figures,
where we proposed a drawing approach to the studied issues. We presented the rela-
tionship between management style and organizational culture, including leadership and
managerial functions (Figure 1). In the decision-making chain, we introduced a process
of decision-making, taking into account internal and external conditions, management
styles, and their effects on decision-making (Figure 2). In the cycle of crucial steps in the
decision-making process, we have shown critical steps in this cycle (Figure 3). In Table 1,
we used Laloux’s concept for analyzing contemporary organizations’ styles to show what
style is conducive to brown and green strategies. In our considerations, we undertook
theoretical research on the relationship between management style and decision-making,
indicating that the management style shapes the decision-making process in organizations
(Figure 4). Based on the results of research by other authors, we proposed an analytical
display style of decision-making taking into account the impact of decision-makers and
flexibility and freedom as factors shaping directive, analytical, conceptual, and behavioral
management styles (Figure 5). In Figure 6, we used two factors, flexibility and freedom,
with decision-making effectiveness to describe a color’s decision-making style. We have
indicated when the management style is based on the optimal level of flexibility and free-
dom. Our article has developed a conceptual model for a pro-ecological strategy approach
(Figure 7). We proposed a model that combines management style and organizational
culture with green strategies and green decisions in this work.
The presented findings have several important managerial implications. It is rare in
scientific research to deal with the justification of decision-making concerning an organiza-
tion’s management style. Our research suggests that there are two types of situations. The
first case is when management style influences decision-making. To recall the metaphor,
these are organizations classified as red, amber, and orange taxonomies. The second situa-
tion is when decisions determine the management style. In this case, we are dealing with
the green and teal taxonomies of organizations. It can be assumed that making wrong and
unfavorable decisions can be changed by shaping the management style. In our research,
we have shown how an organization can change by choosing a different management style.
Such an evolution is possible, especially when decision-makers are aware of “what color”
they function in and what organization they are striving for. This finally allows them to
establish a green and pro-ecological strategy approach and strive for its execution.
Our analyses intend to help managers and entrepreneurs implement a decision-
making strategy based on the management style to form a pro-ecological strategy. This
document provides a framework for making a decision based on the implementation of the
chosen management style. Such an understanding of business management allows for a
conscious shaping of the decision-making organization’s strategy decision-making. In this
way, one can try out different solutions and shape organizations according to their own
goals and needs.
Furthermore, some suggestions are provided for further studies related more to
the pro-ecological strategy. In further research, one can focus on analyzing factors that
influence managers’ decision-making and what factors shape the style of managing the
organization. Such information can help to shape the organization’s management and
support the decision-making process by implementing a specific management style. It
will be interesting to refer to these activities’ effects in the study of management style
and decision-making. There is still an additional question: How do management style and
decision-making influence the organization’s performance? These are also questions related
to the formulation of pro-ecological strategy and entrepreneurial decisions related to
sustainable development. This is because an introduction of additional evaluation criteria

should allow for the selection of the most effective management and decision-making
styles. In terms of management and decision-making styles, it is worth paying attention
to the stakeholders. Bearing in mind the new challenges related to the destruction of the
natural environment, it is worth shaping the management style and decision-making based
on the stakeholders’ needs. In particular, the influence of the organization’s ecological
governance and sustainable development should be considered, taking into account the
modern four pillars of sustainable development: people, planet, partnership, and profit.
When examining the management style and decision-making in organizations imple-
menting environmental strategies, it should be assumed that the organization’s interior is
vital. Goals, values, beliefs, and strategies must be consistent with the green strategy and
with employees. The lack of convergence between the culture and style of management
and green strategy and decision-making will be noticeable outside the organization. Such
a situation can bring more significant damage to the company among employees. In
organizations interested in the ecological strategies approach, it is difficult to overestimate
Green Human Resources Management’s role to educate and develop green employees. In
turn, employees should acquire green qualifications. The success and credibility of green
organizations depend on hiring the right employees—i.e., those who adjust to the com-
pany and accept their values and goals. Such a match may become a factor verifying the
employee’s position in a green organization, assuming that the company is a set of people
who individually and as a group represent similar goals and values. The interest in green
strategies should show that “the will to be green” among companies and employees will
grow. Therefore, this subject is not only topical, with its importance and merits gradually
increasing, not only to scientists, but also to business practitioners.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization A.S., M.F. and L.S.-P.; methodology A.S. and L.S.-P.; formal
analysis A.S. and L.S.-P.; investigation A.S., L.S.-P. and M.F.; writing—original draft preparation A.S.,
L.S.-P. and M.F.; writing—review and editing A.S., L.S.-P. and M.F.; visualization A.S., L.S.-P. and
M.F.; supervision A.S.; project administration, A.S., and L.S.-P.; funding acquisition, A.S., and L.S.-P.
These authors contributed equally to this work. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding: (A.S.) The project is financed by the National Science Centre in Poland under the program
“Business Ecosystem of the Environmental Goods and Services Sector in Poland”, implemented in
2020–2022; project number 2019/33/N/HS4/02957; total funding amount PLN 120,900.00. (L.S.-P.)
The project is financed by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education in Poland under the program
“Regional Initiative of Excellence” 2019–2022; project number 015/RID/2018/19; total funding
amount PLN 10,721,040.00.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: We acknowledge the support given us by the proof-readers Zuzanna Sulich and
Magdalena Sulich and consultations related to the paper were provided by Piotr Zema and Tomasz
Zema. We are especially grateful to the Jerzy Tutaj and Max Weber Institute (Jedlina-Zdroj, Poland)
for library access and further cooperation possibilities. The authors thank the anonymous reviewers
and editor for their valuable contributions that improved this manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design
of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or
in the decision to publish the results.
References
1. Durán-Romero, G.; López, A.M.; Beliaeva, T.; Ferasso, M.; Garonne, C.; Jones, P. Bridging the gap between circular economy and
climate change mitigation policies through eco-innovations and Quintuple Helix Model. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2020, 160,
120246. [CrossRef]
2. Thier, A.; Popławski, Ł. Problems of Water Management in Agriculture in the World. Probl. World Agric. Probl. Rol. Swiat. 2016,
16, 293–300.
3. Garcia, S.; Cintra, Y.; Rita de Cassia, S.R.; Lima, F.G. Corporate sustainability management: A proposed multi-criteria model to
support balanced decision-making. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 136, 181–196. [CrossRef]
4. Haessler, P. Strategic Decisions between Short-Term Profit and Sustainability. Adm. Sci. 2020, 10, 63. [CrossRef]
5. Sulich, A.; Zema, T. Role of the Management in the World Driven by the Industry 4.0. In Education Excellence and Innovation
Management: A 2025 Vision to Sustain Economic Development during Global Challenges, Proceedings of the 35th International Business
Information Management Association Conference (IBIMA 2020), Seville, Spain, 1–2 April 2020; Soliman, K.S., Ed.; International Business
Information Management Association (IBIMA): King of Prussia, PA, USA, 2020; pp. 2565–2576.
6. Nilsson, M.; Dalkmann, H. Decision making and strategic environmental assessment. J. Environ. Assess. Policy Manag. 2001, 3,
305–327. [CrossRef]
7. Abrahamse, W.; Matthies, E. Informational strategies to promote pro-environmental behaviour: Changing knowledge, awareness
and attitudes. Environ. Psychol. Introd. 2012, 2012, 223–232.
8. Ferasso, M.; Bergamaschi, E.A. Bounded rationality effect on firm’s choices on R&D investments: A model for decision-making
effectiveness analysis. J. Res. Emerg. Mark. 2020, 2, 24–42. [CrossRef]
9. Nosal, C. Psychologia Myślenia i Działania Menedżera: Rozwiazywanie˛ Problemów, Podejmowanie Decyzji, Kreowanie Strategii;
Wydawnictwo AKADE: Wroclaw, Poland, 2001.
10. Joensuu, M.; Niiranen, V. Political Leaders’ Experiences of Local Council, Board and Committee Work and Its Challenges in
Finland. Adm. Sci. 2019, 9, 77. [CrossRef]
11. Shahmohammadi, N. The Relationship between Management Style with Human Relations and Job Satisfaction among Guidance
Schools’ Principals in District 3 of Karaj. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 205, 247–253. [CrossRef]
12. Ghias, F.; Ahmed, A. A Study of the Effect of Management Styles on Performance of Students at Secondary Level in Sargodha.
Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 46, 2523–2527. [CrossRef]
13. Olmedo-Cifuentes, I.; Martínez-León, I.M. Influence of management style on employee views of corporate reputation. Application
to audit firms. BRQ Bus. Res. Q. 2014, 17, 223–241. [CrossRef]
14. Machar, I.; Pechanec, V.; Rejsek, K.; Vranova, V.; Kilianova, H. Knowledge of forest management history as a support decision
tool for management plans of forest protected areas. Balt. For. 2018, 24, 99–108.
15. Beliaeva, T.; Ferasso, M.; Kraus, S.; Damke, E.J. Dynamics of digital entrepreneurship and the innovation ecosystem: A multilevel
perspective. Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 2019, 26, 266–284. [CrossRef]
16. Kasztelan, A. How circular are the European economies? A taxonomic analysis based on the INEC (index of national economies’
circularity). Sustainability 2020, 12, 7613. [CrossRef]
17. Zema, T.; Sulich, A. Relations in The Interorganizational Networks. Int. J. Soc. Sci. Educ. Stud. 2019, 6, 111–121.
18. Rodríguez, C.M. Emergence of a third culture: Shared leadership in international strategic alliances. Int. Mark. Rev. 2005, 22,
67–95. [CrossRef]
19. Labrague, L.J.; McEnroe-Petitte, D.M. An integrative review on conflict management styles among nursing students: Implications
for nurse education. Nurse Educ. Today 2017, 59, 45–52. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
20. Laloux, F. Reinventing Organizations: A Guide to Creating Organizations Inspired by the Next Stage in Human Consciousness; Nelson
Parker: Brussels, Belgium, 2014; ISBN 1422102505.
21. Caputo, A.; Ayoko, O.B.; Amoo, N. The moderating role of cultural intelligence in the relationship between cultural orientations
and conflict management styles. J. Bus. Res. 2018, 89, 10–20. [CrossRef]
22. Beaudoin, C.A.; Dang, L.; Fang, Q.; Tsakumis, G.T. The agency problem and the moderating role of culturally based management
style on Chinese managers’ discretionary accruals. J. Int. Account. Audit. Tax. 2012, 21, 145–155. [CrossRef]
23. Dimmock, K. Management style and competitive strategies among tourism firms in the Northern Rivers. Tour. Manag. 1999, 20,
24. Jain, L.C.; Lim, C.P.; Nguyen, N.T. Innovations in Knowledge Processing and Decision Making in Agent-Based Systems. In
Knowledge Processing and Decision Making in Agent-Based Systems; Jain, L.C., Nguyen, N.T., Eds.; Studies in Computational
Intelligence; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2009; pp. 1–12. ISBN 9783540880486.
25. Worthington, I. Greening Business; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2013.
26. Berthon, P.; Pitt, L.F.; Ewing, M.T. Corollaries of the collective: The influence of organizational culture and memory development
on perceived decision-making context. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2001, 29, 135–150. [CrossRef]
27. Weatherly, K.A.; Beach, L.R. Organizational Culture and Decision Making. In Decision Making in the Workplace: A Unified
Perspective; Beach, L.R., Ed.; Psychology Press: New York, NY, USA; London, UK, 1996; pp. 117–132.
28. Sulich, A.; Zema, T. Green jobs, a new measure of public management and sustainable development. Eur. J. Environ. Sci. 2018, 8,
69–75. [CrossRef]
29. Wierzbic, A.; Martusewicz, J. The Evolution of the EFQM Model in the Context of Contemporary Challenges for Organizations.
In Vision 2025: Education Excellence and Management of Innovations through Sustainable Economic Competitive Advantage, Proceedings of
the 34th International Business Information Management Association Conference (IBIMA), Madrid, Spain, 13–14 November 2019; Soliman,
K.S., Ed.; International Business Information Management Association (IBIMA): King of Prussia, PA, USA, 2019; pp. 11200–11209.
30. Katić, I.; Knežević, T.; Berber, N.; Ivanišević, A.; Leber, M. The impact of stress on life, working, and management styles: How to
make an organization healthier? Sustainability 2019, 11, 4026. [CrossRef]
31. Adger, W.N.; Brown, K.; Fairbrass, J.; Jordan, A.; Paavola, J.; Rosendo, S.; Seyfang, G. Governance for sustainability: Towards a
„thick” analysis of environmental decisionmaking. Environ. Plan. A 2003, 36, 1095–1110. [CrossRef]
32. Splichalova, A.; Patrman, D.; Kotalova, N.; Hromada, M. Managerial Decision Making in Indicating a Disruption of Critical
Infrastructure Element Resilience. Adm. Sci. 2020, 10, 75. [CrossRef]
33. Sulich, A.; Rutkowska, M. Between green and turquoise management styles. Nauk. Zarzadzaniu ˛ 2019, 24, 24–31.
34. Hernández-Sánchez, B.R.; Sánchez-García, J.C.; Mayens, A.W. Impact of Entrepreneurial Education Programs on Total En-
trepreneurial Activity: The Case of Spain. Adm. Sci. 2019, 9, 25. [CrossRef]
35. Cardella, G.M.; Hernández-Sánchez, B.R.; Sánchez-García, J.C. Basic Psychological Needs as a Motivational Competence:
Examining Validity and Measurement Invariance of Spanish BPNSF Scale. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5422. [CrossRef]
36. Tohidi, H.; Jabbari, M.M. Organizational culture and leadership. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 31, 856–860. [CrossRef]
37. Sobczak, E.; Bartniczak, B.; Raszkowski, A. Aging Society and the Selected Aspects of Environmental Threats: Evidence from
Poland. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4648. [CrossRef]
38. Hernández-Sánchez, B.R.; Cardella, G.M.; Sánchez-García, J.C. Psychological Factors that Lessen the Impact of COVID-19 on the
Self-Employment Intention of Business Administration and Economics’ Students from Latin America. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public
Health 2020, 17, 5293. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
39. Pawluczuk, A.; Ryciuk, U. Variables Shaping the culture in Organizational Learning Municipalities. Int. J. Contemp. Manag. 2015,
14, 51–62.
40. Deal, T.E.; Kennedy, A.A. Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of Organizational Life; Addison-Wesley Publishing Company:
Boston, MA, USA, 1982.
41. Smith, M.E. Changing an organisation’s culture: Correlates of success and failure. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 2003, 24, 249–261.
[CrossRef]
42. Mazaheri, E.; Basil, D.Z.; Yanamandram, V.; Daroczi, Z. The impact of pre-existing attitude and conflict management style on
customer satisfaction with service recovery. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2011, 18, 235–245. [CrossRef]
43. Deal, T.; Kennedy, A. Culture and School Performance. Educ. Leadersh. 1983, 40, 14–15.
44. Sun, H.; Ikram, M.; Mohsin, M.; Abbas, Q. Energy Security and environmental efficiency: Evidence from OECD Countries. Singap.
Econ. Rev. 2020, 1943003. [CrossRef]
45. Barney, J.B. Organizational Culture: Can It Be a Source of Sustained Competitive Advantage? Acad. Manag. Rev. 2016, 11, 656–665.
[CrossRef]
46. Boulu-Reshefa, B.; Holt, C.A.; Rodgers, M.S.; Thomas-Hunt, M.C. The impact of leader communication on free-riding: An
incentivized experiment with empowering and directive styles. Leadersh. Q. 2020, 31, 101351. [CrossRef]
47. Johnson, A.; Nguyen, H.; Groth, M.; Wang, K.; Ng, J.L. Time to change: A review of organisational culture change in health care
organisations. J. Organ. Eff. People Perform. 2016, 3, 265–288. [CrossRef]
48. Popowicz, E.; Sulich, A. The Green Strategies Internal Communication. In Proceedings of the 17th Students’ Science Conference
“Ocean of Knowledge”, Olesnica, Poland, 18–21 September 2019; pp. 133–141.
49. Ali, A.A.; Mahmood, A.; Ikram, A.; Ahmad, A. Configuring the Drivers and Carriers of Process Innovation in Manufacturing
Organizations. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2020, 6, 154. [CrossRef]
50. Grønhaug, K.; Ottesen, G.G. Can theoretical knowledge and application yield competitive advantage? Mark. Intell. Plan. 2007, 25,
51. Oswick, C.; Grant, D. Re-Imagining Images of Organization: A Conversation With Gareth Morgan. J. Manag. Inq. 2016, 25,
52. Breslin, D.; Gatrell, C. Theorizing Through Literature Reviews: The Miner-Prospector Continuum. Organ. Res. Methods 2020, 1–29.
[CrossRef]
53. Casey, C. Bureaucracy Re-enchanted? Spirit, Experts and Authority in Organizations. Organization 2004, 11, 59–79. [CrossRef]
54. Chen, P.-K.; Lujan-Blanco, I.; Fortuny-Santos, J.; Ruiz-de-Arbulo-López, P. Lean Manufacturing and Environmental Sustainability:
The Effects of Employee Involvement, Stakeholder Pressure and ISO 14001. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7258. [CrossRef]
55. Zhang, Y.; Chabay, I. How “Green Knowledge” Influences Sustainability through Behavior Change: Theory and Policy Implica-
tions. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6448. [CrossRef]
56. Organa, M. Leadership embedded within centralized and decentralized networks: A case study of IT software and services
company. In Innovation Management and Education Excellence through Vision 2020, Proceedings of the 31st International Business
Information Management Association Conference (IBIMA), Milan, Italy, 25–26 April, 2018; Soliman, K.S., Ed.; International Business
57. Sołoducho-Pelc, L.; Sulich, A. Between Sustainable and Temporary Competitive Advantages in the Unstable Business Environ-
ment. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8832. [CrossRef]
58. Piwowar-Sulej, K. Pro-Environmental Organizational Culture: Its Essence and a Concept for Its Operationalization. Sustainability
2020, 12, 4197. [CrossRef]
59. Sirbu, C.C.; Tonea, E.; Pet, E.; Popa, N.D. Aspects Related to Management Styles and Manager Types in the Educational
Organizations. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 182, 555–559. [CrossRef]
60. Lu, W.; Wang, J. The influence of conflict management styles on relationship quality: The moderating effect of the level of task
conflict. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2017, 35, 1483–1494. [CrossRef]
61. Raiffa, H.; Schlaifer, R. Applied Statistical Decision Theory; Wiley-Interscience: New York, NY, USA, 1961; ISBN 978-0471383499.
62. Goodwin, P.; Wright, G. Decision Analysis for Management Judgment; Wiley and Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1998.
63. Dean, J.W.; Shrafman, M.P. Does Decision Process Matters? A Study of Strategic Decision-Making Effectiveness. Acad. Manag. J.
1996, 39, 368–396.
64. Boehmer-Christiansen, S. The geo-politics of sustainable development: Bureaucracies and politicians in search of the holy grail.
Geoforum 2002, 33, 351–365. [CrossRef]
65. Wang, Y.; Ruhe, G. The cognitive process of decision making. Int. J. Cogn. Inform. Nat. Intell. 2007, 1, 73–85. [CrossRef]
66. Ikram, M.; Sroufe, R.; Rehman, E.; Shah, S.Z.A.; Mahmoudi, A. Do Quality, Environmental, and Social (QES) Certifications
Improve International Trade? A Comparative Grey Relation Analysis of Developing vs. Developed Countries. Phys. A Stat. Mech.
Appl. 2020, 545, 123486. [CrossRef]
67. Bartniczak, B.; Raszkowski, A. Sustainable Development in African Countries: An Indicator-Based Approach and Recommenda-
tions for the Future. Sustainability 2019, 11, 22. [CrossRef]
68. Raszkowski, A.; Bartniczak, B. Towards Sustainable Regional Development: Economy, Society, Environment, Good Governance
Based on the Example of Polish Regions. Transform. Bus. Econ. 2018, 17, 225–245.
69. Maxwell, J.; Rothenberg, S.; Briscoe, F.; Marcus, A. Green schemes: Corporate environmental strategies and their implementation.
Calif. Manag. Rev. 1997, 39, 118–134. [CrossRef]
70. Kuhn, T.; Poole, S. Do conflict management styles affect group decision making? Evidence from a longitudinal field study. Hum.
Commun. Res. 2000, 26, 558–590. [CrossRef]
71. Sousa, M.J.; Rocha, Á. Decision-Making and Negotiation in Innovation & Research in Information Science. Gr. Decis. Negot. 2020,
1–9. [CrossRef]
72. Rozbejko, K. Flexibility and Efficiency in the Applied Management Style on the Example of Managers in the Banking Sector.
Organ. Manag. 2019, 4, 71–84.
73. Krajcovic, P.; Cabayova, L. Use of Social Media for Marketing Communication of Socially Responsible Business Activitues
in Slovakia. In Proceedings of the ECSM 2020—7th European Conference on Social Media, Larnaca, Cyprus, 2–3 July 2020;
Karpasitis, C., Ed.; Academic Conferences Ltd.: Kidmore End, UK, 2020; pp. 135–143.
74. Hansson, K.; Larsson, A.; Danielson, M.; Ekenberg, L. Coping with Complex Environmental and Societal Flood Risk Management
Decisions: An Integrated Multi-criteria Framework. Sustainability 2011, 3, 1357–1380. [CrossRef]
75. Ekenberg, L.; Danielson, M.; Larsson, A.; Sundgren, D. Second-Order Risk Constraints in Decision Analysis. Axioms 2014, 3,
31–45. [CrossRef]
76. Goldsby, E.; Goldsby, M.; Neck, C.B.; Neck, C.P. Under Pressure: Time Management, Self-Leadership, and the Nurse Manager.
Adm. Sci. 2020, 10, 38. [CrossRef]
77. Afolabi, L.; Abu Bakar, N.A. Causal link between trade, political instability, FDI and economic growth–Nigeria evidence. J. Econ.
Libr. 2016, 3, 100–110.
78. Rajagopalan, A.; Rasheed, A.; Datta, D.K. Strategic Decision Processes: Critical Review and Future Directions. J. Manag. 1993, 19,
79. Esty, D.C.; Winston, A.S. Green to Gold: How Smart Companies Use Environmental Strategy to Innovate; Wiley and Sons: Hoboken, NJ,
USA, 2009.
80. Walczak, W. The factors and conditions influencing decisions in managing the organization. E Mentor 2012, 45, 35–45. (In Polish)
81. Stockam, F.N.; Van Assen, M.A.L.M.; Van der Knopp, J.; Van Oosten, R.C.H. Strategic Decision Making. Adv. Group Process. 2001,
17, 131–153.
82. Tyc, W. Media Info—Tactics and the it Stock Price Bubbles. In Selected Issues of Decision-Making by Economic Entities; Bernat, T., Ed.;
Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego: Szczecin, Poland, 2011; pp. 207–217.
83. Gładysz, B.; Pawlicki, A. Group approximation of task duration and time buffers in scrum. In Transactions on Computational
Collective Intelligence XXVII; Mercik, J., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 178–190.
84. Arend, R.J. Getting Nothing from Something: Unfulfilled Promises of Current Dominant Approaches to Entrepreneurial Decision-
Making. Adm. Sci. 2020, 10, 61. [CrossRef]
85. Bulgaru, I. Study on Management Styles of the Teacher. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 180, 144–149. [CrossRef]
86. Kulhánek, L.; Sulich, A. Financial risk in the contemporary environment of enterprises. Zesz. Nauk. Wyższej Szk. Humanit.
Zarzadzanie
˛ 2018, 19, 49–63. [CrossRef]
87. Rutkowska, M.; Kamińska, A.M. Turquoise Management Model-Teal Organization. In Education Excellence and Innovation
Management: A 2025 Vision to Sustain Economic Development during Global Challenges, Proceedings of the 35th International Business
Information Management Association Conference (IBIMA 2020), Seville, Spain, 1–2 April 2020; Soliman, K.S., Ed.; International Business
88. Akberdiyeva, A. Identyfikacja korzyści z funkcjonowania organizacji w warunkach turkusowego modelu zarzadzania. ˛ Pr. Nauk.
Uniw. Ekon. Wrocławiu 2018, 543, 9–23. [CrossRef]
89. Bertrand, M.; Schoar, A. Managing with Style: The Effect of Managers on Firm Policies. Q. J. Econ. 2003, 118, 1169–1208. [CrossRef]
90. Ryszawska, B. The Role of CSR in the Transition to a Green Economy. In Corporate Social Responsibility in Poland. Strategies,
Opportunities and Challenges; Długopolska-Mikonowicz, A., Przytuła, S., Stehr, C., Eds.; CSR, Sustainability, Ethics & Governance;
Springer Nature: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 105–119.
91. Raszkowski, A.; Bartniczak, B. Sustainable Development in the Central and Eastern European Countries (CEECs): Challenges
and Opportunities. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1180. [CrossRef]
92. Rowe, A.J.; Mason, R.O. Managing With Style: A Guide to Understanding, Assessing, and Improving Decision Making; Jossey-Bass: San
Franciso, CA, USA, 1987.
93. Simon, H.A. Making Management Decisions: The Role of Intuition and Emotion. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 1987, 1, 57–64. [CrossRef]
94. Khatri, N.; Ng, H.A. The role of intuition in strategic decision making. Hum. Relations 2000, 53, 57–86. [CrossRef]
95. Miller, C.C.; Ireland, R.D. Intuition in strategic decision making: Friend or foe in the fast-paced 21st century? Acad. Manag.
Perspect. 2005, 19, 19–30. [CrossRef]
96. Eisenhardt, K.M. Making fast strategic decisions in high-velocity environments. Acad. Manag. J. 1989, 32, 543–576.
97. Coccia, M. Critical decision in crisis management: Rational strategies of decision making. J. Econ. Libr. 2020, 7, 81–96.
98. Bourgeois, L.J.; Eisenhardt, K.M. Strategic decision processes in high velocity environments: Four cases in the microcomputer
industry. Manag. Sci. 1988, 34, 816–835. [CrossRef]
99. Hart, S. An Integrative Framework for Strategy-Making Processes. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1992, 17, 327–351. [CrossRef]
100. Eisenhardt, K.M. Strategy as strategic decision making. Sloan Manage. Rev. 1999, 40, 65–72.
101. Hambrick, D.C.; Snow, C.C. A Contextual Model of Strategic Decision Making in Organizations. Acad. Manag. Proc. 1977, 1977,
102. Eisenhardt, K.M.; Zbaracki, M.J. Strategic decision making. Strateg. Manag. J. 1992, 13, 17–37. [CrossRef]
103. Schwenk, C.R. Cognitive simplification processes in strategic decision-making. Strateg. Manag. J. 1984, 5, 111–128. [CrossRef]
104. Dean, J.W., Jr.; Sharfman, M.P. Procedural rationality in the strategic decision-making process. J. Manag. Stud. 1993, 30, 587–610.
[CrossRef]
105. Said, E. Procedural rationality in the strategic decision-making process. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2006, 8, 1–20.
106. Gomez, C.; Werner, S. The effect of institutional and strategic forces on management style in subsidiaries of U.S. MNCs in Mexico.
J. Bus. Res. 2004, 57, 1135–1144. [CrossRef]
107. Popławski, Ł.; Rutkowska, M. Determinants of the Ecodevelopment of Protected Areas in Poland Legal and Institutional. In
Proceedings of the 19th International Scientific Conference: Economic Science for Rural Development, Jelgava, Latvia, 9–11 May
2018; pp. 249–258.
108. Clemens, B. Changing environmental strategies over time: An empirical study of the steel industry in the United States. J. Environ.
Manag. 2001, 62, 221–231. [CrossRef]
109. Lee, S.Y.; Rhee, S.K. The change in corporate environmental strategies: A longitudinal empirical study. Manag. Decis. 2007, 45,
110. Angell, L.C.; Rands, G. Factors Influencing Successful and Unsuccessful Environmental Change Initiatives. In Research in Corporate
Sustainability; Sharma, S., Starik, M., Eds.; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA, USA, 2002.
111. Aragón-Correa, J.A.; Rubio-López, E.A. Proactive Corporate Environmental Strategies: Myths and Misunderstandings. Long
Range Plan. 2007, 40, 357–381. [CrossRef]
112. James, P.; Ghobadian, A.; Viney, H.; Liu, J. Addressing the Divergence between Environmental Strategy Formulation and
Implementation. Manag. Decis. 1999, 37, 338–347. [CrossRef]
113. Banerjee, B. Corporate environmental strategies and actions. Manag. Decis. 2001, 39, 36–44. [CrossRef]
114. Hoffman, A.J. The importance of fit between individual values and organisational culture in the greening of industry. Bus. Strateg.
Environ. 1993, 2, 10–18. [CrossRef]
115. Grudziński, A.; Sulich, A. Concept of freedom in management. Int. J. Soc. Sci. Educ. Stud. 2019, 6, 134–141. [CrossRef]
116. Eisenhardt, K.M.; Martin, J.A. Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strateg. Manag. J. 2000, 21, 1105–1121. [CrossRef]
117. Olson, E.G. Creating an enterprise-level „green” strategy. J. Bus. Strateg. 2008, 29, 22–30. [CrossRef]
118. Wu, W.Y. Relationships between corporate culture and management styles for Chines, American, and Japanese firms in Taiwan. J.
Natl. Cheng Kung Univ. 1994, 29, 63–90.
119. Wu, W.Y.; Chiang, C.Y.; Jiang, J.S. Interrelationships between TMT management styles and organizational innovation. Ind. Manag.
Data Syst. 2002, 102, 171–183. [CrossRef]
120. Stogdill, R.M. Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the literature. J. Psychol. 1948, 25, 35–71. [CrossRef]
121. Rowe, A.J.; Boulgarides, J.D.; McGrath, M.R. Managerial Decision Making; Science Research Associates: Chicago, IL, USA, 1994.
122. Amzat, I.H.; Idris, D.A.R. Structural equation models of management and decision-making styles with job satisfaction of academic
staff in Malaysian research university. Int. J. Educ. Manag. 2012, 26, 616–645. [CrossRef]
123. Lee, J.Y.; Shin, J.H. Why Do They Stay? Intention to Stay among Registered Nurses in Nursing Homes. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public
Health 2020, 17, 8485. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
124. To, W.; Yu, B.; Lee, P. How Quality Management System Components Lead to Improvement in Service Organizations: A System
Practitioner Perspective. Adm. Sci. 2018, 8, 73. [CrossRef]
125. Staber, U. The Competitive Advantage of Regional Clusters: An Organizational–Evolutionary Perspective. Compet. Chang. 2007,
11, 3–18. [CrossRef]

S Ulich 2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

S Ulich 2021

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

S Ulich 2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

1 Department of Advanced Research in Management, Wroclaw University of Economics and Business,

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral

Sustainability 2021, 13, 1604. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041604 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

2.2. Decision-Making Process

Figure 2. The decision-making chain. Source: Authors’ elaboration.

Bearing in mind Bearingthe assumption

2.4. Management Styles

Table 1. Management styles according to color taxonomy.

Management Guiding Key Current Decision

2.5. Management Styles as Differentiating Variables of Managerial Decision

3. Discussion and Results

Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 19

In Figure 6, we presented a decision-making styles diagram described by two factors:

nizations influence the course of decision-making. A change in management style should

sustainable development. This is because an introduction of additional evaluation criteria

You might also like