The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0025-1747.htm

Nature and value

The nature and value of common of common sense
sense to decision making
Sheng Zhao
Department of Management Engineerig, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, 441
China

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine, from management perspective, the nature of
common sense, its application in decision-making, and possibility of developing common sense more
effectively.
Design/methodology/approach – To take typical dictionary definitions of common sense,
understand, from management perspective, the different aspects of the nature of common sense,
analyze how these properties affect different applications of common sense in decision making
process. To cite available literature to support or explain points made, and make a parallel comparison
to intuition and decision making where appropriate because of their similarity to certain extent.
Findings – The paper provides how to understand properties of common sense from managerial
perspective, analyzes its value in aiding decision making, explains how mangers utilize common sense
of target group or employees for decision making and creativity, and proposes some points for
boosting development of common sense.
Practical implications – The paper points out possible different utilization of common sense for
decision making. Common sense can be used for innovation. An effective strategy for innovation is not
to launch sounds-big innovation programs, but to respect and trust your employees to allow them
freedom of expression of common sense and uncommon sense.
Originality/value – The paper suggests that common sense may involve tacit knowledge, often is a
mix of personal experience and social communication, often comprises hard part and soft part, and can
be used for creativity. The paper explains why there exist opposite opinions on common sense
approach. These have not been seen in existing literature.
Keywords Decision making, Psychology, Managers, Design and development
Paper type Viewpoint

Common sense is a commonly used term, and is taken as self-evident, even for research
in the management field. Having searched available literature about common sense, I
have found most of the literature makes references to common sense without
explanation. There has been very little serious examination of common sense in
managerial decision. This paper tries, from management perspective, to look into the
nature of common sense, how it can aid decision making, and if there is any possibility
to develop it effectively.

What is common sense?

On the web page of “common sense” of answers.com, I find three definitions:
(1) Answers: Sound judgment not based on specialized knowledge; native good
judgment. Management Decision
(2) Thesaurus: The ability to make sensible decisions: judgment, sense, wisdom. Vol. 47 No. 3, 2009
pp. 441-453
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
(3) Wikipedia: Common sense (or, when used attributively as an adjective, 0025-1747
commonsense, common-sense, or commonsensical), based on a strict DOI 10.1108/00251740910946705
MD construction of the term, is what people in common would agree: that which
47,3 they “sense” in common as their common natural understanding. Some use the
phrase to refer to beliefs or propositions that in their opinion they consider
would in most people’s experience be prudent and of sound judgment, without
dependence upon esoteric knowledge or study or research, but based upon what
is believed to be knowledge held by people “in common”, so: the knowledge and
442 experience most people have, or are believed to have by the person using the
term.

These slightly different definitions reflect three essential points about common sense.
It is a good judgment, an ability or wisdom; it is a native, natural, or based on a
knowledge held or believed to be held by most people; it is shared or believed to be
shared by a social group: most people or a special circle.
Although the definitions provide the conception of common sense, they are not up to
scientific rigor, and subject to question. Say, what is good or sensible? Is your
“sensible” the same as mine? My sensible judgment and decision may, in your opinion,
not be sensible, even stupid. It is extremely rare to see everybody agrees. Sensibility
may vary among individuals. From knowledge of statistics, we know that individual
variations tend to form a dominant opinion not a common one. Despite the weaknesses,
the definitions of common sense give us a general outline of what common sense is, and
do not cause particular difficulty for use of the concept because we have seen similar
circumstance in social sciences, which, also with many less rigorous concepts,
continues to advance.

The nature of common sense

While searching for literature related to common sense, I found that nearly all literature
in management field uses common sense as self-evident concept rather than examine it
carefully. There are certain philosophical and psychological researches, which are
distant from management research. I intend to focus on how to understand the nature
of common sense, without citing argumentations from philosophy or psychology
because I find they provide more controversies than relevancy to understanding of
managerial issues.

1. Where does common sense come from?

How did we acquire our common sense? The answer is not that straightforward. There
are two basic routes to acquire it: individual experience and either intentional or
unintentional social sharing.
Individually, our perceptions and understanding of the things around us and the
relationship between them and to us originate from our sensing and interacting with
them. All normal humans have senses of sight, hearing, taste, smell, touch,
temperature, pain, etc. On our own, sensing the things around us and trying to
understand their meaning to us is the only route for us to acquire knowledge about
them and judgment for how to interact with them.
Look at a newborn baby, who knows nearly nothing about how to interact with the
outside world, only able to move aimlessly or meaninglessly. As the baby grows, he or
she is taught to eat, to speak, to sit and walk. They learn how to interact with the
outside through being taught, imitating others, and trying on their own. Gradually,
they know more and more about how to interact with people and things around them Nature and value
and get used to their acquired behavioral patterns. In fact, the ability of as simple as of common sense
eating is not born with. Did we know what to eat and how much to eat when we were
born? We did not know although we have physiological capacity to feel hungry or full.
When we first drank milk or ate potato, it was a great exploration, and as a result of
this exploration we knew it can stop our hunger. Exploration of unknown objects gave
us knowledge, a sense. A sense is a kind of effectiveness of our action, a reliable link 443
between things we do.
The sense of what to eat is acquired from experience, so does the sense of how much
to eat. We ate one potato, wanting more; two, comfortable; three, overfed, these
different feelings of eating different amounts gave us a sense of what is right amount to
eat. Our senses build up with more concrete experiences.
In addition to individual experience, intentional or unintentional social sharing is
also an important route. We do not live alone; actually we would find it hard to live in
complete isolation. We are tied together with variety of visible and invisible links,
formal or informal groups, and our knowledge may come from family, education, work,
media, social events, etc. Some knowledge is intentionally transmitted, we want to
know or others want to share with us, some unintentionally or even without our
awareness.
It is hard to cut clear between the routes of individual experience and social
communication. A piece of knowledge often is a kind of mix of social communication
and individual experience, which may vary from pure experience to pure social
communication.

2. How many knows is regarded as common sense and how similar the common sense is?
Common sense is dominant majority of similar experiences or pure beliefs among a
group. Only once or individual sense is surely not counted as common sense. But how
many knows is regarded as “common”? We do not have accurate idea, just feeling that
many people I meet know. Perhaps 50 per cent of the population should be the baseline.
As an individual, how do I know what I know is a common sense instead of special
knowledge belonging to me or certain few people only? I can feel “everybody knows”
by having heard or seen repeatedly, or just by inference. Say it is hot in summer in
Australia is a common sense because all Australians can feel that and we can infer that
from our common geographical knowledge that Australia is located in hot region.
How similar are my sense and yours? It depends. Some common senses are
universally same, like the fact that the sum of angles of a triangle is 1808. People all
over the world who are math literate know exactly the same. Some common senses
have solid part and soft part, thus varying with personal experience. Some common
senses, especially those peer public beliefs have obvious variations because of different
personal interpretations. “Common” does not mean universal and uniform, minor
differences are rich. Common sense can vary from completely solid to very soft with
only small part solid.
To see the two sides of common sense, one is majority, the other is variation, will
point to possibility of its different utilization. Say, for the nature of majority, common
sense can exhibit its social power. Nitecki (1987) points out that “Many intellectuals, as
well as managers, who in the past ignored or tried to bypass the authority of the official
common sense doctrines paid highly for their disrespect.” (p. 644).
MD 3. Common sense often involves tacit knowledge
47,3 For those common senses about doing something, transmitted around is only part of
knowledge that can be transmitted. One of scientist and philosopher Polanyi’s famous
aphorisms is: “We know more than we can tell.” The remaining untransmitted part is
tacit knowledge, complicated to tell, even unaware to us, but we know how and can do.
Tacit knowledge is difficult to share because of unawareness and expression difficulty.
444 Effective transfer of tacit knowledge generally requires extensive personal contact and
trust. Tacit knowledge is valuable because it tacitly determines performance of our
explicit knowledge.
Some common senses are dependent on situation or cultural context. Common sense
in business practice in the West is not necessarily the one in the East, or vice versa.
Applied to improper situation or context, common sense may lead to mistakes or
failure.

4. Common sense can be effective and fallible

Experience-derived common sense is proven in practice and can be valid when applied
in similar situations. But it may be misleading because limited experience may be not
adequate to guarantee its validity for wider application: perhaps past successes might
just be happenstances and the exact conditions for its application have not identified.
Common sense, viewed scientifically, is often coarsely correct. Perhaps we can call
common sense prescience phase of knowledge.
Common sense can be misleading also because of intuition limits. Some safety
principles are counterintuitive. By intuition, we seldom can correctly understand
operation of a complex technological and/or social system. Tragedy of commons is an
example that individuals can not judge the result of a complex social interaction.
Public beliefs cannot be substantiated, and is prone to be fallible. A definition of
common sense attributed to Albert Einstein states: “Common sense is the collection of
prejudices acquired by age eighteen.”

5. Common sense is in gradual change

Common sense changes gradually because the world we live in is always in change and
science and technology is always in progress. The change is so slow that it seems inert.
Nitecki (1987) states that “it is a rule rather than exception that common sense opposes
any radical departures from commonly held beliefs. For example, Einstein’s
dissertation about relativity overturned in a short, well reasoned essay many of the
accepted common sense ideas about time and space, and was at the time called by
Times of London “an affront to common sense” (p. 640).
But the change will be dramatic over time, even turning to the side it once opposed.
Looking back upon the history, how many heresies eventually became accepted as
common sense? We can name a lot.
Stagnancy of common sense may present an obstacle for managers to overcome,
and the slight but gradual change may rust your common sense if you do not keep up
with the change.

Differences between common senses, experience, knowledge and intuition

In understanding the nature of common sense, it is helpful if we compare with related
concepts: experience, knowledge and intuition. Experience is a major source of
common sense while common sense is not necessarily experience. And experience is Nature and value
individual behavior, but common sense is socially transmittable experience or of common sense
knowledge.
As for knowledge, common sense is often not only knowledge, but also means a
mental power to make practical or sound judgment, either by natural mental capacity
or by inference based on certain knowledge. The depth of knowledge and common
sense are different too. Knowledge can be low or advanced, but common sense stays 445
within much narrower range, neither very low nor advanced.
Intuition is perception without conscious thinking process, and can be called “direct
sense” imitating wording of common sense. intuition varies greatly from bare basic
sensing like seeing to very complicated judgment like physician’ s instant judgment of
disease of a patient. I basically agree with Simon that “Intuition and judgment – at
least good judgment – are simply analyses frozen into habit and into the capacity for
rapid response through recognition” (Simon, 1987, p. 63). I do not understand why
Simon is certain that good judgment is frozen rapid response; I think either good or bad
is. Intuition is the unconscious operation in the brain that is formed by freezing or
setting sensing and judgmental process. By contrast, common sense usually does not
repeat itself so many times to attain such efficiency, and may include simple thinking
process. Another major difference is that intuition is always individual, and common
sense is of social nature.
In terms of response efficiency, common sense can be regarded as early stage of
intuition, a “baby or slow” intuition. Intuition acts like other basic human senses and
can contribute to the formation of common sense.

The value of common sense in managerial decision

Common sense is individual and also social. Let’s consider from the two perspectives.
How one’s common sense can help oneself make decision and how a manager uses
common sense of employees or other groups for managerial decision.

1. Common sense provides basic logic map for personal judgment and decision
Every body uses more or less his/her common sense for solving problems or making
decision. In fact, it is hard to prevent a person from using common sense. What role can
common sense play in helping make decision?
The easy way to understand what and how common sense help us in making
decision is to compare those with common sense and those without. Suppose we are
going to pick up someone at down town and there are several routes to get there.
Without hesitation, we would select the route less crowded because we know which
roads are likely to be jammed and should be avoided. While a non-local driver would
have difficulty in choosing suitable roads and the result is waste of time, perhaps a
good mood. I once waited for a visiting friend, who phoned me when he entered the
city. I estimated he could get to my place in about half hour allowing for the rush hours.
But I waited over an hour to see him, quite frustrated. Without common sense about
the city, he had no idea how to choose suitable route, and drove by trial and error.
Common sense provide a general map of interrelationship of things we are dealing
with, it will give idea of which direction is what, and what if going this way or that
way, and with them we can quickly get to possible course of action. The course of
action common sense presents is not always complete and detailed, but with the basis
MD of common sense, we can seek supplemental information to make up a complete course
47,3 more efficiently.
The map of common sense offers may act as reference to check our contemplated
decision against, confirming or warning us. But the logic map of common sense may be
misleading if applied inappropriately. Nitecki (1987) writes: “If a common sense
approach suggests a solution similar to the one intended in the first place, it provides a
446 reinforcement for that decision; if it negates it, the common sense advice serves as a
warning of probable negative consequences of implementing that decision. And
finally, if the common sense notion seems to be irrelevant to the situation at hand, it
will be misused, if incorporated in that decision process.” (p. 645). In fact the real
danger is lack of awareness to the misuse of common sense.

2. Common sense combined with analysis yields higher quality of decision making
Suppose you have common sense about a field, it is always there aiding you whenever
being called upon. But common sense alone is often not enough for a solid decision,
even though you are a veteran.
Why? As discussed previously, we know that common sense can be effective and
fallible. Decision making is more about exceptions rather than existing established
operations, which will challenge your common sense. Another reason is that we cannot
afford to risk decision directed only by common sense when the action and result is
liable to serious injuries or loss.
When necessary and possible, always seek further relevant information, make
thorough analysis, and weigh alternatives. Although possibility of mistakes still exist,
that is the best we can do under the circumstance. Nitecki (1987) concludes “that the
real value of common sense to the managers is not to serve as a substitute for a decision
making process, or as an unscrutinized source of data needed to make the decisions,
but as a part of a much more complex process of knowing. Common sense accepted on
its face value and in isolation from that process is of little, if any utility to any
administrator” (p. 646).
If common sense is regarded as “slow” or “baby” intuition, looking at the
relationship of intuition and decision making would be helpful to understanding that of
common sense and decision making. In discussing the intuition and decision making,
Nick Morgan, editor to Harvard Management Communication Letter, advises:
So beware the blandishments of those who would urge you to trade in the discipline of hard
thinking for the apparent ease of the whims of your gut. The two go together, and good
intuitive decision making only comes when it is based on a solid foundation of hard fact –
gathering and a balanced emotional assessment of all the options”(Morgan, 2001, p. 11).
Similarly, common sense is a good guide and benchmark for decision making, but has
its own limitations, combined with analysis will yield better decision.

3. Common sense is more suitable for operational decision making, and should be used
with caution for strategic decision making
With its experiential nature, common sense is especially applicable to operational
decision making, which involves many similar contexts and activities because
operations usually repeats a lot. Another reason is that tacit knowledge of common
sense acquired from working experience can play its full potential with operational
decision making. In a dissimilar or changeable working environment, the tacit Nature and value
knowledge may not match well, thus discounting power and validity of common sense. of common sense
Common sense is not very effective in strategic decision making is because of the
gap between the competence of common sense and the requirements of strategic
decision making. Common sense is competent in experiential domain, whereas
strategic decision making usually is about long-term operations of a complex social,
economical and technological system. Behaviors of complex systems are often beyond 447
human intuitive comprehension, and are difficult to manage with today’s science and
technology. Strategic decision making needs to integrate requirements and constraints
in many aspects of a decision issue. Common sense can occasionally “tell” you what to
do and how to do in the decisional making process, but is far too limited for a sound
decision, even highly skilled managers who can intuitively make operational decision
are not up to the complex task. Hard facts and thorough analyses usually should play a
bigger role in strategic decision making.
Looking at intuition’s role in strategic decision making would be informative. Miller
and Ireland (2005) conclude “we hope that executives and managers will use intuition
selectively and cautiously, especially when making strategic decisions” (p. 28). “[. . .]
Only in this very limited set of circumstances would automated expertise seem
reasonable for strategic decision making. With a great deal at stake, surfacing existing
knowledge for thorough examination is crucial [. . .]” “[. . .] Our analysis suggests that
despite the increasing interest and the generally positive evaluations in articles written
for executives and managers, intuition presents itself as a troubling tool” (p. 29).

4. Consider and utilize others’ common sense in decision making

While our own common sense can aid or admonish us in judgment and decision
making, we can consider and utilize employee’s or other group’s common sense in
making decision. Common sense has tacit social authority, and if ignored you would
meet resistance, which will significantly affect the effect of the decision to be
implemented, even ending up futile. Respect power of common sense dwelling among
people. Never make decision in isolation from people’s common sense.
For example, when deciding an advertising ploy of a product, which features of the
product should be emphasized? Of course it has to do with target buying groups. Their
common sense about the product and your emphasized features has the authority of
whether to let your information in for serious consideration. If you want to describe its
outstanding technical parameters, say a new model of computer: it has two-core CPU,
can run at the speed of 1.60 GHz, etc. please ask yourself: is the description attractive to
your target group? It depends on their common sense. If your message is too technical
or does not agree with their common sense, then your brain would have been racked in
vain. It is useless to complain that people don’t understand your product; that is the
reality you need to work with. Translate your product into customer’s common sense
so that they can give you a chance to consider your product.
Sometimes, we need to combat employee’s common sense to drag them to consider
and implement your decision. This is especially necessary in safety management,
where improper job behavior may cause serious injuries and damages. The effective
way is to reeducate employees so that their common sense converges to the
scientifically tested procedure.
MD 5. Is it possible to utilize common sense for creativity?
47,3 Common sense is “everybody knows”, not very creative. On the surface, it does seem so.
But that is not the whole picture. While we are noticing the prominent feature of
common sense, accompanying it is various “uncommon” senses among the group. As
discussed in the nature of common sense, we know common sense is not exactly
“everybody knows” and that “everybody knows the same”. “Uncommon” sense, like
448 common sense, naturally exists.
This is like everybody knows trees, but if we let them draw a tree, they would draw
more or less different trees although having similar elements. Individual variations of
common sense will behave the same way as the drawing trees in workplace. The
variations will give rise to new ideas and new how-to, many of which may be simply
odd and insignificant, but some will be valuable. Therefore individual variations are
the source of creativity and innovations. Common sense does not damp down opening
for creativity completely. Although the opening is small, as chance for creativity
always is, the effect will be powerful and make big difference.
If we think of tacit knowledge behind common sense, then variations in common
sense will be more remarkable because employees have different backgrounds and
experiences, and although they have converged to the common sense in their present
area of job, the invisible part of their knowledge may quite be individualistic. Therefore
their job performance will have individualistic creativity if being allowed.
So do not fear being confined by common sense. Respect your employee’s
individuality, and allow freedom that both common sense and uncommon sense can
play; don’t let “uncommon” sense be stifled by the invisible strong pressure of common
sense. Of course, both should play within the frame of the bottom-line requirements of
the organization.
Creative organizations are not groups of weirdoes and maniacs; they are normal
people with normal common sense. The CEO and chairman of Disney Michael Eisner
says in an interview that “Disney is a company built on a powerful combination of
institutionalized creative friction – an environment that produces a constant stream of
ideas – and good old-fashioned common sense – which ‘edits’ those ideas for broad
commercial appeal. Together [. . .] conflict and common sense yield creatively”
(Wetlaufer, 2000, p. 116).

Why we have heard opposite voices on common sense approach for

managerial decision?
We have come to realize that common sense usually is partner of a complicated
decision making process, and this partner is reliable and helpful but can be fallible. We
can call it cautiously effective. After I searched literature of common sense and decision
making, I found opposite views: affirming and negating common sense approach.
Let’s look at typical affirmative view I found.
Larry Hanry, foodservice manager at Henderson State University, Arkadelphia, AR,
voices his opinion about how significantly common sense can affect manager’s
operational decisions (Hanry, 2002):
In the past 20 years, I have been called upon to “fix” many different types of operations. I have
been in hotels, concessions, catering operations, restaurants and cafeterias [. . .] Each location
certainly had weak links, but the owners or managers themselves were by far the ones
responsible for the majority of the problems [. . .] (p. 42).
 How much prep time does a particular item take? Are you allowing for that time in your Nature and value
costs? Are you causing more and more labor costs? Does your menu match the equipment in
your kitchen? Are you requiring too much deep frying when your kitchen has only one small of common sense
fryer? (p. 168).
Common sense is simple, just the usual link that one thing happens what may follow or
vice versa. It does not require sophisticated knowledge to make a reasonable decision;
lack or overlook of common sense would make deficient operational decision. 449
Richard Gaintner, MD, a trustee at Jordan Health System in Plymouth, MA, and
interim executive vice president for health sciences and executive dean at Georgetown
University Medical Center in Washington, DC, writes:
Every hospital leader knows how government regulation can force physicians and other
caregivers to spend more time pushing paper than treating patients. Complicated and
duplicative requirements often confuse those who are supposed to be guided by them. We
need to reform the regulatory process so rules are rational and reflect the realities that people
inside the hospital – executives, doctors, nurses, and many others – face every day (Gaintner,
2002).
The title of his article “Putting common sense ahead of bureaucracy” represents his
opinion properly.
William E. Jones, Editor of Journal of Equine Veterinary Science, writes ironically:
One definition of bureaucracy is an administrative system in which the need or inclination to
follow complex procedures impedes effective action. To my way of thinking, bureaucracy is
the antithesis of common sense (Jones, 2005, p. 138).

To sum up, I found that these advocates of common sense approach are mainly
practitioners, and their opinions are about effectiveness, not about science. Their
advocacy of common sense is in fact the response to arbitrary and bureaucratic
management, and useless complicated or dogmatic procedures, and sounds less
balanced than their intentions really are: they want to see an effective management
embodying common sense.
Now look at negative view. E. Scott Geller, professor and director, Center for
Applied Behavior Systems, Virginia Tech, and senior partner, Safety Performance
Solutions, expresses clearly his refusal of common sense approach (Geller, 2002):
“There seems to be an overriding notion among safety pros that managing injury preventions
requires only good common sense.”.
“Safety pros may never learn the fallacy of their common sense approach unless they
conduct a thorough and objective evaluation of their safety management procedures.” (p. 18).
“Profound knowledge in safety should come exclusively from scientific research, not from
intuition or common sense” (p. 20).
His points make sense. But he resorts to common sense when he makes comment on a
survey that is to predict the future of the safety profession: “I hope your common sense
tells you that this list of 46 opinions should be given minimal creditability and should
not be used to plan anything important.” He can not do without resorting to common
sense even in an article. It is true that common sense lacks scientific rigor and
accuracy, but excluding it from the judgmental process of decision making is unwise.
The negative opinion on common sense does not negate its value, but is in fact to stress
unreliability of common sense alone.
MD I have noticed that affirmers are mainly practitioners; negators, much fewer, are
47,3 academics. Is it suggesting common sense’s nature: closely linked to practice and not
very scientific? In my opinion, it reflects difference of the stances on common sense:
practitioners concern only “finish it effectively and/or efficiently”, resorting often to
common sense; academics more about “is it a reliable tool?”, belittling the scientific
value of common sense.
450
Is it possible to develop common sense more efficiently?
Everybody will develop certain common sense after having lived or worked for a few
years. Common sense is natural fruit of experience and time. The question is whether
we can develop more efficiently, which makes sense for us facing a fast-changing
world. As we have disused previously, common sense has two origins: experience and
social contact. The conditions of social contact and communication affect the speed of
developmental process of common sense, but this is very complicated and not easily to
change and control.
As individual learning by experience is slow and limited, the fast way is by
education because education is intensive social sharing process, expanding personal
knowledge and accelerating learning speed. But usually it should be hands-on
teaching, not conventional class teaching. Engineering education, which has been very
successful, seems to be a good model for fast developing common sense, but common
sense, as the name itself suggests, is not up to such advanced level to be included in
teaching programs. In most cases it appears in booklets or preliminary introductions.
Difficulty with developing common sense is that nature of common sense makes it
close to either craftsmanship/athletics-style training or psychological training, both
distant from the conventional model and advantages of management education. That
is similar to the difficulty of intuition development, which is alien to mainstream
management education. Sadler-Smith and Shefy (2007) point out “management
education and development has largely ignored or shied away from including intuition
in its curriculum. There are few, if any, reported or reported-and-evaluated attempts at
the development of managers’ intuitive awareness either in business school or
in-company programs” (p. 186). I think that the attempt to develop intuition in
classroom is daunting and that the present exclusion of intuition from mainstream
management education is not without its rationale. People always dig rich mines, and
intuition development is not rich mines for business schools. In science- style
education, what is done is more to understand intuition than to develop it. Turning or
extending to athletics-style training or psychological training depends on living space
of business education; at least for now, it seems not urgent.
Personally, we can make conscious effort to boost learning process of common
sense. Hands-on experience usually is a must, but the following aspects would
contribute to the learning quality and speed.

Improve sense-understand ability

To do the same job, why some can see and understand more than others? Let’s say a
painter. Why does he observe more details of characteristics of a model or a scene,
while others don’t? The answer should be the painter has more power of sensing
elements in the sight and understanding their interrelationship. Numerous repetitions
of the cycle to see, understand, and draw lead him/her to be more sensitive and abler.
There is no inborn painter, although there are personal differences in learning. That is Nature and value
to say, more used, more developed, and this is true to the ability of sensing and of common sense
understanding of common sense. With stronger sensing and understanding ability,
common sense will develop faster during the same experiencing process.
The ways to improve the sense – understand ability may be very individualistic.
Some are used to taking diary to summarize learning experience, some meditating and
self-reflecting, others questioning and consulting. Success and failure analysis, either 451
by self-reflection or by mentoring, is an accelerator for sense-understand training.

Do independently
Independently trying to do something is very different from being instructed to do with
regard to learning and feeling. Imagine how different it is if you alone walk to a strange
address compared with that someone takes you there. Without help or even hope, you
are forced to think about what to do, how to do, when to do, etc., do it, and then see the
result of your action to adjust your thinking and next action. Feedback to your action is
important for you to reevaluate your previous thinking and action and to adjust
yourself in the following process. Without the feedback, you have no idea how you
have got on with what you were doing. Independence forces you to exercise your
judgmental ability and to face the consequences of your judgment and action. If you
are instructed or helped without independent trying, then your judgment and
knowledge learned are likely to be discounted. That is, more easily and lazily, more
slowly.
If we think of common sense is not only knowledge, but includes tacit knowledge
and ability of making judgment, then doing independently is more necessary. Business
schools are often criticized for not as good as they claim. What’s wrong with the
seemingly perfect education? I think that they can train MBAs to analyze a problem
logically and efficiently, but common sense, especially tacit knowledge of business
practice is still lacking. This is very similar to the case that young persons without
family experience discuss how to deal with family relationship harmoniously and
happily, who can talk eloquently and logically, but only so in speech not in real family
life.

Keep necessary contact

Common sense is individual and also social. Keeping frequent social contact will share
knowledge, either hard or soft. Common sense is always in change, it is necessary to
keep relevant contact. Hands-on experiencing from time to time will keep up your
knowledge and thinking with others. For managers, understanding common sense
among employees and other target groups is important for managerial purpose. Of
course, keeping social contact means cost of time, so the contact frequency can be
maintained just enough for timely sharing of knowledge.

Conclusion
From above examination and discussion, we can see a general picture of characteristics
of common sense, its value in decision making and possible effective development.
Common sense is commonly used term, not scientifically strict, referring to common
knowledge, or ability of making sound judgment, or often judgmental ability and
MD associated knowledge. Discussion in the paper is based on the most commonly
47,3 understood dictionary definitions of common sense.
Common sense takes form from either pure individual experience or pure social
communication, or a mix of both. It is individual but also social; it is commonly held
but also more or less varied; it is effective but also fallible; it is stable but also changing.
The nature of common sense suggests its value and possible strategy of utilization
452 in decision making. Common sense provides a basic logic map of interrelationship of
the things we are dealing with so that we can make quick and effective judgment and
decision. Although common sense alone sometimes can direct us to an effective
decision, a sound and solid decision is usually achieved by common sense combined
with analysis based on hard facts.
Because of its nature, common sense is more suitable to operational decision making
and should be used with caution in strategic decision making, usually a complex
systematic decision making. In addition to resorting to personal common sense to aid
decision making, managers can utilize common sense among employees for making
and implementing decisions, and even for creativity.
In literature of common sense and decision making, there exist opposite views,
affirmative and negative, on common sense approach. Having analyzed their opinions,
I have found that affirmative view is in fact a response to arbitrary or bureaucratic
management and useless dogmatic or complicated managerial procedures, and that
negative view is overemphasis of common sense’s lack of scientific accuracy. Both
views do not contradict author’s view on common sense: cautious effectiveness.
Common sense will come naturally with experience. Effective way of development
of common sense is hands-on styled education. Because common sense training is in
nature close to craftsmanship-style training or psychological training, it seems that it is
not what conventional business education is good at or wants. Personally conscious
efforts are helpful to quicken development of common sense, such as: try one’s own
individualistic way to improve ability of sensing and understanding what is being
done or observed, try doing independently, and keep necessary social contact to share
knowledge timely.

References
Gaintner, R. (2002), “Putting common sense ahead of bureaucracy”, AHA News, Vol. 38 No. 34, 9
February, p. 4.
Geller, S. (2002), “Common sense is nonsense”, Industrial Safety & Hygiene News, Vol. 36 No. 8,
August, p. 18.
Hanry, L. (2002), “Common sense from managers can return dollars and cents to troubled
operations”, Nation’s Restaurant News, 24 June, pp. 42, 168.
Jones, W.E. (2005), “Bureaucracy versus common sense”, Journal of Equine Veterinary Science,
Vol. 25 No. 4, April, p. 138.
Miller, C.C. and Ireland, R.D. (2005), “Intuition in strategic decision making: friend or foe in the
fast-paced 21st century?”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 19-30.
Morgan, N. (2001), “How intuition can improve your decision making”, Harvard Management
Communication Letter, Vol. 4 No. 4, April, p. 11.
Nitecki, J.Z. (1987), “In search of sense in common sense management”, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 6 No. 8, pp. 639-47.
Sadler-Smith, E. and Shefy, E. (2007), “Developing intuitive awareness in management Nature and value
education”, Academy of Management Learning & Education, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 186-205.
Simon, H.A. (1987), “Making management decisions: the role of intuition and emotion”, Academy
of common sense
of Management Executive, Vol. 1 No. 1, February, pp. 57-64.
Wetlaufer, S. (2000), “Common sense and conflict: an interview with Disney’s Michael Eisner”,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 78 No. 1, January-February, pp. 114-24.
453
Further reading
Sadler-Smith, E. (2007), “The twin imperatives of intuition and analysis in decision making”,
People Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, 22 February, p. 52.

About the author

Sheng Zhao was born in 1964 in China. After completing Master’s program at Beijing Institute of
Technology in 1986, joined Zhengzhou University Department of Management Engineering.
Now Associate Professor, teaching operations management, Sheng Zhao’s main research
interests are human cognition and performance, managerial issues and complexity systems, and
leadership. Sheng Zhao can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints