Have you ever spend a lot of time deciding on something, and then one day you woke up and make a decision that seemingly never considered all the hours and days you had spent thinking about the issue. I have. There are times I have window shopped for an item only to settle on something else just because a friend mentioned it.
The Theory of Planned Behavior says that a person’s actions are shaped by three things (Ajzen, 1991):
- Their attitude toward the decision
- The social expectations around them
- Their sense of control or ability to follow through
Also, sometimes people don’t decide logically. Sometimes they decide from the gut. They sense something, they feel something, they intuit. That’s the emotional side of decision-making, and it matters just as much (Kahneman, 2011).
When a husband and a wife are deciding together
Imagine a couple deciding whether to move to a new town or invest family savings.
The logical part of the decision sounds like:
• is this wise
• does it help us grow
• will we manage the cost and change
The social part sounds like:
• are we leaving our support system behind
• what will our families think
• what does our community expect of us
And the control part sounds like:
• can we handle this transition
• do we have the emotional and financial strength
But then there’s the emotional layer.
Sometimes your spouse says the words “I agree,” but their voice is heavy. Or sometimes they say “I don’t know why, but I feel peace about this.” That feeling is real. It’s data. It’s part of wisdom (Kahneman, 2011).
Couples who listen to both the data and the emotion make more unified decisions because the heart and mind are both accounted for.
For non-profit leaders doing resource mobilisation
I have seen situations where a proposal is solid, the numbers are tight, the budgets are clear, and of course the design is appealing (at least I have to consider my work appealing even if no one else sees it that way) yet donors are unmoved. And I have also seen proposals that were still being refined, and donors committed immediately regardless of the design and outlook.
I think a donor may sign a give because the budget is rational. But they will usually sign a larger cheque, and more frequently so, because they feel and connect emotionally with what you are talking about personally.
If you are mobilising for a maternity and child-health programme in rural Kenya, a donor might respond because of statistics but they truly give when they hear the story of a mother who survived childbirth because of local intervention.
That mixture of rational credibility and emotional resonance aligns with both planned behavior and resource mobilisation theory, which emphasises credibility, social networks, and trust (Ajzen, 1991; McCarthy & Zald, 1977).
For church leaders and faith communities
In church settings, decision-making carries deep meaning because it touches values, identity, and mission.
Let’s say a church wants to launch a youth empowerment programme.
Rationally, the question is:
• do we have volunteers
• do we have funds
• will it have impact
Socially:
• does the congregation support it
• do parents trust it
• is there alignment with church culture
Emotionally and spiritually:
• do we feel led to this
• is there a sense of peace
Why does it matter?
Whether you are building a marriage, running a non-profit, leading an organisation or shepherding a church community you might succeed when consider that;
- People rarely decide purely on data. They decide on meaning.
- Social expectations and communal influence are invisible drivers of choice.
- Emotions and intuition are not irrational. They are part of discernment.
When we understand how people make decisions, we communicate better, lead better, and love better. We stop pushing, insisting and start listening to align.
References (APA 7)
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
McCarthy, J. D., & Zald, M. N. (1977). Resource mobilization and social movements: A partial theory. American Journal of Sociology, 82(6), 1212–1241.