The disclosure of intuitions in organisations: A grounded 
theory 
Martin Robson, School of Business, Economics and Public Policy 

 
Abstract 

Decision makers in organisations are not exclusively rational as once 
presumed. Research over recent decades has shown that leaders not only 
use intuition frequently but also consider it important to their role. 
Studies to date have focused on what intuition "is", its powers and 
pitfalls, and consequently how one can best make use of this 
subconscious and elusive cognitive capacity. The same research however, 
also revealed that intuition has had a bad reputation and that “gut 
feelings” are often suppressed or masked by the use of analytical terms. 
However, the suppression of intuition(s) has been shown to result in 
lost opportunities and errors, sometimes at significant cost. Despite this, 
intuition use, as a secret or silent practice in organisations, has never 
been the focus of empirical research in Australia nor internationally. 
This paper summarises the findings of PhD research that employed 
Grounded Theory methodology to investigate the social processes of 
intuition use and disclosure. The emergent grounded theory was 
developed through the analysis of data collected from semi-structured 
interviews with 27 men and women currently leading significant 
Australian organisations. The findings suggest that intuition disclosure 
is contingent not only on perceptions of legitimacy, but also on the level 
of “interiority” of the intuiter. The core category of interiority, at 
intrapersonal level, was defined as an orientation to feelings, 
particularly emotions and intuitions, and a consequent superior ability to 
express them. Interiority was found to be more developed in the 
participating women. The emergent theory proposes a multi-level view of 
interiority that also explains the social process of intuition disclosure in 
interpersonal exchanges and organisations. The study concluded that 
interiority is a capacity available to everyone, can be developed, and is 
well needed at all levels of social description. 

Introduction 
Normative models of organisations as exclusively rational domains and the notion 
that individual decision making proceeds exclusively by way of rational analyses have 
increasingly come under attack. Simon (1982), for example, developed the concept 
of a ‘bounded rationality’, based on Barnard’s (1968) finding that managers used 
non-logical, intuitive processes in their decision making. The study of emotions in 
organisations became a ‘hot topic’ in the 1990s, with emotional labour and 
emotional intelligence receiving much attention (Ashkanasy & Daus, 2001). Research 
on intuition use in organisations bloomed in the 1970s and 1980s (see, for example, 
Mintzberg, 1976; Agor, 1986; Agor, 1989c) and many studies confirmed and 
elaborated on Barnard’s thesis. However, research on managerial intuition, 
particularly field studies, has stalled somewhat in this new century (Sinclair & 
Ashkanasy  2005). This respite can be attributed, in part, to the elusive and   

UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND



subjective nature of intuition and its incompatibility with ‘objective’ positivist 
managerial psychological approaches that continue to dominate business research. 
Additionally, the conceptual development of intuition has been impeded by the 
emergence of an array of diverse constructions (Osbeck, 1999), each with different 
properties and characteristics, especially in relation to usefulness and fallibility1. 

The use of intuitions by managers and leaders in organisations has been mostly 
associated with the term ‘gut feeling’; defined as an immediate knowing based on 
experience and pattern recognition (Parikh, Neubauer & Lank, 1994; Lank & Lank, 
1995; Sadler-Smith & Sparrow, 2007). The use of intuitions has been shown to be 
widespread in organisations (Agor, 1986; Parikh et al. 1994) and is perceived to be 
important to decision making and leadership, particularly where there is complexity 
and uncertainty (Robson & Miller 2006). However, it has also been shown that the 
intuitions of leaders are seldom disclosed (Isenberg 1984; Agor 1986; Parikh et al., 
1994; Isenman, 1997; Robson 2004). However, no research has focused on the 
disclosure of intuition use in Australia, nor internationally. This is a significant 
omission given the extent to which organisations are reliant on good and transparent 
decision making. This paper will describe and discuss PhD research that examined 
the social processes of intuition disclosure by leaders in Australian organisations. 

Constructing intuition 

The dominant view of intuition in psychology assumes a model of cognition by which 
information is processed in two distinct yet interactive systems: one that is 
conscious, rational, analytical, reductionist and linear, and one that is sub-conscious, 
non-rational, intuitive, holistic and non-linear (Bastick, 1982; Denes-Raj & Epstein, 
1994; Epstein, 1994; Hammond, 1996). The dual processing model provided a 
generally accepted framework for understanding intuition (Epstein, 1998). However 
intuition research in psychology varies markedly—both in approach to, and 
conclusions about the nature and efficacy of intuition. 

 

The heuristics and biases program, spearheaded by Tversky and Kahneman (1974), 
is traditionally associated with intuition for many decision researchers (Sadler-Smith 
& Sparrow, 2007). The heuristics and biases approach acknowledges the bounded 
nature of rationality and conceptualises intuition as automatic mental shortcuts. 
While these ‘rules of thumb’ are sometimes useful, a major contention is that 
heuristics can lead to severe and systematic errors (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974; 
Kahneman, Slovic & Tversky, 1982; Kahneman, 2002). Similarly, intuitive behaviour 
and decisions based on visceral factors such as excessive hunger, thirst, sexual 
desire, moods, powerful emotions and addictions (Loewenstein, 1996; Loewenstein, 
Weber, Hsee & Welch, 2001) can influence decision making and behaviour in a way 
that is often not in the long-term interests of the individual. Therefore, from these 
two related perspectives, intuitions should not be trusted. 

 
 
 

 
1  (see, for example, Sadler-Smith & Sparrow, 2007; Author & Cooksey, 2008). 

 

2010 POST GRADUATE CONFERENCE



Much managerial psychological research describes intuition as a cognitive event 
resulting in an intuition or ‘knowing’, which the intuiter can then choose to exploit or 
not. Such intuitions, according to the literature, fall into two categories on the basis 
of immediacy (Bastick, 1982; Simon, 1987; Cappon, 1994a; Crossan, Lane & White, 
1999; Sauter, 1999; Novicevic, Hench & Wren, 2002). According to Crossan, Lane et 
al., expert intuition, commonly labelled, ‘gut feeling’, is synchronous with 
perception. Entrepreneurial intuition, insight, or the ‘Eureka effect’, occurs 
subsequent to immersion in a problem and is described as ‘to do with innovation 
and change’ (Crossan, Lane et al. 1999, p. 527). Whereas gut feeling is defined as 
the sub-conscious recognition of patterns based on past experience, entrepreneurial 
intuition connects patterns in a new way (Sinclair, 2003) and generates new insights 
(Crossan et al. 1999, p. 527). However, it should be noted that in both examples, 
intuitions are associated with an affective experience for the intuiter (Cappon, 1993; 
Sinclair, 2003) and are informed by a wide range experience as well as domain 
knowledge (Sadler-Smith & Sparrow, 2007). Therefore these two constructions of 
intuition can be distinguished from heuristics, as well as visceral influences. 

Intuition is also referred to as an aspect of cognitive style. Many instruments have 
been developed to measure cognitive style, with the Myers Briggs Type Indicator 
(MBTI) emerging as the best known and most widely used (Westcott, 1968). Cognitive 
style instruments are popular because they are cheap and easy to administer and— 
important for quantitative researchers—have established validity (Hodgkinson & 
Sadler-Smith, 2003). They are particularly useful in organisations for developing 
awareness in individuals of alternative modes of thinking, and for maximising the 
effectiveness of groups through matching cognitive styles (Jabri, 1991). However, 
these instruments do not describe intuitive capacity or the potential use of 
intuition(s) defined as gut feelings and measure only propensity for problem solving 
style. Moreover, they do not account for the specific context and environment of the 
decision-maker; users are reliant on, for on a Myers Briggs facilitator/trainer to 
provide direction about context and use. 

Finally, philosophical intuition is regarded as a perfect apprehension of 2  an ultimate 
reality and one that is self-evident, subjective and therefore incontestable (Westcott, 
1968). However, contemporary reviews of intuition in management tend to 
completely ignore this construct, or acknowledge it but without defence or 
elaboration. It has been suggested that this is because of the mutual exclusivity of 
the psychological and philosophical literature (Osbeck, 1999). Furthermore, 
integration has been impeded by a recognised fundamental disjuncture between how 
each discipline constructs intuition (intuition as fallible but useful in psychology and 
as perfect apprehension in philosophy); that is apparently irreconcilable and 
consequently seldom addressed (Hendon 2004).3 

It can be seen from the discussion above that whether intuition is seen as 
fallible/infallible, useful or error-prone, largely depends on what construct is being 
discussed, particularly in light of the plethora of vague and sometimes contradictory  

 
2  The word, ‘knowledge’, is not appropriate here because knowledge is, by definition, 

representational, fragmented and, therefore, cannot symbolise intuition. It is argued 
there is no word that can represent this kind of intuition because it is beyond symbolic 
representation. 

3  As exceptions, see Hendon (2004) and Robson & Cooksey (2010). 
4  See Parikh et al. (2000) for an exception. 

UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND



definitions. However, it is not the lack of an accepted, clear-cut definition for 
intuition that problematises integration of findings in the literature, as proposed by 
Lieberman (2000). It is, instead, a failure to acknowledge intuition as multi-faceted, 
multidimensional and multi-level (see Parikh et al. 1994 for an exception).4 
Correspondingly, the author has developed a model of intuition which synthesises 
perspectives (Robson & Cooksey 2008) and is thus more inclusive and comprehensive 
than those it draws upon. This model, in combination with a philosophical framework 
for reconciling psychological and philosophical intuition (Robson 2010), underpinned 
the research reported in this paper. 

Context and perceptions of intuition 
Limited field research into the perceptions of practitioners has been conducted. Most 
has inquired into the nature of intuition, how it is used, in what circumstances, and 
its perceived efficacy. These studies found that a majority of decision makers in 
organisations considered themselves intuitive (Parikh et al. 1994; Agor 1986), used 
intuition on a regular basis (Agor, 1986; Agor, 1989b; Burke & Miller 1999), and 
considered it important to their leadership (Robson & Miller, 2006), particularly 
where there is complexity, ambiguity and time constraints (Mintzberg, 1976; 
Isenberg, 1984). Intuition use was also found to increase with seniority and 
experience (Burke & Miller, 1999). 

Despite this reliance on intuition, some of the same research has also found that 
decision makers tend to mask their intuitions in order that their decisions to be 
accepted by colleagues, superiors and stakeholders. For example, Agor (1986) 
reported that executives suppressed intuitions or dressed their intuitions in 
‘analytical clothing’ (p. 38). This has been found both internationally (Daft and 
Lengel, 1986; Sadler-Smith & Shefy, 2004; Sadler-Smith & Sparrow, 2007), and in 
the author’s own research in Australia (Robson, 2004). Hence, the use of intuition is 
considered largely a private, secret or silent practice (Agor, 1986; Robson & Miller, 
2006). This is possibly because intuition has had a bad reputation (Bastick, 1982; 
Agor, 1984a; Agor, 1986; Parikh et al., 1994; Cappon, 1994a; Burke & Miller, 1999; 
Sadler-Smith & Burke, 2009) because of perceptions of intuition as magical, mystical 
and paranormal (Bastick, 1982; Parikh et al., 1994; Osbeck, 1999). However, research 
specifically examining perceptions of intuition and disclosure of intuition(s) in 
organisations is absent from the literature. 

I would argue that this is a significant omission given the extent to which 
organisations are dependent on good and transparent decision making processes. 
For example, a perception of intolerance toward intuition has been shown to result in 
serious and costly errors (Grudin, 1989; Robson & Miller, 2006). The need for a 
greater understanding of the socio-cultural factors surrounding intuition use in 
organisations has been recognised (Sadler-Smith & Shefy, 2004) and 
recommendations made for future research in this area (Burke & Miller, 1999). 
However, no research was found that specifically investigated the socio-cultural 
context of intuition use and disclosure. Researching the nature of intuition is 
important, however, knowledge of intuition is less useful unless its application in the 
real world is also understood. 

2010 POST GRADUATE CONFERENCE



Thus, the research problem for the present study was expressed as: 

 

What are the social processes surrounding intuition use and disclosure by Australian 
leaders in organisations? 

Methodology 

Data gathering 

The approach to this research reflected the belief that there have been constraints 
and inadequacies associated with the typically positivistic and controlled ways in 
which research on intuition has been conceived and conducted. It was argued that 
theory concerning intuition use and disclosure was more likely to emerge from data 
drawn from the descriptions of the practitioners themselves. Grounded Theory, as a 
flexible, emergent methodology, is ideally suited for uncovering social process in 
complex and ambiguous field conditions. Grounded Theory embraces both the 
analytical and intuitive capacities of the researcher in analyses of data obtained 
through direct contact with decision makers in their myriad of contexts (Strauss & 
Corbin, 1998; Dey, 1999). 

 

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with twenty-seven leaders of significant 
Australian organisations. Candidates for interviews were found through utilising the 
‘True Leaders’ lists published in Boss magazine 2001-2007. These leaders were 
experienced, ran significant Australian organisations and had been selected by a 
‘distinguished panel’ (Macken, 2002) of their peers. When this resource was 
exhausted, further CEOs, Directors and senior executives of major Australian 
organisations participants were identified and targeted through their corporate 
websites. This process is fully described in a conference paper written by the author 
(Robson, 2009). 

 

Elites were purposively selected for four reasons. First, despite the arguments of 
Pfeffer (cited in Dubrin, Dalglish & Miller 2006), the decisions of CEOs and directors 
are often the most influential in determining the success of organisations (often 
despite environmental influences), and are pivotal in forming cultural practices 
(Mintzberg, 1989; Sarantakos, 2005; Dubrin et al., 2006; Gill, 2006). Second, because 
it has been shown intuition use increases with seniority and experience (Burke & 
Miller, 1999) participants, as elite leaders, would be likely to use intuition. Third, it 
was theorised that if participants did use intuition, the obligation to justify their 
decisions to stakeholders and the wider community placed them as ideal candidates 
to discuss intuition disclosure. Fourth, it was assumed that the leaders of Australia’s 
most significant organisations would likely be well educated, exceptional 
communicators and would therefore provide rich relevant data. Indeed, this was seen 
to be the case (Robson, 2009). 

 

Consistent with the principle of theoretical sampling, a near equal proportion of men 
and women were sought and interviewed (13 men and 14 women) (Glaser & Strauss, 
1967; Glaser, 1998). This was done because it became clear in the first few interviews 
that gender played a significant role in relation to the disclosure of intuition(s). 

 

UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND



The emergent theory was generated through an iterative interplay of data collection 
and analysis, and making constant comparisons between instances and groups of 
instances or categories (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Dey, 1999). The relevance and 
importance of generated codes became apparent through their repetition and 
relationship to other codes (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Dey, 1999; Charmaz, 2006; 
Charmaz, 2009). The development of categories and conditions was influenced by 
the conditional matrix developed by Strauss and Corbin (1990; 1998), while multi- 
level analysis and theory building was informed by Layder’s Domain Theory (1994; 
1997; 2005). The use of Domain Theory as the theoretical perspective was justified 
because of its capacity to draw on multiple perspectives and sociological lenses in 
order to tease out the complex dynamics associated with the research problem at 
different levels of social description. 
 

Findings 
 
The definition, experience and use of intuition 

 
Intuition was interpreted to be experienced by participants as an internal, received, 
holistic, sub-conscious sense or ‘feeling of knowing’, notion or mental signal, that 
‘comes to you’. For participants, intuition flagged the rightness or wrongness of a 
person, choice, strategy or proposal, the timeliness of a decision and/or caution, and 
thus the need for action (particularly further investigation). Intuition was interpreted 
as being informed by substantial experience of a domain or knowledge thereof, as 
well as past research and reflection. For many, intuition was further informed by life 
experience, personality, values, culture, upbringing and education. For a few, 
depending on the decision context, spirituality informed intuition, mostly in 
connection with values, ethics and motivation for a decision. For some, intuitions 
could be additionally or wholly informed by extra-sensory phenomena (12 out of 24 
participants), although this kind of intuition was generally limited to participant’s 
private lives. 

 
Use of intuition 

 
The use of intuition was perceived by participants to be important to their role as 
leaders. However, intuition use was conditioned by both the nature and context of 
each particular decision. Intuition was considered most appropriate for decisions of a 
qualitative nature in relation to judgements about cultures of organisations, 
leadership and people in general. However intuition(s) about quantitative data were 
also perceived to be useful, particularly where there was complexity, uncertainty or 
ambiguity. Participants said they were more likely to rely on intuition in decision 
making in a context of information inadequacy, too much or contradictory 
information and where there was some urgency. Participants reported they were 
more confident relying on their intuitions in contexts where they had considerable 
experience, and most comfortable making decisions where their intuitions and 
analyses coincided. For example: 

 

... while I’d say it’s [intuition] an important part of my decision-making 
process, it’s always there ... I am also very diligent about ensuring that 
there is due process as well ... sometimes your intuition can be wrong, 
and it could end up being very costly and you want to make sure that you 
don’t end up in that situation. 

2010 POST GRADUATE CONFERENCE



Reciprocity and complementarity of intuition and analysis in daily 
decision making was a strong theme for all participants. 

 
Intuition and gender 

 
Many participants, both women and men, perceived that women had better intuition 
than men and trusted and relied on their intuition more than men. Some women 
perceived that men were just as intuitive as women but had less awareness of 
intuition and, indeed, feelings in general. More importantly, these perceptions were 
supported by the willingness and ability of the women in the sample, rather than the 
men, to articulate their subjective experience of intuition. Orientation to, and 
awareness of feelings became the core category for understanding the social process 
of intuition disclosure at the individual level. The following paragraphs explain and 
discuss this orientation/capacity in more detail. 
 

Social processes of intuition disclosure 
 
Core Category—Interiority 

 
The majority of participants perceived that intuition-use is sometimes viewed as 
both esoteric and unscientific. Some acknowledged this perception might cause them 
to express their intuitions as ‘judgements’ or as the consequence of analysis, 
particularly in the wording of formal public statements. Therefore, perceived attitude 
toward intuition can be considered a factor conditioning intuition disclosure. More 
significantly, however, both male and female participants perceived variability in 
relation to the propensity—ability and willingness—of other people to disclose 
intuitions, gut feelings and emotions, which they perceived as very much related to 
gender. Many participants (both men and women) perceived that women were both 
more ‘in touch’ and comfortable with their feelings, including their intuitions. 
Reflecting this gender difference, some women in the sample reported that women, 
amongst themselves, used a ‘different language’ that was generally more ‘feeling’ 
oriented than language used in male-dominated boardrooms. 

 

Thus orientation to feelings ‘to be aware of’, ‘tune into’, ‘recognise’ and ‘articulate’ 
feelings and intuitions has been labelled ‘interiority’5. High interiority represents, at 
the intrapersonal level, a greater orientation to the inner realm of feelings and 
intuitions, and consequently a greater awareness and willingness to more effectively 
articulate and perhaps utilise them. In the words of one female participant, ‘I just 
think that women, women have a deeper sense of … how we feel about things’. 
Differing levels of interiority were reflected by a stark difference in the complexity 
and depth of responses in relation to questions about the internal, subjective 
experience of intuition. The women took their time in responding, and often used 
poetic metaphor: 

... you still yourself and you kind of wait for the inner turmoil to kind of 
settle ... like stirring up the mud in a pond ... and if you just sit with it, 
it’ll settle, and you can be clear about what it is that you are 
experiencing... 

 
5   Wilber (1995) uses the word interiority to denote the evolution of consciousness that 

occurs synchronous with outer biological, physical evolution, which Wilber accuses systems 
theorists of omitting. As biological evolution proceeds to higher levels of complexity, so 
does the concomitant ‘depth’ of consciousness. 

UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND



 
Conversely, some men in the sample replied they ‘hadn’t thought about it’, or said 
they ‘did not think it was much of an experience’. Others replied in simple language 
such as: ‘it feels good or it feels bad’, or avoided the question through a tangential 
response, often changing the subject. Indeed, the author had the sense the some of 
the men in the sample (due to the author’s interpretation of their pauses, sighs and 
intonation) were disconcerted and made uncomfortable by these questions; that they 
thought such questions were unusual or strange (this was particularly the case for 
older male participants). 

 

Men and women said they acted on their intuitions and thought them important. 
However it was only the women in the sample discussed engaging with and 
enhancing their receptivity to intuitions. Some reported that they would set aside 
time to ‘sit’ with their intuition(s) so that they could allow them to come more fully 
into conscious awareness through a paradoxical active/passive 6 interrogative 
process: 
 
 …taking time out just to try and get the whole thing in perspective and to 

get all of that kind of deep knowledge to come to the surface and to be 
part of the active decision making. 

 

From their responses, the author interpreted that all the women in the sample 
exhibited high levels of interiority. While the overwhelming majority of men did not 
have high interiority, there were two exceptions that provided a critical insight: that 
interiority can be uncoupled from sex/gender. The author concluded that interiority 
should be seen as a capacity for inner orientation that, according to the perceptions 
of participants, is conditioned by cognitive ‘type’, attitude to intuition, social and 
gender conditioning. Furthermore the analysis revealed that interiority is more likely 
to be developed where it has utility or is normative (such as in caring occupations and 
in the dramatic arts). Thus, interiority can be viewed as available to men and women 
that can be nurtured and developed.  

Interiority and intuition disclosure 

Individuals with high interiority at the intrapersonal level have a greater orientation to 
feelings, emotions and intuitions and a consequent ability to distinguish between 
these and express them. Individuals with low interiority will be less aware of their 
intuitions and may not acknowledge them as such. They might act on their 
intuition(s), however attribute them to analysis, experience or wisdom, or not be fully 
aware of the basis for their decision/action (where action becomes automatic). If the 
intuiter is aware of their intuition(s) and views these as legitimate, they will be 
internally acknowledged and trusted. If not, intuitions will likely be ignored, silenced, 
suppressed or attributed to analysis, judgement and experience. Thus, individuals 
with high interiority are less unconsciously driven by their intuitions and emotions, 
and have more choice in their decision making (irrespective of intuition accuracy).  
 

 

6    Here passivity means in relation to the activity of the conscious mind. Many 
participants explained that intuitions ‘come to you’. 

2010 POST GRADUATE CONFERENCE



Conscious recognition of feelings renders them available for articulation 
evaluation/verification as well as action. Figure 1 below illustrates intuition disclosure 
at the intrapersonal level.  

Interactions can also be characterised by degrees of interiority. Interpersonal 
interiority is the extent to which feelings are disclosed in an exchange. Interpersonal 
interiority is conditioned by: perceptions of intrapersonal interiority in others, the 
extent of familiarity felt, the context of the exchange (in terms of industry type and 
whether it is business or private matter), as well as the power relations of the 
relationship(s). For example, a powerful person may insist on knowing the feelings 
and intuitions of the other to the extent that they are capable of doing so. 
Conversely, the intuiter with high interiority will find or fabricate evidence and/or 
rationale, modify or ‘dress up’ intuitions in a perceived context of low interiority 
and/or low power. Common expressions that were reported used to mask 
intuition(s) were: ‘my experience’, ‘my analysis’, and, more commonly, ‘my 
judgement7’. 

Similarly, the interiority of an organisation can be defined as the extent to which 
emotions, feelings and intuitions are expressed. Assertive cultures (perceived as 
most often dominated by men), in the extreme, are characterised by: the need for 
appearing rational, strong hierarchies, and an emphasis on analysis and evidence to 
the exclusion of other inputs. Non-disclosure of intuition(s) in assertive cultures 
serves to insulate individuals from tough interpersonal relations where mistakes are 
punished. In such cultures decision makers must be active in making strong 
decisions (number crunching). However, it was found that individuals may disclose 
their intuitions where there are intervening variables: where there is low precedent 
and/or information (entrepreneurial ventures), where an individual has power, status, 
and/or track record, or when they no longer care about their ‘fit’ to the organisation 
(when they are about to retire, for example). 

At the other end of this cultural continuum are integrative cultures often found in 
organisations under the leadership of, or dominated by women. These cultures were 
described by the women in the sample as focused on building supportive, receptive, 
holistic and nurturing working environments through ongoing connective 
communication. 

... if you get the people right and the culture right, you’re there — you 
don’t have to manage the business — they manage it for you. 

 

Intuition(s) were perceived to be legitimate in integrative organisations as part of a 
different currency of language where ‘feeling words’ were perceived as normative.  

 
 
 
 

7   One participant noted the legitimacy of the term ‘business judgement’ in Section 181 of 
The Corporations Act (2001) is defined as ‘any decision to take or not take action in 
respect of a matter relevant to the business operations of the corporation’. 

UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND



Figure 1: Intrapersonal interiority and intuition disclosure 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
However, cultures in this respect were seen as fluid and subject to ongoing dynamics 
as one female participant explained: 

They sat round the executive table and were very competitive with each 
other; they didn’t work together as a unit at all ... It was quite 
extraordinary ...  I thought what I could do as a new person was to try and 
change the culture ... They are now much more open with each other, 
they trust each other more ... they communicate better. 

 
The benefit of less self-assertive organisational cultures was a more cooperative 
attitude beneficial to the organisation. 

They’ve actually had a couple of proper discussions where people were 
taking the organisational line ... rather than their own portfolio—and that 
was a big breakthrough. 

 
In integrative cultures, the disclosure of intuitions and feelings is encouraged as a 
consequence of democratic interpersonal and power relations and open language. 

I don't care where people say they come from—we just want the ideas on 
the table. But I have to build an environment of trust so people can feel 
brave. 

 

 

2010 POST GRADUATE CONFERENCE



The development of individual agency is also encouraged in integrative cultures 
through a tolerance of mistakes. However, this is not to imply acceptance of high 
levels of irrationality and inappropriate risk taking. On the contrary, acknowledging 
emotions and intuitions, renders intuitions and feelings intelligible—enabling leaders 
to evaluate them in decision making. Disclosure of intuitions facilitates their 
utilisation while the acknowledgement of emotions broadens communication, 
deepens understanding and has the potential to improve organisational climate. 
Common expressions described by participants in relation to intuition were ‘my 
sense is’, ‘my feeling is’, ‘doesn’t feel right’ as well as ‘my gut feeling is’ and ‘my 
intuition is’. The social process of intuition disclosure at the organisational level is 
represented at Figure 2. 

 

Discussion and conclusions 
 
The notion of interiority is consistent with neurophysiological research that 
recognises differences in the capacities of individuals for ‘subjective awareness of 
inner feelings’, (Craig 2004, p. 239) and moreover, that women are superior in this 
regard (Schulz, 2005). This is supported by research into emotional intelligence 
where women were found to be better at recognising and expressing their own 
emotions as well as those of others (Barret, Lane & Schwartz, 2000). Sociological 
studies have also found this same gender divide and, in concert with the author’s 
conclusions, suggest that emotional expression cannot be reduced solely to sex, but 
is socially and culturally bound (Brody, 1997; Simon & Nath, 2004). The above 
studies are considered relevant because intuition is experienced as a 
feeling/knowing associated with affect. Interestingly, one study linking intuition with 
emotional sensitivity was published as this journal article was being finalised. 
Sinclair, Ashkanasy and Chatopadyay (2010) who indeed found that ‘emotional 
awareness has a positive effect on the use of intuition and appears to be stronger in 
women’ (p. 382). Thus, this quantitative psychological appears to confirm the 
findings of this interpretive study in relation to emotional awareness, intuition and 
gender. Studies were also located that positively correlated emotional recognition 
and expression with intuition in terms of cognitive style (Higgs, 2001; Downey, 
Papageorgiou & Stough, 2006). However, as earlier discussed, cognitive style 
describes a preference for problem solving while gut feeling is an event or a knowing 
synchronous with perception. This is significant because, while intuitive types may 
be more likely to have interiority and therefore express intuitions, one can 
consistently approach problems in an analytical way and still recognise, acknowledge 
and express intuitions as a consequence of high interiority; the two are not mutually 
exclusive. When so viewed, these studies support the findings of this study. 

UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND



 
 
Figure 2: Intuition disclosure in organisations 

 

 
 
 
 

 
The finding that intuition disclosure is conditioned by organisational culture and that 
cultures in this respect can be ordered in relation to each other on a continuum, are 
consistent with the findings of Hofstede (1991). Conceptualising culture in terms of 
overarching masculine/feminine orientation, he argued that feminine cultures were 
more likely to accept and express affective forms of judgment, which, by implication, 
would include intuitions. Hofstede’s view of cultures in terms of a masculine/feminine 
oppositional duality is also consistent with the work of Jung, who perceived the 
whole as constituted through the tension between opposites, both at the level of the 
individual and the collective (Jung, 1977; Rowland, 2002). For Jung, receptivity and 
expression of feeling are represented in his theory by the archetypes Eros (feeling) 
and Logos (thinking). Jung argued that Eros has been repressed in the West for 
centuries in cultures dominated by men, science and rational civilisation (Rowland, 
2002). This author would concur with this sentiment and concludes that a greater 
inclusion of feelings, at all levels, has benefits. 

 

2010 POST GRADUATE CONFERENCE



Implications and recommendations for future policy and research 

It is concluded that interiority at both individual and collective levels is both 
achievable and beneficial. However Grounded Theory generates hypotheses and, 
therefore future research, is required to further confirm the findings of this study. 
Future research could also explore means by which individuals may develop 
interiority. The theory generated by this study may also help explain why 
organisations led by women perform better (Sinclair, 1998; Joy, Wagner & Narayanan 
2007; Desvaux, Devillard-Hoellinger  & Meaney, 2008). At the organisational level, 
the findings imply that the domination of men at the highest levels of governance 
may undermine the potential of organisations to achieve their maximum potential. 
This should be seen not only in terms of quantitative and financial outcomes, but 
also in relation to culture, climate and the quality of life and the development of 
individual agency. Of course, in theory, the most obvious and simplest way of 
increasing interiority in organisations would be to increase the number of women 
leading organisations beyond the current level of 2 per cent (EOWA 2008). The 
author does not underestimate the potential resistance to this policy given millennia 
of institutionalised male hegemony (Calas & Smircich, 1996; Calas & Smircich, 
1999)—nor consider convincing men to ‘get in touch with their feelings’ an easy 
task8. Nevertheless, the author argues that developing organisational cultures that 
embrace open language – inclusive of feelings and intuitions – will be critical as 
environments continue to become more chaotic and complex. 
 
 

 
8  See Sinclair, 2000; Collinson & Hearn, 2003 in relation to this 

 
 
 

References 
Agor, W. (1984a). Intuitive Management: Integrating Left and Right Brain Management 

Skills. Prentice Hall: New York. 
Agor, W. (1986). The Logic of Intuitive Decision Making: A Research-Based Approach for 

Top Management. Quorum Books: Westport. 
Agor, W.H. (1989b). Test Your Intuitive Powers: Aim Survey. In W.H. Agor (Ed.). Intuition 

in Organizations: Leading and Managing Productively (pp. 133-144). Sage 
Publications: Newbury Park. 

Agor, W.H., (Ed.) (1989c). Intuition in Organizations. Sage Publications: Newbury Park. 
Ashkanasy, N.M., & Daus, C. (2001). Emotion in the Workplace: The New Challenge for 

Managers. Academy of Management Executive, 16(1), 76-86. 
Barnard, C.I. (1968). The Functions of the Executive (30th Anniversary Ed.). Harvard 

University Press: Cambridge. 
Barret, L.F., Lane, R.D., & Schwartz, G.E. (2000). Sex Differences in Emotional 

Awareness. Personality and Social Psychological Bulletin, 26, 1027-1035. 
Bastick, T. (1982). Intuition: How We Think and Feel. John Wiley: New York. 
Brody, L.R. (1997). Gender and Emotion: Beyond Stereotypes. Journal of Social Issues, 

53(2), 369-394. 
Burke, L. and M. Miller, M. (1999). Taking the Mystery out of Intuitive Decision Making. 

The Academy of Management Executive, 13 (4), 91-100. 
Calas, M. & Smircich, L. (1996). From 'the Woman's Point of View': Feminist Approaches 

to Organization Studies. In S.R. Clegg, C. Hardy & W.R. Nord (Eds.). Handbook of 
Organization Studies (pp. 218-258). Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks. 

Calas, M. & L. Smircich (1999). Past Postmodernism? Reflections and Tentative 
Directions. The Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 649-671. 
 

UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND



Cappon, D. (1993). The Anatomy of Intuition. Psychology Today, 26(3), 40-49. 
Cappon, D. (1994a). Intuition and Management: Research and Applications. Quorum 
 Books: Westport. 

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructivist Grounded Theory. Sage Publications: London. 
Charmaz, K. (2009). Shifting the Grounds: Constructivist Grounded Theory Methods. , In 

J. Morse, N.S., Stern, J., Corbin, B., Bowers, K. ,Charmaz & A.E. Clarke (Eds.), 
Developing Grounded Theory: The Second Generation (pp. 127-154). Left Coast 
Press: Walnut Creek, 

Collinson, D.L. & Hearn, L. (2003). Breaking the Silence: On Men, Masculinities and 
Managements. In R.J. Ely, E.G. Foldy and M.A. Scully (Eds.). Reader in Gender, Work, 
and Organizations (pp. 75-86). Blackwell Publishing, Malden. 

Craig, A.D. (2004). Human Feelings: Why Are Some More Aware Than Others?.TRENDS in 
Cognitive Sciences, 8(6), 238-241. 

Crossan, M., Lane, H. & White, R. (1999). An Organizational Learning Framework: From 
Intuition to Institution. The Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 522-538. 

Daft, R.L. & Lengel, H.R, (1986). Organizational Information Requirements, Media 
Richness and Structural Design, Management Science, 32(5), 554-571. 

Denes-Raj, V. and Epstein, S. (1994). Conflict between Intuitive and Rational Processing: 
When People Behave against Their Better Judgement. Journal of Personality and 
Social Psychology, 66(5), 819-829. 

Desvaux, G., Devillard-Hoellinger, S. & Meaney, M. (2008). A Business Case for Women. 
The McKinsey Quarterley, (September), Retreived from 
http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/A_business_case_for_women_2192. 

Dey, I. (1999). Grounding Grounded Theory: Guidelines for Qualitative Inquiry. 
Academic Press: San Diego. 

Downey, L.A., Papageorgiou, V., & Stough, C. (2006). Examining the Relationship 
between Leadership, Emotional Intelligence and Intuition in Senior Female Managers. 
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 27(4), 250-264. 

Dubrin, A.J., Dalglish, C., & Miller P. (2006). Leadership (2nd Asian ed.), John Wiley & 
Sons: Milton. 

EOWA (2008). Eowa 2008 Australian Census of Women in Leadership, Retrieved from: 
<http://www.eowa.gov.au/Australian_Women_In_Leadership_Census/2008_Australia 
n_Women_In_Leadership_Census/Media_Kit/EOWA_Census_2008_Publication.pdf> 

Epstein, S. (1994). Integration of the Cognitive and the Psychodynamic Unconscious, 
The American Psychologist. 49(8), 709-724. 

Epstein, S. (1998). Constructive Thinking: The Key to Emotional Intelligence. Praeger: 
Westport.Gill, R. (2006). Theory and Practice of Leadership. Thousand Oaks: 
California. 

Glaser, B. (1998). Doing Grounded Theory: Issues and Discussions. Sociological Press: 
Mill Valley. 

Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for 
Qualitative Research. Aldine de Gruyter: New York. 

Grudin, J. (1989). Why Groupware Applications Fail: Problems in Design and Evaluation. 
Information Technology & People, 4(3), 245-245. 

Hammond, K. (1996). Human Judgement and Social Policy: Irreducible Uncertainty, 
Inevitable Error and Unavoidable Injustice. Oxford University Press: New York. 

Higgs, M. (2001). Is There a Relationship between the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and 
Emotional Intelligence? Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16(7), 195-212. 

Hodgkinson, G., & Sadler-Smith, E. (2003). Complex or Unitary? A Critique and Empirical 
Reassessment of the Allinson-Hayes Cognitive Style Index. Journal of Occupational 
and Organisational Psychology, 76(2), 243-271. 

Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and Organizations: Intercultural Co-Operation and Its 
Importance for Survival. Harper Collins Business: London. 

Isenberg, D. (1984). How Senior Managers Think. Harvard Business Review, 18(50), 23- 
49. 

2010 POST GRADUATE CONFERENCE



Isenman, L. (1997). Toward an Understanding of Intuition and Its Importance in 
Scientific Endeavour. Perpectives in Biology and Medicine, 40(3), 395-404. 

Jabri, M. (1991). The Development of Conceptually Independent Sub-Scales in the 
Measurement of Modes of Problem Solving. Educational and Psychological 
Measurement, 51(4), 453-470. 

Joy, L., Carter, N. M, Wagner H.M., & Narayanan S. (2007). The Bottom Line: Corporate 
Performance and Women's Representation on Boards, Retrieved from: 
<http://www.catalyst.org/publication/200>. 

Jung, C.J. (1977). Psychological Types. Routledge and Kegan: London. 
Kahneman, D. (2002). Maps of Bounded Rationality: A Perspective on Intuitive 

Judgement and Choice. In T. Fraengsmyr (Ed.). Les Prix Nobel: The Nobel Prizes 2002 
(pp. 449–489). Nobel Foundation: Stockholm. 

Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (Eds.) (1982). Judgment under Uncertainty: 
Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge: U.K. 

Lank, A., & E. Lank (1995). Legitimizing the Gut Feel: The Role of Intuition in Business. 
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 10(5), 18-23. 

Layder, D. (1994). Understanding Social Theory. Sage Publications: London. 
Layder, D. (1997). Modern Social Theory: Key Debates and New Directions. Routledge: 

London. 
Layder, D. (2005). Understanding Social Theory (2nd ed). Sage Publications: London. 
Lieberman, M. (2000). Intuition: A Social Cognitive Neuroscience Approach. 

Psychological Bulletin, 126(1), 109-137. 
Loewenstein, G. (1996), Out of Control: Visceral Influences on Behavior. Organizational 

Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65(3), 272-290. 
Loewenstein, G., Weber, E., Hsee, C., & Welch, N. (2001). Risk as Feelings. Psychological 

Bulletin, 127(2), 267-286. 
Macken, J. (2002). True Leaders 2002, Financial Review, AFR Boss, pp. 5-6. 
Mintzberg, H. (1976). Planning on the Left Side and Managing on the Right. Harvard 

Business Review, 54(4), 49-58. 
Mintzberg, H. (1989). Mintzberg on Management: Inside Our Strange World of 

Organisations. The Free Press: New York. 
Novicevic, M., Hench, T., & Wren, D. (2002). ‘Playing by Ear’...’In an Incessant Din of 

Reasons’: Chester Barnard and the History of Intuition in Management Thought. 
Management Decision, 40(10), 992-1002.Osbeck, L.M. (1999). Conceptual 
Problems in the Development of a Psychological Notion of ‘Intuition’. Journal for 
the Theory of Social Behaviour, 29(3), 229-250. 

Parikh, J., Neubauer, F.F. & Lank, A.G. (1994). Intuition: The New Frontier of 
Management. Blackwell Publishing: Malden. 

Robson, M. (2004). Australian Elite Leaders and Intuition: Rationale for the Non- 
Rational. Honours, School of Business, Southern Cross University, Lismore. Retrieved 
from: 
http://epubs.scu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1021&context=gcm_pubs. 

Robson, M. (2009). Interviewing the Australian Business Elite: 'Lets Get Down to 
Business'. In T. Hays & R. Hussain (eds). Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Postgraduate 
Research Conference (pp. 151-164). University of New England: Armidale. 

Robson, M. (2010). ‘Towards the Reconciliation of Idealism and Realism through 
Monistic Idealism: Bridging the Gap’. In T. Hays (Ed.). Proceedings of the 4th Annual 
Postgraduate Research Conference (pp. 235-244). University of New England, 
Armidale, NSW, University of New England. 

Robson, M. & Cooksey, R. (2008). Towards the Integration and Contextualisation of 
Perspectives on Managerial Intuition, Australasian Journal of Business and Social 
Inquiry, 6(3), 62-84. 

Robson, M.J. & Miller, P. (2006). Australian Elite Leaders, Intuition and Effectiveness, 
Australasian Journal of Business and Social Inquiry, 4(3), 43-61. 

Rowland, S. (2002). Jung: A Feminist Revision. Polity Press: Cambridge. 
Sadler-Smith, E. & Burke, L. (2009). Fostering Intuition in Management Education: 

Activities and Resources. Journal of Management Education, 33(2), 239-262. 

UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND



Sadler-Smith, E. & Shefy E. (2004). The Intuitive Executive: Understanding and Applying 
‘Gut Feel’  Decision Making. Academy of Management Executive, 18(4), 76-81. 

Sadler-Smith, E. and P. Sparrow. (2007). Intuition in Organisational Decision Making, 
Lancaster University Management School Centre for Performance-led HR Working 
Paper Number 2007-03, (2007-013), Retreived from: 
<http://www.lums.lancs.ac.uk/research/centres/hr/>, 27/6/2008. 

Sarantakos, S. (2005). Social Research (3rd Ed). Palgrave Macmillan. 
Sauter, V. (1999). Intuitive Decision-Making’ Association for Computing Machinery. 

Communications of the ACM, 42(6), 109-116. 
Schulz, M.L. (2005). The New Feminine Brain: How Women Can Develop Their Inner 

Strengths, Genius, and Intuition. Free Press: New York. 
Simon, H.A. (1982), Models of Bounded Rationality. MIT Press, Cambridge. 
Simon, H.A. (1987). Making Management Decisions: The Role of Intuition and Emotion", 

The Academy of Management Executive, 1(1), 57-64. 
Simon, R.W. and Nath L.E. (2004). Gender and Emotion in the United States: Do Men and 

Women Differ in Self-Reports of Feelings and Expressive Behavior?. The American 
Journal of Sociology, 109(5), 1137-1176. 

Sinclair, A. (1998). Doing Leadership Differently: Gender, Power and Sexuality in a 
Changing Business Culture. Melbourne University Press: Carlton South. 

Sinclair, A. (2000). Teaching Managers About Masculinities: Are You Kidding? 
Management Learning, 31(1), 83-101. 

Sinclair, C.D., Ashkanasy, N.M., & Chatopadyay, P. (2010). The Affective Determinants of 
Intuitive Decision Making. Journal of Management and Organisation, 16(3), 382- 
398. 

Sinclair, M. (2003). The Use of Intuition in Managerial Decision-Making: Determinants 
and Affective Moderators. PhD, School of Business, University of Queensland, 
Retrieved from: <http://espace.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:106258>. 

Sinclair, M., & Ashkanasy, N. (2005). Intuition: Myth or a Decision-Making Tool? 
Management Learning, 36(3), 353-371. 

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and 
Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Sage Publications: London. 

Strauss, A., & Corbin J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and 
Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks. 

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D, (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, 
Science Watch, 185, 1124-1131. 

Westcott, M.R. (1968). Toward a Contemporary Psychology of Intuition: A Historical, 
Theoretical and Empirical Inquiry. Holt, Rinehart and Winston: New York. 

2010 POST GRADUATE CONFERENCE