14.3 Informed Decision-Making

Air Force PFE Promotion Fitness Examination

Track your progress as you read

Finished sections get a check mark.

1 Introduction & Exam Overview

1.1 PFE Exam Facts & Format 1.2 The WAPS Scoring System 1.3 The Tested AFH 1 Chapters & Study Strategy

2 Professionalism (AFH 1, Chapter 1)

2.1 The USAF Professional & the Profession of Arms 2.2 The Air Force Core Values & Their Virtues 2.3 Ethical Standards & the Airman's Creed

3 Military Organization & Command (AFH 1, Chapter 5)

3.1 The United States Armed Forces 3.2 The Military Departments & Services 3.3 Military Command Structure & Combatant Commands 3.4 The Air Force Total Force 3.5 Air Force Organizational Structure

4 Enlisted Force Development I (AFH 1, Chapter 7A–7D)

4.1 Leadership Levels 4.2 The Enlisted Force Structure & Tiers 4.3 Duty Titles & Special Positions 4.4 Force Development & the Competency Framework

5 Enlisted Force Development II (AFH 1, Chapter 7E–7H)

5.1 Training Responsibilities & Upgrade Training 5.2 Professional Military Education 5.3 The Community College of the Air Force 5.4 Continuing Education & Voluntary Programs

6 Assessments & Recognition (AFH 1, Chapter 8)

6.1 The Airman Comprehensive Assessment 6.2 Performance Evaluations & the EPB 6.3 Reenlistments, Retention & Continuation 6.4 Awards & Decorations

7 Enlisted Promotions (AFH 1, Chapter 9)

7.1 Promotion Systems & Programs 7.2 Promotion Cycles & Eligibility 7.3 Preparation & Individual Responsibilities 7.4 Promotion Testing & Test Control 7.5 Evaluation Boards & Central Selection

8 Personnel Programs & Benefits (AFH 1, Chapter 11)

8.1 Benefits & Services 8.2 Leave & Authorized Absences 8.3 Military Associations & Civilian Programs

9 Finance, Manpower & Resources (AFH 1, Chapter 12)

9.1 Individual Finances & Allowances 9.2 Official Travel Expenses & Allowances 9.3 Manpower Management 9.4 Resource Management & Stewardship 9.5 Environmental Commitment

10 Developing Organizations (AFH 1, Chapter 13)

10.1 Strategic Thinking & Results Focus 10.2 Resources & Organizational Structure 10.3 Change Management & Problem Solving

11 Developing Others (AFH 1, Chapter 14)

11.1 Teamwork & Team Dynamics 11.2 Develops People: Mentoring, Coaching & Feedback 11.3 Service Mindset & Fostering Effective Relationships 11.4 Leadership: Styles, Power & Influence

12 Developing Self I (AFH 1, Chapter 15A–15C)

12.1 Accountability & Self-Management 12.2 Military Communication 12.3 Preparing to Communicate

13 Developing Self II (AFH 1, Chapter 15D–15F)

13.1 Written Communication 13.2 Spoken Communication 13.3 Electronic Messaging

14 Developing Ideas (AFH 1, Chapter 16)

14.1 What We Know: Priorities & Innovation 14.2 Cognitive Processes & Critical Thinking 14.3 Informed Decision-Making 14.4 What We Don't Know: Uncertainty & Assumptions

15 Emergency Management (AFH 1, Chapter 17)

15.1 Air Force Emergency Management, Disasters & Hazards 15.2 Preparedness, MOPP & Individual Protection 15.3 Crisis Response & Recovery 15.4 Department of the Air Force Mishap Prevention 15.5 Risk Management

16 Security (AFH 1, Chapter 18)

16.1 Integrated Defense & Force Protection Conditions 16.2 Operations Security (OPSEC) 16.3 Information Protection & Classification 16.4 Information Access, Cybersecurity & Mobility 16.5 Antiterrorism

17 Standards of Conduct (AFH 1, Chapter 19)

17.1 A Way of Life: Oaths, Standards & Off-Duty Conduct 17.2 The Law of War 17.3 The Code of Conduct

18 Enforcing Military Standards (AFH 1, Chapter 20)

18.1 The Air Force Inspection System 18.2 Individual Accountability & Corrective Action 18.3 Appropriate Working Relationships & Fraternization 18.4 Addressing Misconduct & Prohibited Behavior

19 Fitness & Readiness (AFH 1, Chapter 22)

19.1 USAF Fitness & Comprehensive Airman Fitness 19.2 The Official Fitness Assessment 19.3 Nutrition & Performance 19.4 Substance Use, Abuse & Treatment Programs 19.5 Readiness State of Mind & Resilience

20 Military Customs & Courtesies (AFH 1, Chapter 24)

20.1 Honored Traditions: Saluting, Titles & Reporting 20.2 Respect for the Flag 20.3 Respect for Individuals 20.4 Ceremonies & Events 20.5 Drill & Formation 20.6 Preserving Our Heritage

21 SJT Format & Competencies

21.1 SJT Format & Mechanics 21.2 Airman Leadership Qualities (ALQs) 21.3 Foundational Competencies & Behaviors

22 SJT Reasoning, Scenarios & Traps

22.1 SJT Reasoning Strategies 22.2 Sample SJT Scenarios 22.3 SJT Traps & Best Practices

14.3 Informed Decision-Making

Key Takeaways Explain This Topic AI

The CRAAP test evaluates information sources on Currency, Relevance, Authority, Accuracy, and Purpose.

Divergent thinking generates multiple varied solutions; convergent thinking seeks the correct or best possible solution from identified possibilities.

The Osborn-Parnes model's six stages are mess finding, data finding, problem finding, idea finding, solution finding, and acceptance finding — governed by the principle of deferred judgment.

The Vroom-Yetton-Jago model's five levels run from decide and announce, through gather input from individuals, gather input from the group, facilitate consensus, to delegate with constraints.

AFH 1 warns that formal education and training tend to improve convergent thinking but not divergent thinking, which may even worsen.

Last updated: August 2026

Learning Is Power

AFH 1 sets the stake: "From Airman Basic to General, the decisions each of us make every day impact the delivery of airpower." And it names what habitual critical thinking prevents: "the habitual application of critical thinking methods... helps reduce our unconscious and natural tendency to accept an available option as satisfactory without actually exploring all feasible options before making a decision."

The process claim is testable on its own: "The process of decision-making is as important as the information analyzed."

Digital Literacy and the CRAAP Test

AFH 1 acknowledges the upside — the internet provides immediate access to information from a wide variety of sources with real-time updates — and the risk: "because internet information is not regulated for quality and accuracy, it is particularly important to critically evaluate sources."

The recommended best practice is the CRAAP test .

Letter Criterion Questions AFH 1 supplies

C Currency (timeliness) When was the information published or last updated? Have newer articles been published? Does your topic require recent information, or will older sources work as well?

R Relevance (importance for your needs) Does the information answer your question? Who is the intended audience? Is the information at an appropriate level — not too simple, or overly technical?

A Authority (source of the information) Who is the publisher or sponsor? What are the author's credentials or organizational affiliations? Is the author qualified to write on the topic?

A Accuracy (reliability, truthfulness, correctness) Is the information supported by evidence? Was it reviewed by editors or subject experts? Can you verify it in other sources?

P Purpose (the reason the information exists) Is it intended to inform or teach, or to sell, entertain, or persuade? Does the point of view appear objective and impartial? Are there political, ideological, cultural, religious, institutional, or personal biases?

AFH 1 adds a heuristic worth remembering: "aim to rely on sources that have strong incentives to present accurate information." There is little consequence to a blog or message board writer who gets facts wrong , and for-profit companies may purposely mislead — but newspaper articles and scientific papers are normally reliable because errors there can seriously damage the author's reputation.

Analytical Thinking

"Informed decision making requires more than gathering and evaluating facts. It requires analytical thinking to systematically break information apart, compare different aspects of a problem, and organize information." The first step is to exercise healthy skepticism and consider several potential causes of what you observe.

Limitations of Small Sample Sizes

"Judgments based on a large number of observations are more likely to be accurate than judgments based on a small number of observations."

AFH 1's example: choosing between University A (where your friends are happy but your own visit went poorly) and University B (where your friends are dissatisfied but your visit went well). Many people say go with your gut and pick University B — but the handbook pushes you to "fully recognize the limited duration of your visit" : how much of the school did you see, how many classes, how many people? Your friends have had much more extensive interaction over a longer time period.

The takeaway: "Impressions based on a few days, or a few people will usually not be as accurate as judgments or data based on a larger number of observations."

Correlation Doesn't Imply Causality

"Even when two factors are clearly related, do not immediately assume that one factor is causing the other." AFH 1 asks you to apply the concept of the control group : before concluding a pill causes an outcome, scientists compare those who took it to those who didn't and ask "Are the two groups otherwise (mostly) the same?"

The worked example: a base offers XYZ supplements free to all members; takers improve their fitness test scores while non-takers do not. Before concluding the supplement works, ask whether takers differed in important ways — self-selection bias (members who already exercised more or ate better were more likely to take them), age differences , or fewer pre-existing health conditions . "The more similar the two groups, the more reasonable it would be to conclude that XYZ supplements cause improved physical fitness."

Creative Problem Solving

Type of thinking AFH 1's definition

Divergent thinking "The ability to generate multiple varied solutions to a given problem." Brainstorming is a divergent thinking task

Convergent thinking "A process that seeks out the correct or best possible solution (from identified possibilities)"

The warning that makes this section matter: "With formal education and training, we tend to improve in Convergent Thinking skills, but we tend not to improve (may even worsen) on Divergent Thinking. Yet both processes are important for effective problem solving."

The Osborn-Parnes Model

Central to this approach is the principle of deferred judgment — "allow a period of time to let ideas flow freely (apply Divergent Thinking) without internal or external evaluation. Only after we have identified many possible ideas, should we evaluate them (apply Convergent Thinking)." Each stage involves successive divergent and convergent thinking tasks.

Stage What you do

1. Mess Finding Identify the problem you want to address. Summarize it as a "How to…" statement — AFH 1's example: "How to reduce the number of Airmen calling in sick"

2. Data Finding Seek out all relevant facts. Ask the five Ws : Who is involved? What is involved and what are some examples? When does it happen? Where does it happen? Why does it happen? Then identify what additional facts are lacking and where to search for them

3. Problem Finding Describe what you want to accomplish in more specific terms. Ask "In What Ways Might We…" (IWWMW) and brainstorm many problem statements , because what you initially thought you wanted may reflect another concern . Then select the statement capturing the most important or underlying problem

4. Idea Finding Identify as many potential solutions as possible — even far-out, odd, or unusual ideas. Set a numeric goal (e.g., 50–75 ideas) before discussing them. Incubate if time permits; positive mood and rest facilitate brainstorming . In groups, anonymity may help , because extrinsic motivations can undermine divergent thinking . Only afterward narrow to 6–8 ideas

5. Solution Finding Use a list of selected criteria — time, cost, feasibility, safety, impact on morale — assign a weight to each on a 1–10 scale , then use a decision matrix to rate each idea against each criterion and multiply the ratings by the weights

6. Acceptance Finding Gain acceptance for the solution, develop a plan of action, and implement it (follow through)

AFH 1 explicitly links this model back to Chapter 13: the Osborn-Parnes stages map onto the practical problem-solving method — Mess, Data, and Problem Finding support Step 1 (clarify and validate the problem) , and Idea, Solution, and Acceptance Finding support Step 5 (develop countermeasures) .

The most testable single fact here is the principle name — deferred judgment — and the reason for it: evaluate only after generating.

The Vroom-Yetton-Jago Decision-Making Model

AFH 1 describes it as a model "used for deciding how to decide," with five primary levels , each requiring a different level of involvement or complexity .

Level What the leader does Pros Cons

I: Decide and Announce Makes the decision and announces or presents it Quick decision and implementation; the leader controls the decision and the situation May not consider all necessary information ; may alienate members unnecessarily . Leaders should explain the rationale for deciding unilaterally

II: Gather Input from Individuals and Decide Gathers input from selected individuals or the group individually, then decides Allows consultation with recognized experts without requiring a meeting with the entire group Others may wonder why they were not consulted and may perceive the leader as playing favorites , producing resistance at implementation

III: Gather Input from the Group and Decide Gathers input from the group , then decides Enhances the chance for synergy and better-informed decision-making If the decision differs from what the group suggested , the group may feel their inputs were not valued or that the process was a façade ; also takes more time

IV: Facilitate Consensus Presents the issue and facilitates the group's decision , retaining the option to decide if consensus fails Enhances buy-in and ownership , educates the group , allows quicker implementation , and builds and sustains trust and respect Takes more time ; the decision could be adequate but not optimal because groups compromise to reach agreement

V: Delegate with Constraints Delegates the problem and authorizes the group to decide within specified boundaries , while facilitating support and resources Builds team leadership skills , allows ownership , and frees the leader to focus on other issues Takes more time ; may produce a decision the leader does not view as optimal; the team may lack the skills to reach a quality decision , producing disharmony

Two details the exam relies on. First, Level V is delegation with constraints, not abandonment — AFH 1 says explicitly that "leaders do not abandon the group." Second, at Level IV the leader retains the fallback authority to decide if the group cannot reach consensus, which is what distinguishes it from Level V.

AFH 1 closes by noting the two models combine: the Osborn-Parnes process can be applied regardless of who provides input or makes the final decision — a leader can run it alone at Level I, involve others in Idea Finding only at Level I or II, or encourage others to apply it at Level IV or V .