More analysis does not automatically lead to better strategic decisions in SMEs

Experience and governance help entrepreneurs use their gut feeling more effectively

30 September 2026

How do SMEs make major strategic decisions? And what distinguishes decisions with stronger outcomes? New Vlerick research shows that the answer is not simply “more analysis”. Relevant experience, governance and limiting individual interests all play an important role.

These are the main conclusions of the study Strategic Decision-Making Maturity in SMEs – From Gut Feeling to Integrated Process by Professors Miguel Meuleman and Yannick Dillen and Charlotte Van Kerschaver. The research combines 12 in-depth interviews with business leaders with a survey of 138 companies. Each respondent analysed one specific strategic decision, such as an acquisition, international expansion, C-level hire or financing decision.

The study builds on Vlerick’s 2025 research into the growth capabilities of Flemish SMEs. Decision-making and governance emerged as the most fragile growth capability. The new research focuses specifically on how strategic decision-making needs to evolve as a company grows and becomes more complex.

Experience makes the difference, not more analysis

A first striking finding is that decisions with stronger reported outcomes were not made in significantly more structured processes. In both the group with stronger outcomes and the group with weaker ones, the use of information, analysis and explicit criteria was already relatively high.

What does differ is the use of relevant experience. In decisions with stronger outcomes, decision-makers rely significantly more on accumulated expertise, pattern recognition and comparable previous situations. Analysis remains important, but more analysis in itself is not what makes the difference.

The challenge is not to analyse everything. It is about combining the right information with relevant experience and knowing which assumptions need to be tested.

Miguel Meuleman

Professor of Entrepreneurship, Vlerick Business School

Gut feeling does not disappear – it needs to mature

Micro-enterprises rely significantly more on intuitive decision-making than medium-sized companies. As an SME grows, decision-making is generally shared more broadly across management teams, governance bodies and other stakeholders.

That does not mean intuition disappears. The relevant distinction is between pure gut feeling and experience-based intuition. People who have encountered comparable situations many times can recognise valuable patterns. But in a new market, with a new technology or when hiring an external CEO for the first time, that intuition is much less reliable.

That offers a useful rule: use intuition as a hypothesis, not as a final verdict. Ask what the feeling is based on, what is different about this situation and what information might contradict the initial judgement.

Governance helps ask better questions

Companies with a board of directors or advisory board report significantly more structured decision-making. Companies with external investors make significantly greater use of experience-based judgement. The researchers also see a tendency towards more structure when final decision authority is shared between several people.

Governance therefore does not appear to replace entrepreneurial judgement, but it does help make it more explicit and test it. A good director, adviser or external shareholder can bring additional experience to the table and ask questions that are less likely to be raised internally.

Not every strategic decision requires the same process

The study also shows clear differences depending on the type of decision. In HR decisions, such as hiring a CEO, CFO or COO, intuition plays a relatively strong role. This makes these choices particularly susceptible to biases such as similarity bias and the halo effect. Growth decisions, including international expansion and acquisitions, rely more strongly on prior experience. Financial decisions combine analysis and experience more evenly.

The social dynamics around the decision matter too. Stronger reported decision outcomes are associated with a lower individualistic orientation: less defence of one’s own position or preference, and more focus on what is best for the company. Family businesses also involve employees significantly more in strategic discussions. More participative decision-making is, in turn, associated with a lower individualistic orientation.

AI: from individual experimentation to decision-making capability

AI still played a limited role in the strategic decisions examined: an average of 2.0 on a 7-point scale. This figure should be interpreted cautiously because respondents could reflect on decisions made up to five years earlier, while generative AI was only widely adopted in 2023.

The interesting question for the coming years is therefore not only how much AI SMEs use, but how they integrate AI into their decision-making. AI can gather information, compare scenarios and challenge assumptions. The greatest value arises when these capabilities are combined with human experience and contextual knowledge.

From gut feeling to integrated decision-making

The conclusion is not that there is one ideal decision-making method. Mature strategic decision-making means that a company can adapt the process to the decision and combine analysis, experience and critical testing.

For entrepreneurs, then, professionalisation does not mean learning to ignore their gut feeling. It means learning when to trust it, when to test it and who they need to make their initial judgement sharper.