What’s in it for me? Make decisions with confidence.
Making good decisions under pressure is hard. It’s not that you don’t have options. Sometimes it’s the sheer volume of options that makes it overwhelming. Or maybe you’re waiting on that final piece of information that will make you sure it’s the right choice.
Even when we do make decisions, we have a funny way of letting our internal biases and fears skew our judgment. Confirmation bias, for instance, means that when we have all the facts, we still tend to favor information that confirms our existing beliefs. We sometimes overlook crucial data that might lead to a more informed decision because it doesn’t fit the solution we’ve already decided.
Similarly, people who don’t know much about a subject tend to be overconfident in making decisions. They don’t know what they don’t know. You might have heard of this as the Dunning-Kruger effect. The flip side of this is that the people who are most informed about a situation – so actually in the best position to make decisions – often experience the most doubt.
In this Blink, you’ll find out how to make effective decisions, even when you’re under pressure or working with uncertainty. You’ll learn about different theories of decision-making and discover an arsenal of tools to make choices with confidence.
These resources will help you navigate through the complexities of decision-making, allowing you to mitigate biases and approach your decisions with clarity and confidence. Remember, though, that the goal isn’t for you always to make perfect decisions, but rather to make the best decisions you can with confidence.
How we make decisions
The decisions you need to make every day can be incredibly diverse and niche, but how you make those decisions can be surprisingly similar. To enhance your decision-making skills, you need to refine the methodologies you apply across varied scenarios.
One such method, the Recognition-Primed Decision, or RPD model, was described by researchers analyzing how firefighters make split-second decisions in an incredibly high-pressure environment. The idea is that people make decisions based on previous experiences and tend to default to a solution mimicking previous successes. This means that as you’re exposed to more experiences, or you get better at making accurate comparisons, your decision-making improves.
Parallel to the RPD model is the OODA loop – Observe, Orient, Decide, and Act– is another model stemming from high-pressure decision-making. First developed as a strategy to help pilots make quick, informed decisions in combat, the goal is to accurately read a situation, and try to validate your assumptions. Based on that input, you decide which course of action you should take, and test that mental model with action.
Contrasting these models are approaches like the GROW model and the PDSA cycle, which thrive in scenarios where time is a luxury. The GROW model, for instance, provides a structured framework by focusing on Goal setting, assessing Reality, identifying your Options and potential obstacles, and then making a decision – what Will you actually do? Similarly, the PDSA cycle – Plan, Do, Study, Act – offers a methodical approach tailored for environments that allow for reflection and adjustment.
The transition from rapid, experience-based decision-making models to more reflective, structured frameworks underscores the versatility required in decision-making skills. Whether reacting under pressure or contemplating long-term strategies, the essence of effective decision-making lies in actively engaging with your environment and iteratively refining your choices.
For instance, the RPD model’s reliance on past successes is complemented by the OODA loop’s cycle of rapid iteration, while the GROW model’s structured analysis and the PDSA cycle’s emphasis on adjustment highlight the importance of reflection in less urgent contexts. This diversity in models showcases the adaptability and iterative nature of decision-making, akin to conducting A/B tests in programming where two options are iteratively tested to refine outcomes.
By understanding and applying these models, you can navigate the broad spectrum of decision-making scenarios more effectively, embracing each choice not as a fork in the road but as an opportunity for growth and improvement.
Knowing your starting line
It’s important to understand the context in which you're making decisions. You’re never going to have perfect knowledge, but without a clear understanding of where you are, how can you expect to know where you’re going?
Luckily, there are a lot of tools available to help you gain and organize information about your context. For instance, SWOT analysis helps identify internal Strengths and Weaknesses, along with external Opportunities and Threats. PEST is another model you might already be familiar with, broadening the scope to scan the Political, Economic, Social, and Technological factors that inform strategic planning.
An important skill in utilizing these tools is the ability to sift through information to find what's truly relevant. What do you really need to know, versus noise that’s distracting you from making your decision? What adds complexity without clarity? What’s the simplest tool that can help you in this situation?
This is one of the reasons some of the more niche decision-making frameworks can be so powerful. Take TELOS, a framework for assessing the feasibility of an idea in the current environment. Instead of trying to understand a potential solution in a sea of irrelevant information, TELOS cuts it down to five questions. Do you have the technical expertise? Do the economic benefits outweigh the costs? Are there any legal provisions you have to consider? Will the results fit with existing operations? And, lastly, can you do this on schedule?
Another example of a specific tool is Porter’s 5 forces, which is used to analyze your competitive environment by focusing on the power dynamics between competitors, suppliers, customers, potential entrants, and substitute products. It's a go-to framework for strategic analysis in business contexts, helping you to understand the forces shaping your industry without getting caught in the weeds.
This ability to discern and apply the most appropriate tool based on your context is a pivotal skill in effective decision-making. Remember, you’re never going to have perfect knowledge of your environment, but focusing on relevant and high-quality information can ensure your decisions are as impactful as possible.
What’s your problem?
At the core of effective decision-making is the ability to pinpoint the actual problem. You need to direct your efforts where they can make the most significant impact. Two techniques in particular, Ishikawa’s diagram and the 5 Whys technique, are fantastic for dissecting the root cause of an issue.
Ishikawa’s diagram, also known as a fishbone diagram, maps the source of a problem by branching it into all possible causes. The 5 Whys technique requires you to tap into your inner four-year-old. Keep asking why until you drill down into the core of the problem. These simple yet powerful methods can delve beyond surface issues into the underlying factors contributing to your problem.
Sometimes you have so many problems you simply don’t know where to focus your attention. This is where Pareto analysis, or the 80/20 rule, comes into play. It suggests that 80 percent of problems can be attributed to 20 percent of causes. In other words, you can solve 80 percent of your problems by focusing on 20 percent of their contributing factors. Figuring out this focus area will ensure you’re allocating resources to where they’re most effective.
Once you know what your problem is, you need to be able to frame that problem in a way that helps you understand the implications of potential solutions. CATWOE is a checklist to ensure that you consider all stakeholders in your decision. For each problem, identify the Customers, Actors, Transformation process, Worldview, Owners, and Environmental constraints that are impacted by potential solutions.
By employing these tools to analyze and frame your problem, you're more likely to ensure that your efforts aren’t just well-intentioned but also well-directed – solving the right problem for maximum impact.
Beyond brainstorming
Okay, here’s the hard truth you’re probably not expecting to hear: when it comes to idea generation, brainstorming sessions kind of suck. In theory, they sound great; everyone shares their ideas without judgment. But it’s predicated on the belief that creativity can be summoned on demand and social pressures don’t exist. In practice, you end up with a mediocre list of ideas from the loudest people in the room.
Enter Zwicky’s Box or the Morphological Box, an idea generation technique developed by Swiss astrophysicist Fritz Zwicky. In essence, the box is a multidimensional grid. Each axis or column of the grid represents a different dimension or aspect of the problem. You fill the grid with all possible combinations of these attributes or dimensions.
By examining the intersections within the grid, you can explore potential solutions that might not be immediately obvious. This method encourages out-of-the-box thinking by breaking down complex problems into their constituent parts and looking at them from multiple perspectives.
Another technique you might like to use is SCAMPER, which is an acronym for Substitute, Combine, Adapt, Modify, Put to another use, Eliminate, and Reverse. It prompts individuals to interrogate existing products, services, or processes through a series of questions, facilitating the generation of ideas by tweaking known elements into innovative configurations.
Obviously, this isn’t an exhaustive list of creative strategies, but both Zwicky’s Box and SCAMPER highlight the value of structured thought in idea generation. By leveraging these methods, teams can circumvent the common pitfalls of traditional brainstorming, fostering an environment where creativity isn’t only encouraged but also systematically cultivated.
Weighing the alternatives
Once you’ve got a set of potential solutions, the next challenge is determining the most suitable path forward. How do you sift through your options to identify the best fit for your situation?
For cases when you’re juggling a handful of options, your best options are either grid analysis or the Kepner-Tregoe or KT matrix. Both work in similar ways, except that a KT matrix is more detailed whilst a grid analysis is faster. Essentially, you rank each solution according to criteria relevant to your choice. In the KT version, these scores are also given a multiplier based on how important they are.
For more intricate decisions involving numerous variables, the Analytic Hierarchy Process or AHP is invaluable. AHP breaks your decision into a hierarchy of sub-decisions, making complex choices more manageable. You then compare options pairwise against each criterion, assigning a numerical value to represent how much more one option satisfies each criterion over the other. These comparisons are used to calculate an overall ranking of options, guiding you toward the most favorable outcome based on a consistent, mathematical rationale.
Lastly, the Eisenhower Matrix is perfect for your quick and dirty decisions. It’s particularly useful when it comes to prioritizing tasks or decisions. Divide options into four quadrants based on urgency and importance: do now, schedule, delegate, or eliminate. This approach helps quickly identify actions that require immediate attention versus those that can wait or be delegated.
This weighing process can be as detailed and complex as you want, but always aim for the simplest strategy that you can whilst still doing your due diligence. In the end, a lot of these strategies are still reliant on human ratings, with all the bias that entails.
Group techniques
At this point you might be wondering if, when, and how you involve your team in the decision-making process. Making a decision yourself is quicker, but a collaborative strategy can build team cohesion and commitment to a shared goal. Your ideal team input is probably floating somewhere between these extremes.
One strategy for deciding when to involve your team is the Vroom-Yetton-Jago Decision Model. By answering a few questions on subjects like how important team member commitment is or their access to quality information, you can judge how involved your team should be on a case-by-case basis. Other models look at different variables, such as contrasting personal stake and level of expertise, but the common theme is that how involved your team should be in decisions depends entirely on the decision.
Once you know your team should be involved, the next question is how. We’ve already talked about the drawbacks of brainstorms, but an alternative for the idea generation phase is the nominal group technique. Team members write down their ideas independently to avoid influence from dominant personalities, and all ideas are then read aloud. This technique ensures that all voices are heard, making it ideal for environments where team cohesion and equal participation are vital.
For decisions requiring specialized knowledge or a consensus among experts, the Delphi Method is invaluable. This process involves rounds of anonymous feedback, allowing for a wide range of inputs without the sway of authority or peer pressure. It's best used when the decision impacts are far-reaching and require a deep dive into expert opinion.
The Charette Procedure is designed to tackle large, multifaceted problems by breaking down the group into smaller, focused teams. Each subgroup works on a part of the problem, then shares their findings with the larger group. This approach is perfect for productively engaging larger teams, ensuring comprehensive coverage of the problem space.
These are only a few of the possible techniques that can facilitate group input in decision-making. Choosing the right technique depends on the complexity of your decision, the need for expert input, and the desired level of team engagement.
Planning forward
Once you’ve decided the best course of action, you need to assess the potential impact and plan accordingly. An impact assessment is a comprehensive approach that evaluates the effects of a decision on various stakeholders and the environment. When done correctly, it can be an invaluable decision-making tool, but they’re very time and resource-intensive to conduct.
A simpler, yet still effective technique is a Plus-Minus-Interesting or PMI analysis, which weighs the pros and cons of a decision along with its potential interesting outcomes. This quick analysis can provide immediate insights into the value and potential ramifications of a decision, facilitating a balanced view of its merits and drawbacks.
Cost-benefit analysis or CBA is a systematic approach used to evaluate the financial implications of making a decision. It involves quantifying and comparing the total expected costs associated with an action or project against the total expected benefits, to determine whether the benefits outweigh the costs and by how much.
Decision trees are the inverse of the fishbone diagram we described earlier. Instead of mapping out the causes, you explore the various potential paths and outcomes associated with your decision. They help identify the most viable path forward based on probable outcomes and risks.
These models typically fall into two categories: comprehensive but time-consuming, or quick and easy but superficial. Unfortunately, there’s not really a way around that. The more work you put in, the more you ensure your decisions look beyond your current challenges and pave the way for future success.
Final summary
Effective decision-making is both an art and a science. From the initial stages of identifying biases and the complexity of idea generation to the nuances of team involvement and the strategic assessment of impacts, the journey through decision-making is multifaceted. You've discovered the significance of adapting your approach based on the context, carefully analyzing problems, creatively generating solutions, thoughtfully weighing alternatives, and meticulously planning for the aftermath of decisions.
One of the most important things you should take away is that good decision-making is inherently iterative. No solution is ever completely perfect, no matter how much you analyze and agonize. In the end, making a decision, even an imperfect one, is often better than being paralyzed by inaction. Not choosing is the choice to surrender your agency over your future, and the most effective decision is the one you end up making.