True strategic decision-making involves evaluating trade-offs and understanding the opportunity cost of the chosen path. If you cannot articulate what you chose *not* to do, you didn't make a conscious decision; you simply reacted to a situation and applied a strategic label in retrospect.
Related Insights
The best leaders act on incomplete information, understanding that 100% certainty is a myth that only exists in hindsight. The inability to decide amid ambiguity—choosing inaction—is a greater failure than making the wrong call.
Being unable to choose between several viable ideas isn't a strategy problem; it's a psychological one. This indecisiveness is often a defense mechanism, allowing you to talk about potential without ever risking the public failure of execution. The solution is to force a decision—flip a coin, draw from a hat—and commit.
When launching a new strategy, define the specific go/no-go decision criteria on paper from day one. This prevents "revisionist history" where success metrics are redefined later based on new fact patterns or biases. This practice forces discipline and creates clear accountability for future reviews.
Sun Tzu's "Art of War" is largely written in the negative ("don't do this"), a "via negativa" approach. This simplifies decision-making by focusing on eliminating obvious errors. In investing, this translates to using checklists of past failures to avoid ruin, ensuring that what remains is the only viable path to take.
Decisions aren't equal. Most are reversible "two-way doors." A few, like selling a company, are permanent "one-way doors." Leaders must recognize the difference and apply a more rigorous, contemplative process to irreversible choices, as they have lasting consequences.
To gain clarity on a major decision, analyze the potential *bad* outcomes that could result from getting what you want. This counterintuitive exercise reveals hidden motivations and clarifies whether you truly desire the goal, leading to more robust choices.
A powerful test for a decisive strategy, borrowed from Roger Martin, is to consider its opposite. If the opposite is obviously foolish (e.g., "we will win with a terrible user interface"), your strategy isn't making a real, difficult choice and therefore lacks focus and strategic value.
This framework structures decision-making by prioritizing three hierarchical layers: 1) Mission (the customer/purpose), 2) Team (the business's financial health), and 3) Self (individual skills and passions). It provides a common language for debating choices and ensuring personal desires don't override the mission or business viability.
Categorize decisions by reversibility. 'Hats' are easily reversible (move fast). 'Haircuts' are semi-permanent (live with them for a bit). 'Tattoos' are irreversible (think carefully). Most business decisions are hats or haircuts, but we treat them like tattoos, wasting time.
Don't let current resources dictate your strategy. Many leaders look at what they have and ask, 'What can we build?' A better approach is to decide on the ultimate goal first ('What do I want to eat?') and then work backward to acquire the specific resources needed to achieve it, shifting from a reactive to a proactive mindset.
