On Making Better Decisions, Together

Every team depends on decisions but how we make them often slips through the cracks.

May 16, 2025

🧠 This post is Part 1 of a 3-part series on how high-performing teams make faster, sharper decisions without chaos.
Part 1: On Making Better Decisions Together (this post)
Introduces a systems-first approach to decision-making.
Part 2: Fast Teams Move on Trust, Not Permission
How trust drives execution speed and removes second-guessing.
Part 3 (next week): The Clarity Stack
How great teams scale alignment without meetings or micromanagement.

Your team made hundreds of decisions last quarter. The question isn’t how many you remember. It’s how many created momentum you didn’t have to revisit.

We obsess over optimizing funnels and timelines. But some of the most impactful shifts start upstream, in the moments when we choose what to pursue, how we rally, and whether we stick to our calls. Decision-making shapes everything. Oddly, it gets skipped over.

This isn’t about adding red tape. It’s about having enough structure to move with intent, not just speed. Let’s map it out.

A Working Model for Decision Flow

Here’s a simple model I use. It’s not perfect, but it’s useful for spotting where decisions gain momentum or lose steam.

Decision Funnel:       Inputs → Framing → Tradeoffs → Choice

This is the core of decision-making. Not execution, not reflection. Just the moment of shaping and selecting. When done well, it sets up everything that follows.

Let’s break it down.

1. Inputs

What it is: The signal before the decision. What you’re noticing, hearing, or feeling that suggests a choice needs to be made.
Example: Users are dropping off a new feature faster than expected.
How we use it: Start by asking, “What’s actually happening here?” Surface the data, instincts, and edge cases. Decision quality begins with signal clarity.

2. Framing

What it is: Defining the question you’re really trying to answer.
Example: Is this a UX issue or are people simply not discovering the feature?
How we use it: Slow down here. It’s cheaper to reframe than to rebuild. And this is where second-order thinking comes in. Don’t just ask, “What should we do?” Ask, “What might this create beyond the immediate goal?” Good framing sees the ripple effects, not just the splash.

3. Tradeoffs

What it is: Naming what you’re giving up in order to move forward.
Example: Do we fix the drop-off now or stay focused on the current roadmap?
How we use it: Make the cost visible. Time, trust, optionality, team energy.
These are all currencies. Tradeoffs get easier when the team agrees on what matters most.

4. Choice

What it is: Making the call clearly, out loud, and in writing.
Example: We’re fixing the UX. Team A owns the work. Launch target is next sprint.
How we use it: Say the decision, not just the discussion. If no one can point to “the call,” it didn’t happen.

That’s the Decision Funnel. But smart teams don’t stop there.

They feed decisions into a loop, one that builds follow-through, trust, and long-term rapid learning.

Decision Loop:   Choice → Ownership → Execution → Learning → Inputs

This loop turns good decisions into great systems. It keeps the organization from chasing its own tail. And it’s where teams can fall apart, not for lack of effort, but for lack of visibility.

1. Choice

What it is: The final call. A decision made clearly, documented, and time-stamped.

Example: We’re prioritizing the self-serve onboarding flow this cycle.

How we use it: Capture the call. Don’t let decisions live in Slack threads or someone’s memory. Make it visible, repeatable, referenceable.

2. Ownership

What it is: Explicit accountability. Who is responsible for driving the decision forward?

Example: Growth PM owns the rollout. Design and data are supporting leads.

How we use it: Tag ownership wherever the decision lives: project docs, meeting notes, or roadmaps. Remove ambiguity early.

3. Execution

What it is: The work. The system that tracks whether what was decided is actually happening.

Example: Tasks are scoped, assigned, and progress is shared weekly.

How we use it: Use your existing sprint rituals but link them back to the original decision. It grounds action in context.

4. Learning

What it is: The post-decision review. Did it work? What emerged that we didn’t expect? What didn’t work and why?

Example: Signup conversion improved, but trial-to-paid stayed flat. Why?

How we use it: Run after-action reviews. Even 10 minutes of reflection can pull forward months of insight.

5. Inputs

What it is: Feeding what you’ve learned back into the next cycle of decisions.

Example: Insights from the onboarding test shape how we frame the next monetization discussion.

How we use it: This is the return path. Strong teams don’t just document outcomes. They reuse the learnings.

Some might look at this and see echoes of the OODA loop. It’s a fair reference but the purpose here is different.

OODA: Observe, Orient, Decide, Act: is built for rapid response in fast-changing environments. It’s optimized for agility, especially when the cost of delay is high.

But many of the hardest decisions in growth and leadership aren’t about speed. They’re about depth. About framing the right question, making tradeoffs visible, and building trust through clarity.

This model isn’t about reacting faster. It’s about reducing relitigation, aligning across functions, and learning as a team. Where OODA optimizes for tempo, this system optimizes for momentum you don’t have to undo later.

If you lead a team, try this:

Can you name three important decisions from last quarter, and what changed because of them?

If not, that’s not a failure. It’s a design gap. One you can start fixing this week.

Where Decision Flow Breaks

Most decision pain isn’t caused by a single bad call. It comes from small misfires compounding in systems that aren’t designed to surface or resolve them.

Here’s what breakdown looks like in the Decision Funnel:

Debates that repeat with slightly different phrasing, because framing was fuzzy.
Decisions that feel implied but never get confirmed, so no one knows who’s moving.
Deadlines without clarity on who owns the call, or what tradeoffs were made.
Questions asked out of sequence, like jumping to solutions before naming the actual problem.

And here’s where things often fall apart in the Decision Loop:

No visible owner, so follow-through gets distributed across silence.
Execution begins but loses momentum because no one checks back in.
Learning never happens, because there’s no trigger to revisit what was decided or why.
Consequences show up—but because the decision path wasn’t logged, no one sees the connection.

These aren’t edge cases. They’re common operating conditions in most orgs.

The cost isn’t just delay. It’s cognitive churn, unclear priorities, and erosion of team trust. According to McKinsey, ineffective decision-making costs Fortune 500 companies more than 530,000 days of lost productivity per year. That’s over $250 million in wasted capacity, before you count the cost of rework or missed insight.

If your team is moving fast but not learning, you’re not compounding. You’re circling.

A better system doesn’t just help you decide well. It helps you follow through and learn faster than you forget.

Systems that Scale: How Great Teams Do It

Amazon uses PR/FAQs to clarify proposals before committing. Stripe tracks decisions with naming conventions and written documentation. Notion uses memos to create shared reference points that don’t fade after the meeting ends.

These tools aren’t about control. They’re about creating decision systems where choices are framed well, followed through clearly, and revisited with intention.

What sets high-functioning teams apart isn’t just the quality of their initial decisions. It’s their ability to track ownership, surface outcomes, and refine their thinking over time. That’s what the Decision Loop is for.

Here are six low-lift practices that support both halves of the system:

1. Decision logs

What it is: A running log of context, reasoning, and expected outcomes for major decisions.
Use case: Log the “why now” and revisit it 30 days later.
System impact: Builds memory. Feeds the learning loop.

2. Framing Trees

What it is: A tool to map out the actual question before jumping to answers.
Use case: Use when a problem feels “solved” too fast.
System impact: Forces better framing. Avoids solving the wrong problem well.

3. Pre-Clarity Sessions

What it is: A short, structured convo before kickoff: “What are we trying to learn?”
Use case: Before launches, OKRs, or bets.
System impact: Clarifies intent. Surfaces assumptions early.

5. Weekly Review Rituals

What it is: A standing 10-minute practice: “What decisions did we make this week? Are we tracking them?”
Use case: Team standups or Friday wrap-ups.
System impact: Keeps decisions visible. Supports accountability.

6. Retros for Decisions

What it is: A lightweight post-mortem for decisions: “Did it work? What surprised us?”
Use case: At project close, or 30 days after a call.
System impact: Feeds insight back into Inputs. Closes the loop.

These aren’t just habits. They’re leverage points. The orgs that scale cleanly don’t make more decisions—they make fewer decisions twice.

Start Here: Building Your Decision System

If you’re short on time, begin with these three moves: one for the Funnel, one for the Loop, and one that strengthens both.

1. Weekly Decision Review (Loop)

End each week by asking, “What decisions did we actually make?” Write them down.This builds memory and visibility. It turns vague consensus into clear ownership.

2. Track Decision Latency (Funnel)

Measure the time between identifying an issue and making a call. You’re not optimizing for speed alone but long latency often signals unclear framing or fear of tradeoffs.

3. Shared Glossary of Tradeoffs (Both)

Define terms like “bet,” “non-negotiable,” “sacrifice,” and “MVP.” A shared language reduces ambiguity in framing and prevents misalignment during execution. I wrote a post on Language as Leverage you should check out.

Each small fix compounds. Not just in speed, but in clarity, energy, and trust.
Because when decisions are made clearly and tracked visibly, teams move faster, and they don’t waste energy circling back.

What would change if your org tracked decisions as rigorously as growth metrics?

Further Fuel

1. A Leader’s Framework for Decision Making – HBR
A breakdown of the Cynefin model and how to match decision style to complexity.

2. How to Beat Decision Fatigue - Wake-Up Call
A grounded, human-centered take on improving decision quality, especially useful for emotionally complex calls.

3. Decision Intelligence: Integrating AI into Decision-Making - AI Collective
Battle-tested ways to structure high-stakes decisions in fast-moving orgs.