Nutshell: Leaps of faith: when to make a decision

All decision-making involves a leap of faith. But how do we know when to jump?

The French-Algerian philosopher Jacques Derrida made an interesting contribution to thinking about decisions. He famously talked of the idea of 'undecidability'.

If we have all the information we need to make a decision, then it’s not a decision at all; it’s simply a matter of applying rationality and calculation to give an answer. True decision-making is neither so rational nor so static. Because we can never know everything and our circumstances are always changing, Derrida famously reckoned that “decision making is a leap of faith”, taking us beyond what we can control and into the “unknowability of the future”.

In fact, he went as far as to quote his fellow philosopher, Søren Kierkegaard, concluding that “The instant of decision is madness”.

There are times when we might feel some kinship with this idea. It’s all too easy to feel uncertain or find ourselves procrastinating or holding on for that last piece of the jigsaw when we have a tricky decision to make.

It’s a reminder of why making decisions can be so hard: we can never know enough to make a perfect, rational decision and we cannot know for certain what the outcomes will be. We can do everything we can to increase the chances of success. But, in the end, we can only act and then see what might come next. We need to take that leap of faith.

We also know that Derrida’s “philosophy of hesitation” is not an excuse for inaction. Even the most thorough decision-making process will be for naught if we fail to act, to make and implement that final decision.

In an ideal world, we’d have all the information we need and the impeccable timing to make the right decision at precisely the right time. But we know - as Derrida reminds us - that the real world is not like that. Ultimately, we need to put aside the action-blighting effects of perfectionism, paralysis and procrastination, accept the uncertainty and take the plunge.

That, of course, involves a judgement about when we decide, how we balance the information we have against the ticking clock. Fortunately, this is a question that has foxed thinkers for millennia. Here are some ideas, models and techniques that can help us improve our judgements about when to jump.

Go round in loops

One way to help us make that leap of faith is to reframe how we think about decisions. Very few are final and irreversible. Most of the time, our decision-making will be an ongoing process where we’ll decide and iterate as things change and we learn more about the problem or issue we’ve looking to resolve.

There can be few more critical decision-making contexts than active warfare, where decisions really might be a matter of life and death. Our first model was developed with this in mind by military strategist US Air Force Colonel John Boyd and initially used to train airmen to make time-sensitive decisions when there may not be time to gather all the information.

Known as the OODA (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act) loop, it’s a four-step process of decision-making that focuses on filtering available information, putting it in context and quickly making the most appropriate decision - while also understanding that changes can be made as more data becomes available. The process is intended to be repeated, as we gather more information each time; hence the loop.

We can use the four-step process as follows:

1. Observe

Step one is to take stock of the situation in which we find ourselves and build up as accurate and comprehensive  a picture of it as possible.

2. Orient 

The orientation phase asks us to reflect on what we’ve observed and consider what should be done next. It’s about taking the time to make a conscious decision, looking at the options and considering the pros and cons of each.

Boyd called this stage the schwerpunkt ('the main emphasis' in German). If we are to use what we’ve observed to best effect, we need to sense-check and test our initial impulses (and biases) before we decide.

3. Decide

We then move to the decision phases, where we’ll whittle down those options and decide on a course of action. Boyd cautioned against first-conclusion bias, our tendency to latch onto our early ideas and thoughts. When we’re in this stage, we need to be flexible and open-minded.

4. Act

Finally, we act, implementing the decision that we’ve made. This stage is also about testing and evaluating our decision, seeing how well it does.

We then return to the observation stage, using our evaluation to adjust as we take on board new information.

We may not be facing enemy fire, but the chances are that we’ll be called on to make decisions in scenarios where we need to decide and act quickly even if our information is incomplete.

Just like those fighter pilots looking to out-run the enemy, we may have to move fast to keep ahead of the curve when it comes to tackling the competition or meeting customers' needs. The OODA loop helps us to take initiative, to move on from the uncertainty we might find in the observation stage – and to remember that decision-making is so often an ongoing process.

Consider the consequences

Even though we may know that we will never have all the information, expertise and time, when we need to make that perfect decision, it’s always tempting to hold on just a little bit longer before we leap.

Not making that decision, though, is a decision in itself – and not always a wise one. According to Danish organisational theorists Kristian Kreiner and Søren Christensen, when we’re not sure about a decision, our natural tendency is to defer. But waiting too long can lead to consequences, and not always positive ones. such as missed opportunities, uncertainty among our colleagues and self-doubt.

This focus on consequences is at the heart of their Consequences Model which explores the trade-off between the time it takes to make a decision and the amount of information available at the time the decision is taken. While what we know tends to increase over time, the window to take action that will have the most impact will narrow as we delay – and we might lose out as a result.

It’s a model that can help us to estimate when those knowledge and time lines will intersect for maximum effectiveness. Maybe we’ll want to accelerate our fact-finding; maybe we’ll make the strategic decision to delay. But we should do so understanding the consequences of the deliberate decision we make.

Be more satisficer

When it comes to decision-making, we tend to fall into one of two camps. Some of us are maximisers, who naturally want to gather as much information as possible before we decide. Others are natural satisficers (a term coined by economist Herbert Simon in the 1950s by combining 'satisfy' and 'suffice'), prepared to go with a decision that’s 'good enough'.

On paper at least, it might seem that a maximising approach might seem an optimal approach to decision-making. But, as we know, it’s rarely possible to dot every 'i' and cross every 't' before we decide; trying to do so can lead to decision paralysis. Research also shows that maximisers tend to be less satisfied with outcomes even when they do make a decision because they are more attuned to the choices they decided not to make.

Faced with uncertainty, in contexts where change is a given, opting for a 70% solution might be the way to go. That doesn’t mean that we should not consider options. But there comes a time when too much deliberation becomes a barrier, and the returns on our investment in time and energy start to diminish.

For natural maximisers, it might take some practice to be more satisficer, but there are ways to develop this approach:

• First, set clear requirements: work out upfront what a satisfactory outcome looks like; what will suffice? Consider how much time, effort and resources that might require.
  
  
• When these requirements are met, stop deliberating and make a decision.
  
  
• Try not to look back, second guess or otherwise ruminate on paths not taken.

Satisficing does not mean that we make split-second, knee-jerk decisions without thought. We still need to follow a robust process. If we’re natural satisficers, inclined to be a bit too impulsive, we might want to slow down and consider more options before we leap. But an emphasis on satisficing will make us more likely to act at the crucial moment of choice without paralysing doubt or overwhelming regret.

It could be that our customers would prefer to enjoy the latest product release as soon as possible without waiting for the extra bells and whistles that would make it just perfect.

Adopt the 10-10-10 method

When making decisions, we can get stuck in the detail or the moment, to lose track of the bigger picture. We might find out judgement clouded by how we feel.

To help us move beyond these short-term emotions and focus instead on the longer-term consequences of what we’ll decide, we can use the 10-10-10 method developed by author and journalist Suzy Welch.

The method is deceptively simple. When we face a difficult decision, we consider three different time frames:

• How will we feel about it 10 minutes from now?

• How about 10 months from now?

• How about 10 years from now?

Together, the different perspectives give us an overview of how our choice might play out.

The 10-minute time horizon will probably reflect how we’re feeling at the moment. It gives us a baseline to gauge how we feel about the situation right now.

But in 10 months or 10 years the decision is likely to be either irrelevant or potentially significant, and it can help to identify the more likely of the two. Either way, it will help to reinforce the idea that decisions are rarely irredeemable.

Imagine, for example, that we have a big new product launch coming up. The schedule is set and it’s full steam ahead. Then we hit a serious snag: maybe one of our suppliers has gone bust or some other part of the process has been compromised. We face the unenviable decision about whether to delay – but we may have no choice if our new product does not reach our minimum viability criteria.

In 10 minutes' time, a decision to delay is likely to feel really lousy. We may believe that we’ve failed and let others down. We may worry about the competition launching before us.

But in 10 months, taking that extra month to launch a properly functioning prototype may have paid dividends. If the product is well received, most people will not remember the delay.

And in 10 years, the decision will probably be irrelevant anyway. The product will have changed or been superseded any number of times, which puts the decision into perspective.

The consequences of a decision can seem much less stark when we take the long view; 10-10-10 thinking can help us to do that.

Keep a decision journal

The final part of any decision isn’t making a choice, or even implementing that choice, but evaluating it. When we make time to reflect on our past decisions, we can learn from them so they can help to inform our future choices. We can recognise patterns, and we can notice blind spots we didn’t know we had.

There’s much wisdom in psychologist Daniel Kahneman’s observation that “everything makes sense in hindsight”, but he knows better than anyone that this may be because of hindsight bias, our tendency to see past events as more predictable than they actually were at the time.

We also tend to default to 'resulting', falling foul of outcomes bias, measuring the quality of our decisions based solely on their outcomes - and usually pretty short-term ones at that. But we can make a bad decision and get lucky, just as we can make the right call and still end up with a less-than-perfect result. Rather than focusing on the outcomes of our decisions, it makes more sense to pay attention to our actions and intentions.

If we can increase the odds of making the best possible decisions by focussing on a good decision-making process, it makes sense that the way to test the quality of our decisions after we make them is to test the process by which we made them.

To do this, we might use what Kahneman calls a “decision journal”; he exhorts us to “go down to a local drugstore and buy a very cheap notebook and start keeping track of your decisions”. This way, we can overcome hindsight and outcomes bias and focus instead on what actually happened when we were deciding.

Not all decisions need to be recorded in this way, but it’s useful for something that’s more significant to record elements such as the context or situation; how complex a decision it was; the alternatives and outcomes considered – and, crucially, how we were feeling. It’s about recording – in writing – what we knew and what we thought at the time.

A journal can be customised as needed, but our template might be a useful start. It’s important to be clear so that it’s helpful when we look back on it. It should also be a living document, something we update and use on a regular basis to identify patterns: when the process worked; what types of decisions we might be less good at; when we got lucky. The aim is to improve our process and build our experience and judgement.

Ask yourself five key questions

Harvard Business School’s Joseph Badaracco has identified five questions we can ask ourselves to help us make those tough judgement calls on what he terms “grey area problems”.

His five questions are a sort of funnel, starting broad and narrowing down to the crux of the decision:

1. What are the consequences of all my options?

Who are the winners and losers? Who is going to benefit? Who is going to risk something? Who is going to gain? Who is going to suffer?

2. What are my core obligations?

What options should we disregard because they don’t match our obligations (whether that’s a piece of regulation or common decency)?

3. What will work in the world as it is?

That is, what can be achieved, practically speaking; what will work? And what’s going to be most resilient to change and uncertainty?

4. Who are we?

What will align with our own values and those of our organisation? It’s no good making a decision that flies in the face of “the way we do things round here”.

5. What can I live with?

Can I account for the decision to the organisation – and to myself. We’ve got to feel that we’re going ahead with confidence, that we’ve made the best decision possible in the circumstances.

Badaracco reminds us that decision-making is always about getting the best data, taking the best advice, involving others and doing the analysis. But then it’s down to our own, human judgement: in grey areas, our job “isn’t finding solutions; it’s creating them”. The five questions can help us to make the best judgements we can.

We may often share Derrida and Kierkegaard’s fear that “the instant of decision is madness”, and with good reason. We are none of us entirely rational beings able to make entirely rational decisions. There are simply too many variables at play for that to be realistic.

All we can do when we’ve worked our way through our decision-making process is to use our best judgement and take that leap of faith, using the kinds of ideas and techniques highlighted here to support that judgement and to build and learn from our experience. 

It may be a truism that we only regret the chances we didn’t take and the decisions we waited to make. But it’s certainly true that not making a decision is a decision in itself.

In the end, we have to put aside our doubts and bear in mind the words of Theodore Roosevelt: “In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing.”

Test your understanding

• Explain what the two Os in the OODA loop stand for.

• Outline the difference between maximising and satisficing. 

What does it mean for you?

• Try keeping a decision journal for the next month to record your decision-making process. Reflect on whether this might change your decision-making in future.