Making Better Decisions: Myths, Mindset, and Method

Nov 27

TL;DR: Decision-making processes, mindsets, and methods are the key factors.

Disclaimer: I am really hoping quantum computing doesn't happen in 2025 so my examples don’t fail hah. Also, sorry in advance hackernews.

Intro

So, are you someone who often has to make important decisions that have profound downstream effects?

How confident are you in your decision-making process? Here’s a quick test: can you decide right now if it’s worth reading the rest of this blog? See what I did there? ;)

Jokes aside, having transitioned from software engineering to management, I’ve realized that making good decisions is far more consequential in this role. In that spirit, like any seasoned software engineer would do, I went searching for a ‘man page’ for management ;). Enrolling in the ‘Management Essentials’ course from Harvard Business School Online turned out to be one of my best decisions. It provided valuable frameworks and insights to refine my decision-making process. Inspired by that course and my own research, I decided to make notes and summarize everything I’ve learned about this topic. Then I thought, why not share it? So here’s my brain dump on the topic—hopefully, it’s helpful to others on this journey!

Decision-Making Myths

Myth 1 : The Myth of the Lone Leader

When a company's strategy fails, our instinct is often to ask, "What was the CEO thinking?" But is that the right question? Is the CEO truly the sole decision-maker? This belief in the "lone leader" responsible for everything that goes wrong oversimplifies decision-making and prevents us from learning valuable lessons from others’ mistakes.

Myth 2: Decisions Happen in a Single Moment

Contrary to popular belief, decision-making is rarely a one-time event. Instead, it’s a process that unfolds over time—sometimes weeks, months, or even years. Research on over 150 major strategic decisions found that the time between identifying a problem and reaching a conclusion varied widely, from one month to over four years, with an average duration of more than a year. When decisions are treated as one-off events, they often lack the depth and consideration that a more iterative process allows.

Myth 3: Decisions Are Made "In the Room"

The idea that big decisions happen in a single meeting with all key stakeholders present is more fantasy than reality. In truth, decisions are shaped by countless interactions—one-on-one discussions, informal chats, and subgroup meetings—spanning different departments and levels. Even when a decision appears to be finalized in a meeting, it often requires revisiting if the people responsible for execution weren’t involved.

Myth 4: Decisions Are Based on Rational Analysis

Even the most data-driven managers understand that logic and analysis are only part of the equation. While rational evaluation of options may contribute to decision-making, it is rarely the dominant factor. Emotional, social, and political dynamics—like coalition-building, bargaining, and persuasion—typically play a much larger role. Gut feelings often outweigh cold calculations.

Myth 5: Decisions Follow a Clear, Linear Process

The textbook model of decision-making:

Identify the problem or opportunity.
Gather information and analyze the problem.
Define criteria for evaluating solutions.
Generate alternative solutions.
Weigh the costs and benefits of each option.
Select the option with the highest expected value.
Implement the decision.

This is ideal in theory but rarely practiced in reality. Decision-making is far more fluid and nonlinear. Steps are often skipped, revisited, or combined.

So, How Can We Make Better Decisions?

It’s all about the process, the mindset and the method.

Process

Process is most important because only process can be controlled, not the outcomes. Outcomes can depend on many factors, including luck and the environment. Therefore, if one wants to make better decisions, the best approach is to evaluate and improve the existing decision-making process, rather than making changes based on prior outcomes.

A good decision-making process has the following:

Quality - It involves careful, rigorous analysis of the problem and a thoughtful comparison of the options.
Executability - It creates collective buy-in and increases the odds that the decision will be executed well.
Timeliness - It is neither too early nor too late.

Mindset

The mindset is the foundational attitude or perspective that shapes how decisions are approached. An ‘Inquiry’ type mindset is almost always the better approach but unfortunately ‘Advocacy’ type mindset is more prevalent and is typically the default mode.

Advocacy Mindset

Advocacy involves arguing for one’s department or group. However, this approach can be problematic. Advocates tend to focus on information that supports their position while withholding or downplaying information that weakens it. This lack of objectivity makes it difficult to pay attention to opposing arguments. Furthermore, personalities and egos can interfere, leading to disagreements that are taken personally. Differences of opinion are often resolved through political power or willpower rather than reason.

Example of Advocacy Gone Wrong: A Faulty Assumption

In a product strategy meeting, a senior team member confidently advocates for building an application reliant on quantum computing. They assert:

"I believe we should build an application that relies on quantum computing because I am confident it will be widely available by the end of 2025. My team and I work on this kind of technology daily, and we regularly follow discussions on platforms like HackerNews.com, so I’m certain about this prediction."

Given their seniority and reputation, other team members hesitate to challenge this bold claim, even though some quietly question the feasibility of quantum computing being ready for mass adoption within the proposed timeline. As a result, the team commits significant resources to developing the application.

However, the assumption proves faulty—quantum computing remains limited to niche applications beyond 2025. The project fails to deliver value, resulting in wasted resources, missed opportunities to explore more practical technologies, and a decline in team morale.

This scenario highlights the risks of unchecked advocacy, especially when dissent is stifled by hierarchy or fear of challenging authority. A lack of inquiry to test assumptions or evaluate alternatives can lead to poor outcomes, even when the advocate is confident and well-intentioned.

Inquiry Mindset

An inquiry mindset is a much more effective approach. It involves sharing information openly to help others draw their own conclusions. Inquiry encourages critical thinking, exploration of multiple options, and diverse points of view. Although the conflict may be intense due to rigorous questioning of arguments and assumptions, it is less likely to become personal. The ultimate goal is finding the best solution, not “winning” the discussion. Team members resolve differences by applying rules of reason.

Example of Inquiry in Action: Avoiding Faulty Assumptions

In the same scenario as above, the senior team member proposes:

However, in a culture that values inquiry, the rest of the team doesn’t remain silent. Instead, they engage in a constructive discussion to test the assumption. A junior engineer asks, “What evidence do we have beyond market speculation that quantum computing will be ready by 2025?” Another team member brings up alternative technologies, such as advanced AI algorithms, that could achieve similar goals without relying on uncertain timelines.

Together, the group critically examines the proposal. They research industry reports, consult external experts, and identify that while quantum computing is making progress, its widespread adoption by 2025 remains highly speculative. Based on this analysis, the team decides to prioritize a more feasible technology for the application, with the option to integrate quantum computing in future iterations as the technology matures.

By fostering inquiry, the team avoids committing to a high-risk project and instead allocates resources to a more achievable and impactful solution. This approach encourages collaboration, values diverse perspectives, and ensures decisions are based on robust evidence rather than overconfidence or authority.

I have written a separate article that delves into the differences between ‘Advocacy’ and ‘Inquiry’. Check out the ‘Read Next’ section below.

Method

The method is the structured approach or toolset used to put a mindset into action. It provides clear steps, frameworks, or techniques to guide decisions, ensuring consistency, rigor, and practical results.

There are various methods for analyzing problems, generating solutions, and reaching agreements. The most common is the consensus method, where a group works together to discuss and arrive at a solution. However, the consensus approach has risks:

Things to watch out for in consensus method:

Strong, implicit pressures to agree.
Hard questions, divisive issues, and minority views tend not to be welcome.
Silence is mistaken for agreement, creating an atmosphere of assumed consensus when silence may actually indicate unspoken disagreement.
Groupthink is a significant danger, especially when combined with advocacy. It leads to a lack of critical thinking, suppressed dissent, and poor decision-making.

There is so much more to this topic so I have written separate articles that delves into details on ‘Method’ and ‘Groupthink’. Check out the ‘Read Next’ section below.

Final Thoughts

Effective decision-making is both an art and a science, requiring a focus on decision making process, mindset, and method. Adopting an inquiry mindset fosters collaboration and critical thinking, while consensus methods must guard against pitfalls like groupthink and implicit pressures.