September 9, 2025
I once worked with a leader who was incredibly thoughtful about decisions. They gathered extensive data, met with multiple stakeholders, considered every risk factor and mitigation strategy. Yet somehow, they rarely actually made decisions.
Meetings would end with "let's gather more information." Deadlines would pass with decisions pushed to next week, then next month. The team grew frustrated waiting for direction while competitors moved ahead.
This leader wasn't incompetent, they were trapped by analysis paralysis. Their desire to make perfect decisions was preventing them from making any decisions at all. And in leadership, no decision is still a decision, often a poor one.
The quality of your decisions can make or break your team's effectiveness and your organization's success. Decision-making consistently ranks as one of the most critical leadership capabilities. Yet there's surprisingly little consensus on how to do it well.
Making good decisions as a leader is harder than it looks. You're dealing with incomplete information, competing priorities, and stakeholders with different perspectives. Add time pressure and the weight of accountability, and it's no wonder many leaders struggle.
Common challenges include information overload without clarity on what matters, analysis paralysis from waiting for perfect data that never comes, and stakeholder complexity where too many voices create confusion about who actually decides.
Past decision baggage also weighs heavily. Leaders often become overly cautious after mistakes, or they rush decisions to avoid the discomfort of uncertainty.
Before we dive into warning signs, we need to address how most leaders evaluate their decision-making. Many focus solely on outcomes to judge decision quality. While outcomes matter, this approach has a fatal flaw: it ignores factors outside your control.
A seemingly great decision can be derailed by unforeseen policy changes or market shifts. Conversely, a poor decision can lead to excellent outcomes with the right timing or luck. Luck absolutely plays a role in business success, but it shouldn't be an expected part of your process or used to mask poor decision-making.
Instead of judging decisions purely on outcomes, focus on two things: the quality of your decision-making process and the quality of your execution. When you improve these consistently, better outcomes naturally follow.
What you see: Every day brings a new pivot from yesterday's priorities. You make plenty of decisions and your team works hard, but problems persist or new ones emerge constantly.
What it means: You're jumping to solutions before clearly defining the issue. You might be solving symptoms instead of root causes, or addressing the wrong priority entirely.
The cost: Your team wastes energy on initiatives that don't move the needle. Resources get scattered across competing priorities that may not actually matter.
What you see: You're constantly making decisions that feel like educated guesses. You're either drowning in data without knowing what's relevant, or you don't have enough information to feel confident.
What it means: You haven't identified what information you actually need, you're getting input from the wrong sources, or you're not allowing enough time to digest what you have.
The cost: Your team loses confidence in your direction. Poor decisions compound, and you develop a reputation for being unpredictable or uninformed.
What you see: Decisions drag on for weeks or months. You keep asking for "just one more analysis" or "additional input from stakeholders." Your team jokes about decisions being permanently "under review."
What it means: You're waiting for perfect information that will never come. You may be using "more research needed" as a way to avoid the discomfort of deciding.
The cost: You frustrate teams who need direction to move forward. You lose momentum and miss opportunities while competitors outpace you. Your organization develops a culture of indecision.
What you see: Team members don't know how to support you in making decisions. Some bring extensive documentation while others assume you prefer quick recommendations. People are confused about whether you want consensus or input.
What it means: You haven't clarified your decision-making approach. Questions like "What information do I need?" "Who gets input versus who decides?" and "How do we communicate decisions?" remain unanswered.
The cost: People don't know how to help you succeed. They may prepare unnecessary information or fail to bring what you actually need. Unclear processes also make you vulnerable to bias and poor ideas gaining traction.
What you see: You make decisions in isolation, then struggle to implement them. There's often confusion about next steps, timelines, or who owns what after a decision is made.
What it means: You're treating decision-making and execution as separate activities instead of integrated parts of the same process.
The cost: Even good decisions fail due to poor implementation. Here's the reality: a decent decision that's well-executed will lead to better outcomes than a poorly executed great decision.
What you see: Once you make a decision and move on, you rarely circle back to evaluate results. You don't have a system for learning from decisions that worked or didn't work.
What it means: You're missing crucial feedback that could improve your decision-making process. Without review, you'll repeat the same mistakes while remaining blind to your patterns.
The cost: You develop decision-making blind spots that compound over time. Your process doesn't improve, and you miss opportunities to refine what works.
If any of these warning signs resonate with your experience, you've identified a clear development area that will significantly improve your leadership effectiveness. Here's a framework I've used across different roles that transforms how you approach decisions.
This process is flexible. Lightweight decisions require minimal time, while complex decisions involving multiple teams warrant deeper investment.
What exactly are you trying to solve? You'd be amazed how many leaders skip this fundamental step. Pause to examine the problem that's driving the need for a decision.
Key questions:
What's the minimum information you need to make this decision, and who has it? For simple decisions, this might be a quick conversation with one person. For complex decisions affecting multiple teams over long timelines, you'll want a structured meeting with key stakeholders who come prepared with relevant information.
Focus on: Information that directly impacts the decision, not everything that might be interesting to know.
What does success look like? Set clear metrics that will demonstrate whether you've achieved the desired result. For larger decisions, also consider potential negative outcomes if key assumptions prove false, and plan your response.
Define: Specific, measurable indicators of success and timelines for evaluation.
Who owns this decision, who provides input, and who handles communication and execution? Frameworks like RACI (Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed) can help clarify roles.
Without clear ownership, you risk "decide by consensus" situations where nothing actually gets decided, or worse, multiple interpretations of the decision get executed simultaneously.
Any decision should include clear next steps and owners. Who will implement? Who will track progress against your success metrics? How will updates be communicated?
Document everything: Next steps, owners, timelines, and success metrics.
Set a specific time to evaluate outcomes and process. Don't let results drift into a black hole. Use review sessions to refine your decision-making approach for next time.
Review both: Did we achieve the desired outcome, and how can we improve our decision-making process?
Speed matters in leadership. Here are techniques for accelerating decisions while maintaining quality:
Time-box information gathering. Set firm deadlines for data collection. Perfect information doesn't exist, and waiting for it often costs more than deciding with what you have.
Apply the 70% rule. When you have roughly 70% of the information you wish you had, that's usually enough to make most decisions. The remaining 30% rarely changes the fundamental choice.
Distinguish reversible from irreversible decisions. One-way doors require more careful consideration. Two-way doors can be made quickly and adjusted if needed.
Build risk mitigation into implementation. Instead of trying to eliminate all risk upfront, plan how you'll respond if things don't go as expected.
Improving your decision-making process requires deliberate practice and honest self-assessment. Start by identifying which of the six warning signs you recognize in your own leadership.
Choose one area to focus on first. If you're stuck in analysis paralysis, experiment with time-boxing your information gathering. If your process is unclear, document how you want to approach different types of decisions.
Consider partnering with a peer, boss, or executive coach to help you implement changes and maintain accountability. Decision-making patterns are deeply ingrained, and external perspective can accelerate your progress.
The leaders who consistently make better decisions aren't necessarily smarter—they have better processes. When you improve how you decide, everything else becomes easier.
Photo by Antonio Feregrino on Unsplash
