Thirteen years ago, a man was fired for doing exactly what he'd been hired to do.
The board brought him in to improve service delivery. He had the track record. The appointment felt safe. In his first weeks, he made a significant call — but not from analysis, not from data. From assumption. Poor service, in his experience, meant poor providers. So that's where he focused.
For six months, he managed providers more closely. Added headcount. Built out the team. The wage bill grew steadily. The service levels didn't move.
When the board reviewed the numbers, they let him go. He'd been hired to fix service. He was fired for increasing costs.
The real mistake had happened much earlier — when he turned an untested assumption into a decision making framework and built everything that followed on top of it.
He's not alone. Research by GAAB, who surveyed 105 professionals on workplace decision-making, found that 45% lack any structured decision-making habits. 85% had never received formal training in how to decide. And 91% rated themselves above-average decision-makers.
Confidence without structure. That's the gap.
This article gives you the structure — not a catalogue of decision making frameworks, but a way to choose between them. Six variables that tell you which framework fits the situation you're actually in.
Why a Framework Isn't Enough on Its Own
Most leaders who do use frameworks reach for the same one out of habit. It worked before. It feels right. They get moving.
But a framework is a tool. And the question that matters most about any tool isn't what it does. It's whether it fits this particular job.
A framework designed for a fast, reversible decision is the wrong choice for something irreversible and consequential. Using the same tool for both doesn't make you efficient. It makes you exposed.
What's missing isn't more frameworks. It's a way to read the decision in front of you before you reach for anything.
The Six Things That Determine Which Framework Fits
Six variables determine the right framework for any decision. For most situations, two or three will do the work immediately. But knowing all six changes how you approach a decision before you start.
Reversibility. Can this be undone if you're wrong? A pricing test or a pilot scheme — reversible. A five-year contract or a senior hire — not. This single question tells you whether speed or rigour should lead everything that follows. Most leaders apply the same process to both. That's where the expensive mistakes live. For a full breakdown, see reversible vs irreversible decisions.
Complexity. How many moving parts are genuinely involved? The trap is assuming familiar decisions are simple. They're not always. Familiarity isn't simplicity.
Information Quality. How much reliable data do you actually have? This matters because the right framework in a data-rich environment is the wrong one when information is thin. Using an analytical tool when the data isn't there doesn't produce rigour. It produces false confidence.
Novelty. Have you faced this type of decision before? For familiar territory, pattern recognition is an asset. For genuinely new ground, it's a liability — pulling you toward what worked last time, when this time is different.
Stakeholders. Is this your call alone, or does it involve others who need to understand and carry out the outcome? A framework built for one decision-maker can break down entirely in a group setting.
Time. Hours, days, or weeks? Some frameworks require preparation and fail when rushed. Others are built for speed. Time available doesn't change the quality of decision you want to make. It changes the quality of process you can realistically run.
Got a decision that needs a framework?
One Good Decision is a free 7-day email sequence. Each day, one question. By Day 7 you've worked through a real decision you're currently facing — properly.
Three Frameworks, and When to Reach for Each
Run the six variables and the field narrows fast. Here are the three frameworks that cover most of what leaders face — and the situations each one fits.
The Reversibility-Consequence Matrix
Not a framework for making the decision. A framework for deciding how much process it deserves.
High reversibility, low consequence — decide fast. Don't over-engineer it. Low reversibility, high consequence — slow down before you commit. Most leaders treat every decision with the same level of care. The matrix fixes that — read the full breakdown in reversible vs irreversible decisions.
Built for complexity. Specifically, for decisions where the real problem is that the decision itself has been badly structured.
The process starts before you evaluate options — by questioning the requirements first. Before you choose between paths, interrogate the problem statement. Leaders frequently reach for frameworks to solve problems that haven't been properly defined. This one forces that step.
Best for: complex, reversible decisions where iteration is possible. Not suited to irreversible, time-constrained calls.
The Pre-Mortem
Developed by psychologist Gary Klein. The idea is simple: imagine the decision has already been made and has already failed. Now work backwards. What caused it?
Confirmation bias pushes leaders to validate decisions they've already leaned toward. The pre-mortem creates a legitimate space to think adversarially about your own plan — before you're committed to it.
Run it in a group. The value comes from perspectives you wouldn't generate yourself.
Best for: irreversible, high-stakes decisions involving a team.
When you're in genuinely new territory with thin data, none of the above may fit — because you don't yet have what any of them need. That's when the feedback loop method applies. Make a small, reversible commitment. Observe what happens. Adjust from there. The goal isn't to avoid the decision — it's to make one that generates the information your next decision will need.
How to Put This Into Practice
Here's what this looks like on a real decision.
Say you're considering bringing a new service in-house that you currently outsource. Significant cost implications either way. You haven't done this before with this particular function.
Start with reversibility. If this goes wrong, can you reverse it? Probably not easily — contracts, headcount, and infrastructure make it sticky. That tells you immediately: don't rush this.
Complexity is high. Multiple variables — people, cost, capability, transition risk. That rules out a lightweight framework.
Information quality is medium. You have cost data, but limited insight into what in-house delivery would actually look like in practice.
Novelty is real. You haven't made this call before. Pattern recognition alone isn't reliable here.
Stakeholders are involved. Your team will be affected. The decision needs to be explained and carried, not just made.
Time is not the constraint.
The result: low reversibility, high complexity, moderate information, genuine novelty, group impact. That points to the pre-mortem — stress-test the decision with the people who'll carry it out before you commit. Run the feedback loop approach on a limited trial if the structure allows.
Sixty seconds of diagnosis. Two framework candidates. No more guessing.
Think about the decision you've been avoiding. Run it through the six variables. Which one changes how you'd approach it?
For the full picture on how to approach any decision, start with the Leader's Guide to Decision Making.
FAQs
Got a decision that needs a framework?
One Good Decision is a free 7-day email sequence. Each day, one question. By Day 7 you've worked through a real decision you're currently facing — properly.
Written by
