Think about the last time you made a decision with complete information — where you had all the facts and 100% confidence in the outcome. It’s rare, isn’t it? Now contrast that with the last time you faced a decision shrouded in uncertainty, with multiple options and no clear answer.
The truth is, the majority of decisions we make — both in life and in our careers — are made with incomplete information. Mastering the ability to make effective decisions under these circumstances is essential to achieving success, however you define it.
Approach decisions and outcomes differently
Think about the best decision you’ve made in the last five years. Take a moment to pause and identify your answer before continuing.
Now, consider this: we often conflate decisions with their outcomes, but they are distinct. I’m willing to bet that when you thought about your “best decision,” you likely linked it to a good outcome. However, when learning about and improving decision-making, it’s essential to separate the decision itself from the outcome it produced.
In Thinking in Bets, Annie Duke, discusses the infamous final play of the 2015 Super Bowl. Seahawks coach Pete Carroll called for a pass play instead of a rush, and the pass was intercepted, costing his team the game. Despite the negative outcome, it was the correct decision for several strategic reasons. Yet, it has gone down in history as one of the “worst play calls” ever. This was a good decision that led to a terrible outcome.
This conflation of decision quality with results is known as resulting — an outcome bias where we evaluate a decision based solely on its outcome rather than the soundness of the decision-making process. By this flawed logic, Pete Carroll made a terrible decision, and someone who won the lottery made a great one.
One-way and two-way doors
Decisions can be thought of as two-way doors, which are relatively easy to reverse, or one-way doors, which are difficult or costly to undo.
Two-way doors, such as testing a new feature or making a temporary operational change, can usually be made quickly with the information available. If the decision turns out to be wrong, you can reverse it, learn something, and try again.
One-way doors deserve more care. Actions such as permanently deleting data, making an irreversible financial commitment, or communicating something consequential to customers may be difficult, expensive, or impossible to take back. These decisions justify spending more time gathering information, considering the consequences, and involving the right people before acting.
Jeff Bezos popularized this framing in Amazon’s 2015 shareholder letter, where he calls them Type 1 and Type 2 decisions. The useful part of the framework is not treating every decision with the same level of caution. Most decisions are two-way doors, and treating them like one-way doors slows teams down unnecessarily.
Because decisions are rarely made with complete information, two-way doors give you room to experiment and iterate. Take a small step, observe what happens, and adjust. One-way doors require more deliberate work because the cost of being wrong is higher.
Turning uncertainty into action
When uncertainty clouds your ability to make a decision, reframing the decision itself can be a powerful way to move forward. Instead of feeling stuck, consider shifting your focus to what’s within your control. Here are two effective strategies to help you navigate indecision:
1. Identify the missing information
Start by asking: What information do I need to make this decision with confidence? By identifying the gaps in your understanding, you can focus your efforts on gathering the data, insights, or context necessary to move forward.
Even if you’re not entirely sure what’s missing, asking this question out loud in a group setting can serve as a catalyst for conversation. Others may provide perspectives or information you hadn’t considered, bringing you closer to clarity.
2. Work with what you have
When gathering additional information isn’t immediately possible, ask yourself: What decision can I make right now based on the information I already have? Often, the goal isn’t to make the final or perfect decision but to take a small step forward. This works particularly well with two-way-door decisions. Even a modest decision — one that moves the situation forward by a small degree — can lead to new insights or reveal previously hidden opportunities.
The connection between information and decision-making
In How to Make a Big Decision, Adam Savage highlights how indecision is often tied to insufficient information. He suggests that the act of decision-making is fundamentally linked to the amount of information available — more information typically makes decisions easier. However, in practice, we rarely have access to all the facts. This means that decision-making often requires a balance: either seeking the additional information needed to move forward or redefining the decision to align with the knowledge you already have.
The McDonald’s method
Imagine you’re with a group of people trying to decide where to go for lunch, but no one can agree or even suggest a viable option. In such moments, propose something deliberately suboptimal, like McDonald’s. While this may not be an ideal choice, it often sparks a flurry of ideas and conversation that leads the group to a better solution.
This approach leverages negativity bias, a psychological tendency where people react more strongly to avoid negative outcomes than to pursue positive ones. In this case, the suggestion of McDonald’s — an option many may dismiss as undesirable — acts as a catalyst. People become more engaged, motivated to reject the poor suggestion, and naturally begin brainstorming better alternatives.
The concept is rooted in Edward de Bono’s theory of lateral thinking, which advocates introducing “provocative” or unexpected ideas to disrupt stagnant thinking. De Bono argued that by breaking away from linear or habitual thought patterns, you can unlock creativity and innovation. The suggestion of McDonald’s in this scenario serves as a disruption, prompting individuals to think critically and collaboratively.
The effectiveness of this strategy lies in its simplicity. By presenting a choice that is easy to oppose, you encourage participation, engagement, and ideation. The focus shifts from indecision or inertia to the active pursuit of a better option. This technique can be applied not only in casual situations, like deciding where to eat, but also in more complex problem-solving environments where groups need to overcome cognitive or conversational stagnation.
Confidence intervals, not binary questions
There is a big difference between “Are you sure?” and “On a scale of 1–10, how sure are you?” In Thinking in Bets, Annie Duke emphasizes the importance of embracing uncertainty in decision-making. Rather than seeking absolute certainty, she advocates for assigning probabilities to outcomes and thinking in terms of confidence intervals. This approach acknowledges the inherent ambiguity in most decisions and helps teams make more informed choices.
If someone suggests taking an action will remediate an incident, ask the responders how sure they are that this will fix the issue. You will get a range of responses and uncover different mental models or perspectives. If someone responds with “7/10”, ask them what would make them an 8. This also overlaps with identifying the missing information.
Tversky and Kahneman’s research on heuristics and biases demonstrates how overconfidence and neglecting probabilities undermine decision-making. Confidence intervals, which quantify uncertainty by specifying a range of likely outcomes, counteract these biases by encouraging probabilistic reasoning. Studies in decision science show that this approach improves accuracy and outcomes, ensuring decisions reflect current knowledge while remaining adaptable as new information becomes available.
Wrapping up
I wanted to jot down a few decision-making techniques I rely on, particularly in incident response, where uncertainty and time pressure are constant. That’s it, that’s the tweet.