Effective decision making is critical to moving fast while maintaining quality. At Straddle, we use several frameworks to make better decisions more efficiently.

Writing vs. talking

When two people are discussing an issue, the need to be efficient is important. When a team is discussing an issue, the need to be efficient is paramount, because each inefficient minute is multiplied by the number of people in the discussion.

The goal of this write-up is to be thorough enough that at the time of the decision meeting, there are few or no questions. This can be achieved in one of two ways:

1. The hard way: Write an extraordinarily thorough analysis from the get-go.

2. The easy way: Write a draft, circulate it to the meeting participants before the meeting, and invite comments and questions. Then write out responses to all of these comments and questions prior to the meeting.

Jeff Bezos famously uses this written method at Amazon. He requires that anyone who wants to bring up an issue or proposal must write up the item fully prior to the decision meeting (with someone else writing up a counterproposal if necessary). The meeting is then spent reading the write-ups. Once the decision-making team has read them all, a decision is made. If consensus is not reached, an appointed decision maker makes the call.

This method, although time-consuming for the sponsor, yields extraordinarily thoughtful decisions in a very short amount of time. The extra effort and work by one person creates net savings in time and energy across the whole group.

Implementing this at Straddle

Imposing this process on a group is daunting. Here is a way to ease into it:

Phase 1: Reserve the first 15 minutes of the meeting for all participants to write out their updates and issues. Then use another 10 minutes for all participants to read each other's updates and issues. Then discuss and decide. Use this method for 2–3 meetings, then...

Phase 2: Require that all participants write their updates and issues prior to the meeting. Do not allow people to bring up an issue that they have not already written up. Use the first 10 minutes of the meeting for all participants to read each other's updates and issues. Use this method for 1–2 meetings, then...

Phase 3: Require that all participants write their updates and issues by a certain time prior to the meeting (e.g., 6 p.m. the evening before). Require that all participants read and comment on each other's updates and issues prior to the meeting. People can prove that they have read the docs by adding their comments in the docs themselves. Do not allow people to make comments in the meeting if they haven't already commented on the docs themselves.

Type 1 vs Type 2 decisions

In his 2015 Shareholder Letter, Jeff Bezos introduced us to lightweight, distributed decision making:

Type 1 decisions are consequential and irreversible or nearly irreversible—one-way doors. These decisions must be made methodically, carefully, slowly, with great deliberation and consultation. If you walk through and don't like what you see on the other side, you can't get back to where you were before.

Type 2 decisions are changeable, reversible—they're two-way doors. If you've made a suboptimal Type 2 decision, you don't have to live with the consequences for that long. You can reopen the door and go back through. Type 2 decisions can and should be made quickly by high judgment individuals or small groups.

In practice: Each time there is a decision to be made, rate it as Type 1 or Type 2. If Type 2, allow one of your reports (or a small group) to be the decision maker. The decision will be made faster, they will get the chance to exercise their decision-making muscles, and you will have the chance to gain confidence in their ability to make decisions well.

Getting buy-in

One of the core challenges in leadership is how to get your team to buy into a decision. It's often easy to make a decision, but it can be much harder to get your team to invest emotionally in that decision.

You create buy-in when you make people feel that they are part of the decision and that their input contributes to the final outcome. The more influence they feel they have on the outcome, the more they'll be invested in the final result.

Broadly, there are three methods to make a decision, each with different time requirements and levels of buy-in:

Method	Description	Pros	Cons	When to use
Method 1: Announce	Manager makes the decision, announces it to the team, and answers questions	Takes very little time	Creates very little buy-in; Gets no benefit from collective knowledge	Everyday, low-impact issues (e.g., venue for holiday party)
Method 2: IPS	Proposer creates a written IPS, shares it with the team, invites feedback (written and verbal), facilitates discussion, and determines final answer	Creates more buy-in; Gets benefit from collective wisdom	Takes more time	Most important decisions (optimal for the vast majority)

Not surprisingly, the greatest benefits require the most work. If you want more buy-in and a better decision, you need to take more time in making the decision.

Which method should you use? It depends on how significant the decision is and how important buy-in is. For everything in between low-impact and major decisions (the vast majority of important decisions), Method 2 is optimal.

Disagree and commit

The dark side of consensus is that it can lead to inaction. "Disagree and commit" is a method of avoiding this trap. Jeff Bezos describes how he uses this at Amazon:

Use the phrase "disagree and commit." This phrase will save a lot of time. If you have conviction on a particular direction even though there's no consensus, it's helpful to say, "Look, I know we disagree on this but will you gamble with me on it? Disagree and commit?" By the time you're at this point, no one can know the answer for sure, and you'll probably get a quick yes.

This works both ways. If you're the boss, you should do this too. Leaders should disagree and commit when their team has conviction on a different path.

Note what this example is not: "Disagree and commit" is not the same as thinking "well, these guys are wrong and missing the point, but this isn't worth me chasing." It's a genuine disagreement of opinion, a candid expression of your view, a chance for the team to weigh your view, and a quick, sincere commitment to go their way.

The key is to make the disagreement explicit, express your perspective clearly, and then commit fully to the chosen direction even if it wasn't your preference.

RAPID framework

At Straddle, for complex decisions that require clarity on roles, we use the RAPID framework:

• Recommend: Proposes a course of action

• Agree: Must agree to the decision (typically functions that will be affected)

• Perform: Executes the decision

• Input: Provides information and analysis

• Decide: Makes the final decision

For any major decision, explicitly identify who fills each role. This prevents confusion about who's responsible for what and speeds up execution.