Of late I have made a few big decisions, on the spur of the moment or in a very short span of time. These decisions have resulted in significant changes in my life and work.
Growing up in India and then living and working across Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, and Malaysia – with regular trips to the US since I was a kid – I learned early that there’s always different approaches to decision making. In Singapore, I watched teams spend months ensuring process specifications were outlined and followed. In Australia, the “she’ll be right” attitude meant quick decisions and course corrections. In India it was about ‘making do somehow’ to achieve goals (‘jugadu culture’). And when visiting the US, everyone seemed to expect instant answers and rapid pivots.
People often ask how I can decide so quickly on the big stuff – moving countries, launching products, entering new markets. The truth is, those “quick” decisions are usually the end result of years of background processing and research. These pivots while seemingly in the moment actually came about after a long period of research and reflection, but there seemed like a moment when I seemed ready to make these pivots in direction.What looks like spontaneous decision-making is actually pattern recognition from years of gathering data.
But here’s the paradox: while I can make those big, irreversible decisions quickly, I used to get completely stuck on the small stuff. I’d spend weeks choosing software tools, agonize over hiring decisions that could be reversed, and research every minor business choice to death.
It wasn’t until I started examining my own patterns that I realized I had it backwards.
Here’s what I realized about my own decision-making: I was spending years researching the big, irreversible decisions (which was actually useful preparation), but then making them quickly when the moment came. Meanwhile, I was over-analyzing the small, reversible stuff that I could easily fix if I got wrong.
Jeff Bezos puts it simply: “Most decisions should probably be made with somewhere around 70% of the information you wish you had. If you wait for 90%, in most cases, you’re probably being slow.”
This felt wrong to my perfectionist brain. Shouldn’t more information lead to better decisions? Turns out, not really. And here’s why.
Bezos taught me something that school never did – not all decisions are created equal.
Type 1 Decisions (One-way doors): These are the big ones. Irreversible, high-stakes choices like who you marry, where you live, or which company you acquire. Take your time here.
Type 2 Decisions (Two-way doors): These you can walk back from. New product launches, marketing experiments, software choices, even most hiring decisions. You can reverse course if needed.
The revelation? About 90% of business decisions are Type 2, but we treat them like Type 1.
I used to agonize over which project management tool to use for my team. Weeks of analysis. Vendor calls. Spreadsheet comparisons. Finally, I realized I was treating a reversible software choice like I was choosing a co-founder.
The better approach? Pick one that meets basic requirements, try it for a month, and switch if needed. We did exactly that – tried three different tools in six months before settling on one that worked. Those six months of real-world testing taught us more than six months of research ever could have.
Last year, I watched a brilliant founder spend four months choosing between three office spaces. Four months of paralysis over a two-year lease that could be sublet if needed.
The real cost wasn’t the rent difference. It was:
• Team working from cramped co-working spaces
• Delayed hiring because “we need to see the office first”
• Lost momentum while competitors moved ahead
• His own mental energy drain from an unresolved decision
Meanwhile, any of the three spaces would have worked fine.
This is what I’ve learned about myself:
I should use my “fail fast” approach on the small stuff and my deep research patterns on the big stuff.
Now I’m more intentional about matching my process to the decision type:
Step 1: What Kind of Door Is This? I ask myself: “If this doesn’t work out, can I reasonably reverse it within three months?”
• Yes = Type 2 (move fast)
• No = Type 1 (slow down)
Step 2: Set a Decision Deadline For Type 2 decisions, I give myself limits. If it were money oriented it could look something like this:
• Small impact (under $1K): 1 day
• Medium impact (under $10K): 1 week
• Larger impact (under $100K): 1 month
Step 3: Look for “Good Enough” Instead of asking “What’s perfect?” I ask “What’s the first option that meets my minimum requirements?”
Step 4: Plan the Check-in Before I decide, I set a date to evaluate: “How will I know if this is working? When will I check?”
That 70% number isn’t arbitrary. Decision researcher Gary Klein studied firefighters, doctors, and military officers – people who make life-or-death choices under pressure.
He found that experts don’t compare multiple options endlessly. They evaluate whether their first reasonable option will work, then act on it.
When a building is burning, firefighters don’t debate three entry strategies. They quickly simulate one approach mentally, and if it passes the safety test, they go.
The business parallel hit me: execution speed often matters more than strategy perfection.
Anu D’Souza
Anu D’Souza runs Bricoleur Consulting, a leadership coaching and recruitment company focused on the digital and technology industries. A thought leader on innovation, transformation and leadership, Anu has spent many years with companies like Unilever, Ogilvy and BBDO and has lived and worked in multiple cultures. Anu is also the author of ALIGNED Why CEOs need Company Brand Alignment in the Age of a Questioning Workforce. You can reach her on anu@bricoleurconsulting.com or book a call here.
