Ten Ways to Make Wise Decisions and Prevent Locking-In Prematurely

Dr. Peter A. Facione

This is the second piece of a two-part series on Dominance Structuring. Click here to read part one.

The confidence we have to act on our decisions comes from a natural process called dominance structuring. No leader, parent, professional, or worker would be able to sustain their commitments nor follow through on their choices if it were not for dominance structuring because this process gives us the ability to be confident in our choices. 

As described in Part 1: Why We Don’t Change Our Minds, the natural psychological process of achieving the confidence to act moves from identifying the problem, finding a promising option, evaluating other options against that promising option, and on to explaining to ourselves why the option we are selecting is superior to all the others. We lock in and act! 

But sometimes things go off the rails. We may confidently double down on a decision even though the outcome is not at all what we wanted or expected, simply because we were so very confident in that initial choice. Like the detective in the novel who abandons searching for the real killer, having locked-in prematurely on an innocent suspect, we plow forward until at long last the advice of friends and the weight of counterevidence finally overwhelms us. That’s if we are wise enough to unlock. If not, we just keep on bolstering and defending our mistaken decision.  

So, what can we do to protect ourselves from being locked in prematurely? Thankfully, many things. 

(1) Be sure we get the problem right. Don’t confuse a symptom with a cause, for example. If we say the problem is “Our team is not going to meet the deadline,” our solutions will focus on that symptom. We may think that all we need to do is work harder or simplify the project. But if we search deeper, we may find that there is a cause. Maybe we lack motivation or maybe we don’t have the resources we need. Or, maybe one of our team members, let’s call them Roy, is not doing his share. Each of these three alternative ways of framing “the problem” opens up certain options and eliminates others. Suppose we come to believe that Roy is the problem. If we define “the problem” that way, then our solutions now focus on assigning some of Roy’s work to others or replacing Roy. And if Roy wasn’t the problem, then we will have been very unfair to our teammate, Roy. Getting “the problem” right is vital. Unless we interpret the problem correctly, we will not end up with workable options. It takes strong analytical skills and foresight, like those assessed by the INSIGHT Business Professional and the INSIGHT Executive, to identify “the problem” correctly.  

(2) Be clear about “must-haves,” “nice-to-haves,” and “can’t-haves.” If two years of work experience is essential for hiring, then we should say so and stick to it. No adding “or the equivalent” later when we find a promising candidate who does not meet our two-year demand.  If a non-stop flight is a requirement for our next vacation trip, then we must not compromise on that standard. But, if a non-stop flight is desirable but not essential, then we shouldn’t elevate it as mandatory in our decision-making process. The ability to be flexible has its benefits.   

(3) Plan ahead by determining when, how, and who will make the ultimate decision.  This is vital in many situations, but particularly for thinking teams in the workplace. If established procedures and clear structures of authority are not already in place, then this is even more important. Individuals and groups work best when expectations are clear. A good example of a leader setting expectations during a meeting setting looks like this: “We will not decide how to solve the problem at today’s meeting. Instead, today we are going to establish the timeline, the steps, the stakeholder with whom we must consult, and the process we will use to make the final decision.  And, let me add, that since the ultimate responsibility rests with me, I will be the one making that decision. So, what I need from us as a team is all that wisdom and intel can possibly bring to this issue.” The Deep Dives on “Optimizing Decision-Making” include many helpful tips on how to avoid individual and team decision-making traps like locking-in prematurely, revising the process to fit the preferred outcome, and relying too heavily on reactive but unreflective heuristics.   

(4) Be fair-minded and objective. Easier said than done; it takes discipline because we are going to be drawn powerfully to the first option we come to that hits a couple of our must-haves, and has at least one of our nice-to-haves, and is encumbered by no can’t-haves. Resisting the urge to jump to this option is essential because it is always better to evaluate all the reasonable options. A better solution might be some other option, one that is a little less shiny, but overall, the best fit. 

(5) Listen to both sides. We all have a natural tendency to believe the first credible report we hear and then use that belief to critique subsequent reports. The mental discipline to not decide what is true until we have heard the other side of the story. Judges instruct juries not to decide until after the prosecution and the defense have both completed presenting their cases, and both have made their closing arguments. Parents discover that it is not good enough to hear only one child’s story about who started the fight and why. They know that they must hear the other child’s side of the story.  

(6) Stick to your criteria. Consider all the “must-haves” and all the “can’t haves.” Suppose you determined at the outset of searching for a new home that you must have an affordable, two-bedroom apartment, with a gym in the building, located in a safe neighborhood. And it would be nice too if it was near a park and located no more than 10-minute walking distance from public transit, but you decide that you cannot have anything larger, and that it cannot be more than 20 minutes walking distance from public transit. And suppose you find an affordable, one-bedroom apartment with a great gym in the building, and a pool too. But the neighborhood is sketchy, there is no park nearby, and the apartment is 23-minutes walking distance from public transit.  Are you going to say to yourself, “Wow what a great gym.  I can make a one-bedroom place work, and I can handle a longer walk.” Or are you going to say, “Nope. If I’m OK with a one-bedroom then it’s not really a must-have. And I can handle a longer walk. So, then what I really should do is to start over and look at all the one-bedroom-longer-walk options that I’ve already eliminated. There may be some great options that I should be reconsidering.” 

(7) Remain impartial – and if you need to, start over. Choosing the right apartment is important. If you’ve reconsidered your “must-haves” and the rest, then you owe it to yourself to do a thorough job of looking fair-mindedly at all the options, even the ones you may have rejected before. Impartiality is difficult if the stakes are high for us or if people whom we care about are involved. For example, when a potential juror is perceived as not being impartial, that person is excused from being a juror. A judge who is at risk of not being impartial is recused, and the case is assigned to a different judge. But in our daily lives, we cannot remove ourselves from judging or excuse ourselves from the responsibility of making important decisions. We must make a conscious and deliberative effort to decide objectively. 

(8) Apply the procedures that were agreed upon at the outset of making the final decision. The temptation at this point is to change the rules of the game if we think that our favored option is not going to come out on top. There are moments when the process can and should be challenged, but not simply because we see that we are not going to get what we want.   

(9) Be honest with yourself. The complex human psychological processes in the final stage of dominance structuring can be difficult. We need to commit to making honest evaluations. Naturally, if there are good reasons, we can prioritize our must-haves. While they are all essential, surely some are more important than others. And, seeing this, we can compromise one or more, without abandoning them. Going back to the apartment selection example, we may decide that a safe neighborhood is the top of our list of must-haves. And, when we think more about it, maybe we should be willing to pay a higher monthly rent so we can be sure we are living in a safe neighborhood. We can do this because “safe” and “affordable” in our minds at this point are stretchy concepts. Had we quantified “safe” or “affordable” (for example, “no more than 1 break-in or sidewalk mugging per year” or “rent no higher than $2500 per month”) then we would have a more objective way to evaluate these two must-haves. 

(10) Remember in the real world no option is perfect. When we are bolstering our favored option, we may be strongly tempted to exaggerate its virtues and, at the same time, exaggerate the vices and shortcomings of the other options. But exaggeration would be less than fully honest. Yes, our favored candidate does have advantages (that magnificent gym!), and yes, the other apartment options all have flaws (not near a park, etc.). But if we are being honest, the virtues of our to-be-chosen candidate are not so fantastic, and the flaws of the other candidates are not so debilitating that we should stop looking for better options.  

1. 1. Take your time, be analytical, and be sure to get the problem right. 

2. 2. Be clear about your “must-haves,” “nice-to-haves,” and “can’t-haves.”  

3. 3. Plan ahead by determining when, how, and who will make the ultimate decision. 

4. 4. Be fair-minded and objective. 

5. 5. Listen to both sides (all the key stakeholders). 

6. 6. Stick to your criteria, especially all the “must-haves” and all the “can’t haves”. 

7. 7. Remain impartial and; if you need to and if you are able to, start over.   

8. 8. Apply the procedures that were agreed upon at the outset for making the final decision. 

9. 9. Be honest with yourself. 

10. 10. Remember, in the real world no option is perfect. 

We call making important decisions this way being judicious or having maturity of judgment. 

In our Thinking Mindset assessments, we define maturity of judgment as the mental discipline or habit of seeing the complexity of issues and yet striving to make timely decisions. A person with maturity of judgment understands that multiple solutions may be acceptable while appreciating the need to reach closure at times even in the absence of complete knowledge. The opposite, cognitive immaturity, is imprudent, black-and-white thinking, failing to make timely decisions, stubbornly refusing to change when reasons and evidence would indicate one is mistaken, or revising opinions willy-nilly without good reason for doing so. 

Maturity of judgment is essential for leaders, teachers, parents, health care and business professionals, government officials, first responders, coaches, service professionals—everyone.   

Insight Assessment is proud to assess Maturity of Judgment and other habits of mind in CEOs with the INSIGHT Executive, and in working professionals with our INSIGHT professional level mindset instruments, in college students with the internationally used CCTDI, and as this vital habit of mind emerges in K-12 students with KRISTAL. 

To develop greater your own maturity of judgment, consider the online self-paced professional development Mindset Booster, “Thoughtful Resilience” and the Deep Dives on Optimizing Decision Making that are available at Insight Basecamp.