Today’s Strategic Alignment Journal post in two sentences:

A good decision does not tell us what will happen. It simply reflects the quality of the understanding from which the choice was made.

---

What makes one decision better than another?

When we make a decision, we are not saying, “I know what will happen.” We are saying, “Given what I understand about the situation now, this is the course of action that makes the most sense.”

We have a tendency to judge the quality of a decision by what happens afterwards. If things work out, we claim it to be a good decision. If things don’t work out, we call it a bad one.

Outcome quality and decision quality are not
the same thing.

A good decision can produce a poor outcome. Circumstances can change. Implementation may not unfold as planned. Other parts of the system can affect what happens. People may respond differently from what was expected. Something genuinely unpredictable can occur.

The reverse is also true.

Someone can make a poorly considered decision and get an excellent result through timing, favourable circumstances or sheer luck.

So if we cannot judge the quality of a decision solely by its eventual outcome, what makes one decision better than another?

That answer begins BEFORE the decision itself. It begins with the quality of our understanding.

This is also where the Theory of Constraints helped me clarify something about my own work. When a problem appears, what are we actually responding to? Are we making a decision based on the symptom we can see, or have we understood the constraint producing it?

Take falling revenue.

Revenue is down, so the immediate conclusion might be that the business needs more marketing. That seems reasonable. More marketing should bring more leads, more leads should create more opportunities, and more opportunities should increase revenue.

Except perhaps marketing is not the problem.

Perhaps the business already has enough leads, but proposals take three weeks to produce and prospects are disappearing before receiving them.

So perhaps proposal turnaround is the constraint.

Or perhaps that is not it either.

Maybe clients are leaving because delivery has become inconsistent. And perhaps delivery has become inconsistent because one senior person has become the approval point for almost everything.

The visible problem was falling revenue. —>The decision under consideration was to increase marketing, but neither tells us what is actually producing the current result.

The useful questions begin earlier.

1. What are we seeing?
2. What is producing what we are seeing?
3. What is constraining the system?
4. What assumptions are we making about the cause?
5. What would need to be true for the action we are considering to work?

That, I realise, is very close to the centre of my work.

I am not trying to tell someone what is going to happen. I am trying to improve the accuracy of the understanding from which they are about to decide; and although the Theory of Constraints provides a useful way of thinking about this, I do not think every situation necessarily has to be reduced to finding a single constraint.

Sometimes the issue will be a bottleneck. Sometimes it will be an incorrect assumption. Sometimes it will be a dependency, a role problem, conflicting incentives, incomplete information, a structural issue, a people dynamic or several causes interacting with one another.

The broader question is:

What is actually driving this situation, and does the proposed decision address it, or merely respond to what is most visible?

That changes how I think about what makes a decision better.

A better decision is one that has paid better attention to the actual problem, the relevant constraints, causal relationships, assumptions, dependencies, possible consequences, uncertainty and the conditions that would need to exist for the proposed action to work.

None of this guarantees the outcome.

Diagnosis does not remove uncertainty – it gives the decision a stronger foundation.

I increasingly see the sequence as:

Diagnosis → Decision → Outcome

Diagnosis improves our understanding —>The decision is made from that understanding —>The outcome emerges from the decision interacting with execution, time, other people, system behaviour, external conditions, unforeseen events and everything we learn once the decision begins moving through the real world…and time matters more than we often acknowledge.

A diagnosis can be sound. The decision can be sensible. The implementation can be competent. And the expected result may still take time to appear because systems contain delays. Or the intervention may reveal another constraint that could not previously be seen. Or something in the environment may change.

None of those things automatically makes the original decision a poor one.

We ask too much of decisions when we expect them to predict the future.

The purpose of diagnosis is not to predict the outcome of a decision. It is to improve the understanding on which the decision is made. Perhaps that gives us a more useful standard for decision quality:

A better decision is one made from a more accurate understanding of what is actually happening.

There are no guarantees after that.

The future still gets a vote.

But we can at least make sure that when we arrive at the point of decision, we are responding to what is actually driving the issue rather than what we have assumed is driving it.

Strategic Reflection Prompt

What consequential decision are you facing right now?

Before deciding, write down everything you believe you understand about the issue. What are the assumptions you are making? What symptoms are you responding to? What do you believe is actually driving the issue? What constraints or bottlenecks may be shaping what you are seeing? What dependencies are involved? What information are you relying on? What information might be missing? What explanations have you accepted without testing? What else could plausibly account for what is happening?

Then read back what you have written and give yourself a gut check.

On a scale of 1 to 10, how confident are you that you understand what is actually driving the issue well enough to make the decision?

If your confidence is lower than you would like, the next question is not yet, What should I decide?

It is: What do I still need to understand?

About Giselle

Most costly decisions begin with a wrong read of the situation.

I’m Giselle Hudson — The Pre-Fixer. I help leaders see the real problem before they act, in my writing and in my work. I don’t fix; I pre-fix. Most advisers jump to solutions before they’ve found the real problem. I find it first — the part that isn’t fully visible yet. Once we see that clearly, everything else falls into place, and confident, right action can follow.

Through my daily Strategic Alignment Journal, I explore leadership, decision-making, and the patterns that shape organizations — helping leaders make sense of complexity before they commit significant time and money to the wrong thing.

What’s the one thing about your business that frustrates you most — the thing that, despite your best efforts, you can’t seem to resolve?