This page is a work in progress, part of a multi-year effort to capture and share learnings, frameworks, tools, and processes to run organizations. See Running Organizations for more.

Deciding how decisions will be made is a critical consideration for running a successful operation. Decision-making practices say a lot about the nature of power and authority, and, ultimately the culture within an organization. Lack of alignment, poor internal communication, and disconnects between leadership and staff are often symptoms of a poor decision-making process.

There are three steps to designing decision-making: sorting decisions, using a decision-making framework, and creating principles for decision-makers.

Get clear on what kinds of decisions will be made at what levels of the organization and who will be the directly responsible individuals (DRIs) in the common decision areas.

This process can be formal or informal and can be expressed as a visual or as a principle or set of operating principles.

Adopting an organization-wide framework for the big decisions is the critical step in creating clarity, delegating decisions to the appropriate level, and building trust across the organization.

Documenting the principles by which people should make decisions borrow from, but ultimately goes beyond the definitions of your core values.

When the CEO is at the hub of all decision-making, a small organization can run smoothly without needing to address decision-making in any formal way. As new functional leaders are added, they take over responsibility for decisions in their functions, and the leadership team and CEO can make decisions that cut across functions or impact multiple departments. Once a middle management layer is added, decision-making becomes more complex.

Being clear with the entire management group about who makes what types of decisions gives clarity and autonomy to managers to move fast and make decisions with confidence.

Here are a few options for sorting and categorizing decisions.

Susan Scott's "Decision Tree Model," from the book Fierce Conversations, categorizes four types of decisions and practices for each type. I've found this visual metaphor to be helpful for communicating with clarity, and a good training tool for new managers.

The goal is to categorize common decisions in the business and choose who the decider is for each. This model can be used at all levels, and doesn't have to be created from scratch by the leadership team - it can be a collaborative exercise with staff.

For Leaf and Branch-level decisions, staff members should be the deciders. Depending on your culture, Root Decisions can be made by staff, Leadership, or just the CEO.

The Eisenhower Matrix differentiates urgent and important in everyone's favorite model, the two-by-two. Gokul Rajaram used the Eisenhower Matrix at Square. They referred to the Not Important + Not Urgent quadrant as the "Kombucha scale" - as in, deciding about what kind of kombucha to buy for the office. He explains in this First Round article:

The Eisenhower Matrix is a quick heuristic for leaders and managers rather than a formal tool for deciding who makes what types of decisions.

Jeff Bezos and Amazon sorted decisions into two types: Type 1 and Type 2 Decisions. A Type 2 decision is reversible, whereas Type 1 decisions are difficult and costly to roll back. Bezos explained in Amazon's 2015 Shareholder Letter that most decisions are Type 2, but we treat them like Type 1 decisions:

Finding a way to differentiate Type 1 from Type 2 decisions enables you to decide what kind of decision-making framework to use.

Type 1 Decisions might require a heavier process-oriented framework like SPADE or RAPID. Type 2 decisions might be better handled by RACI, DACI, or no formal process at all.

The "Decision Stack" from the book Brave New Work lays out five areas for determining decisions in an organization. I'm fond of defining roles and waterlines clearly and then leaning on an Advice Process and Consent Process.

A form of Advice and Consent is used in each of the three decision-making frameworks covered below. Laying out a doc or visual that explains Waterlines to everyone in the organization can provide an additional level of clarity.

SPADE is a process used for big decisions (i.e. Type 1), and for the organizations that make a lot of them. SPADE works well for organizational and culture-shaping decisions, like strategy around new products/services, M&A, and key resourcing decisions.

SPADE is inefficient for decisions that impact few people (i.e. small organizations), for anything "non-Important" (Eisenhower Matrix), or for Leaf, Brand, or Trunk Decisions (Decision Tree).

The framework is covered in significant detail in Gokul Rajaram's toolkit.

This process can built as a Google Docs template, but Gokul recommends using CODA when operating at scale, and logging all SPADE decisions in a template like this.

SPADE requires meeting time, perspective gathering, following a strict process and building commitment.

Another great resource explaining the detail of how to use this process is here.

RACI is a common framework found in many organizations. It defines Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, and Informed parties. The Responsible person is responsible for making the decision, the Accountable person is accountable for the implementation of the decision, the Consulted people have a say in the decision, and the Informed people are told about it once the decision has been made.

Here's an example of a RACI chart (Source: Monday):

Atlassian uses a framework they call DACI, which stands for Driver, Approver, Contributors, and Informed. One of the criticisms of RACI is the trouble in differentiating Responsible from Accountable. The Driver, in DACI, is both responsible and accountable in driving the decision and implementing it. The Approver has the final say and can veto the decision if it's not well thought through. Contributors and Informed parties are the same as in the RACI framework.

Here's Atlassian's kanban template for the DACI process.

The RAPID framework, created by Bain, is a great all-purpose framework, though it has some heft for small organizations. RAPID works for Root & Branch and Type 1 decisions. RAPID stands for: Recommend, Agree, Perform, Input, Decide.

Matt Mochary explains RAPID in The Great CEO Within.

The important parts of RAPID are a well-articulated definition of the problem, a proposal for a solution, and then seeking Input from others. Here's an example of RAPID.

Track past and present RAPID docs somewhere central, and be sure to separate those that are in progress from those that are completed/archived.

The better you perform, the more people expect from you. Jobs tend to expand in scope over time, which puts more pressure on high-performers and increases the risk of burnout over time. I've seen this happen to new managers and directors who have viewed their roles as one of "doers" instead of people who ensure the work is done.

The best tool to firefight this issue is to ensure that management delegates. Delegation firefights burnout in high performers, but it also empowers staff to stretch themselves, take responsibility for outcomes, and grow.

Delegation is unnatural. Pushing our problems, challenges, and tasks onto others doesn't feel right. It probably isn't what we think made us successful in individual contributor or manager roles in the past. The common objections to delegation sound like:

Behind the content of those statements is usually a message about how we identify at work - about what our roles are "supposed" to be about, and what we're "supposed" to be doing.

Individual contributors and high-output performers identify as "rockstars," "developers" or "marketers" - the type of people who don't push their work onto others.

Individual contributors can benefit from a view of themselves as part of a broader team who's accomplishing a specific mission or goal. Managers can benefit from viewing themselves as architects, organizers, or coaches.

Delegation is not an all-or-nothing proposition. Delegation is not a matter of letting someone else do everything, or doing everything oneself. You can think about delegation in terms of “levels,” and ramp up or down the type and amount of work that is delegated depending on the expertise and experience of the people involved.

Detailing decision and task areas on a team-by-team basis gives people the confidence to make decisions, and avoids relationship damage and rework along the way. This can be done in a "team charter" or on a department-by-department basis.

CEO Tools 2.0 breaks down five levels of delegation. When work can be broken down into clean Tasks, those tasks can be delegated depending on the skills and knowledge of the people around you.

A Delegation Board is a visual way of representing what items will be delegated and which will not. This can give clarity to everyone on a team or in a department. Jurgen Appelo has a full explanation of the process here.

A completed delegation board looks like this:

This process can be used across an entire small organization, or within a single team in a large organization.

When delegating specific tasks, a framework like 360 Delegation is fantastic for training Managers on how to delegate in a way that limits failure and re-work. The framework breaks down into Vision, Resources, and Definition of Done.