Below is a version of a megapost on decision-making that I made to the ETF Architect blog some time ago. Those guys are awesome. 

In the Maelstrom

There are just a few professions in the world where decision-making is one’s main task.

If you’re reading this, chances are you’re in one of them. 

Many jobs can claim to make critical decisions occasionally (M&A lawyers) or to make low-stakes decisions frequently (customer-service reps).

However, in a rare few occupations, the accountable party is in what I call “the maelstrom.” This “operator” must decide under duress. Decisions in these worlds tend to be:

• Critical

• Complex

• Frequent

• Time-critical

• Fraught with ambiguity

I have operated in multiple maelstroms. I have served as a Navy SEAL combat commander, watch captain aboard a naval warship, Amazon product manager, and Wall Street commodities trader. I was also the so-called “air traffic controller” at a one-time Inc-Magazine “Fastest Growing Company.”

I have also had the benefit of education at two of the world’s top leadership institutions: the U.S. Naval Academy (Annapolis) and Harvard Business School.

Through these experiences I have developed a framework for improving decisions. It is based on a simple conclusion: good decisions are the result of good process.

The SIMPLE Framework

Most people and organizations lack knowledge of how to make sound decisions.

The SIMPLE framework is designed to improve decisions at the individual and organizational levels. It stands for the following:

S  Speed
I  Inputs
M  Models
P  Process
L  Learning
E  Energy and Emotions

Focusing on these factors will go a long way in improving the effectiveness of your and your team’s decisions.

1. Speed

One of my SEAL Teammates Kyle Milliken used to tease guys on the athletic field that “speed kills.” (Kyle was a true hero. Regrettably he was killed in action on May 5th, 2017.)

Traders and startup entrepreneurs alike know that speed is critical in decision-making. Yet few organizations make speed of decisions a top priority (i.e. measured and optimized).

John Boyd developed the now famous “OODA Loop” for the U.S. Air Force in the 1950s as a framework for fighter pilots to win dogfights. The idea was that he who decides faster (usually) wins. While the “Observe-Orient-Decide-Act” method has its limitations, OODA remains a powerful framework for competitive action.

Latent Decisions
When you’re caught in an ambush, the most important thing is to “get off the ‘X.’” You need to move your forces off of the danger zone ASAP.

But most decisions don’t feel like an ambush. They fester, often behind the scenes. There is no forcing function, so you put them off. I call these “latent decisions.”

This is especially true for things that require uncomfortable conversations or tasks outside your “circle of competence” (Buffett & Munger).

2. Inputs

Data and Assumptions

We had dedicated slides in every military mission brief called Situation, Assumptions, Limitations, and Constraints. These slides force military leaders to explicitly identify and declare the inputs to their plan.

Decision-making is taxing. So we get lazy. We make assumptions that we don’t verify. Or we abstract away dependent steps in a chain of logic.

Importantly, then others can more effectively debate both the inputs and the conclusions drawn.

Amazon makes a big deal about inputs. Some “6-pager” decision documents contain 10 pages of appendices substantiating data points that affect the recommendation.

But there’s a limit. Remember point #1 above (Speed).

Logic
I’ve frustrated direct reports on countless occasions with, “That’s not necessarily true.”

Flaws in logic are more problematic than input errors – yet harder to catch in my experience.

My recommendations:

(a) hire incredibly smart and thorough people
(b) encourage them to have a colleague check their logic (and yours)
(c) talk through logic out loud (even to yourself), and
(d) map out the logic visually.

Options
As junior SEAL officers we were taught to always come up with at least three ways to accomplish any mission (“courses of action” or COAs).

This is to prevent one of the biggest failures in decision-making: binary choices.

A binary choice is when we artificially narrow the scope of our thinking to a Go/No Go on one thing. For instance, most people choose what house to buy after browsing and visiting numerous options.

Corporate recruiters cast a wide net for job applicants for this reason. Hiring the first person you interview before talking to other candidates is almost as laughable as rejecting that first candidate and giving up. (The “Secretary Problem” is a well studied case.)

In their book Decisive: How to Make Better Choices in Life and Work, Chip and Dan Heath advise that the first way to improve decisions is to “widen your options.”

3. Models

I mean two kinds:

Representations
A serious equities investor would never transact without relying on some sort of pricing or technical model.

Yet the most important decisions are often where you don’t have a standard model to use. While pricing a call option on a high-volume stock is straightforward, modeling a hiring decision in India vs. Costa Rica is a more bespoke exercise.

Nevertheless, operators in these situations often do not even try to model their problem.

The solution is to think like a McKinsey consultant. They structure problems from point A to point B, breaking things down until they have a working representation of the problem.

Mental Models
You can think of mental models as the “hard skills” of decision-making. Add them to your toolbox and revisit them often. Below is one example.

4. Process

At Amazon and Bridgewater decisions are treated like a process.

However most organizations do not have a clear process for making decisions as a group. The result is chaos, politics, suboptimal results, and (as a reaction) micromanagement.

Here are some solutions:

1. Document and disseminate your process (even if it is not fully formed yet).

2. Aim for decisions to be made at the lowest possible level. You will move faster and obviate the need for many steps below.

3. Emphasize written documents. Slides abstract too much relevant detail.

4. Encourage vigorous debate at lower levels before presenting to the final decision maker.

5. Encourage walkthroughs, role-plays, and pre-mortems/pre-parades.

Immediate Action Drills
When in a firefight, the most junior man in a SEAL unit can shout out a tactical command (“make a call”). Aggressive action is paramount in these situations, and every SEAL on the ground has a different view of the battlefield. (Friedrich Hayek called this “local information” and was his main argument against autocratic governments.)

If life-or-death decisions can be made at the lowest level in the military, you should seriously consider what your directors are spending their time deciding.

5. Learning

Whether in finance or tech startups, we need to make sure that we’re learning from our decisions. In order to do this, you must start tracking your decisions. Then you need to systematically review them.

However, you need to assess past decisions based on what you knew at the time.

Champion poker player Annie Duke says it best in her book Thinking in Bets:

An unwanted result doesn't make our decision wrong if we thought about the alternatives and probabilities in advance.

Violent Debriefs
Startups have the memory of a goldfish. Most of them jump from project to project without ever thinking about what went well or poorly and why.

After every SEAL operation, participants discuss every detail and its significance. Such reviews are democratic and blunt to a degree that I call them “violent debriefs.” This is a critical part of making better decisions.

6. Energy & Emotions

In 2011 a famous study showed that prisoners in Israel were 13 times(!) more likely to be granted parole if their case appeared at the start of a judicial session compared to the end.

While subsequent research casts the degree of the effect in doubt, there is substantial evidence that physical factors do affect our decisions.

So, manage your energy proactively throughout the day. The oft-cited advice applies:

• Practice good sleep hygiene (and get enough)

• Get up from your desk regularly (or stand)

• Drink enough water

• Eat well

• Snack

• Walk

• Play

I also highly recommend micronaps.

Meanwhile, Daniel Kahnemann’s Nobel-Prize winning work shows that instinct and emotion drive most of our decisions even when we believe we are being rational.

Try to make decisions when you are calm inside. I call this “the GFC mindset” based on how I felt as a SEAL Ground Force Commander (GFC) during combat.

If you’re stressed or anxious, try box breathing. This alone will change your life.

SIMPLE in Action

Example: Hiring New Advisors

Your firm is preparing to hire a number of new advisors. Let’s see how you can apply the SIMPLE framework for better outcomes.

Speed

Reduce time costs through improved upfront filters (e.g., rigorous recruiter screens). Moving faster isn't just about efficiency - it helps you secure top candidates before competitors. Remember: great talent doesn't stay on the market long.

The key to maintaining speed is creating clear service-level agreements (SLAs) for each hiring stage, from initial screen to offer letter. Track these metrics religiously—if you're consistently taking more than 2-3 weeks from first interview to decision, you're likely losing candidates. Consider implementing "hiring sprints" where you batch similar roles together to create momentum and efficiency in your interview pipeline.

Inputs & Process

Watch for risky inputs that can skew decisions: similarity bias toward candidates who remind you of yourself, overvaluing charm, or being swayed by generic "go-getter" impressions.

Two especially dangerous practices are:

• Having only one person interview each candidate

• Using different interviewer combinations across candidates competing for the same role

Instead, maintain a consistent interview panel. I recommend against multiple interviewers in the same session to prevent groupthink. Train interviewers properly - start them shadowing veterans, then have them conduct observed interviews before going solo.

Assign specific competencies to each interviewer and equip them with questions designed to elicit relevant data. Use consistent questions across candidates for objective comparison. After each response, interviewers should probe to:

• Understand the candidate’s rationale

• Drill deep into the steps they took

• Validate what actually happened

• Determine if it was indeed the candidate who owned it

All interviewers should document detailed observations and responses from the interview within 24 hours using a standardized template in a shared system (e.g. Greenhouse). The template should include sections for specific competencies assessed, select verbatim quotes from the candidate demonstrating key points, and a clear rubric-based evaluation. This rigor prevents memory bias and ensures decisions are based on evidence rather than impressions.

Notably, each interviewer must include their hire/no-hire recommendation in the above feedback. This forces individual accountability.

Include every interviewer in the final discussion, ideally with a neutral facilitator (like a recruiter or Amazon-style "Bar Raiser") who challenges assumptions.

Baby steps: Very small firms should not attempt to implement all of these steps. Just beware the tendency for process rigor to lag severely as firms grow.

On final decisions: I favor Amazon's approach - hiring managers decide, but the designated Bar Raiser can veto hires to protect organizational standards (a power used judiciously).

Models

Foundations: Define firm values in concrete, observable terms that translate to employee behaviors. Develop clear competency frameworks for each role and level. Add role-specific requirements to create your ideal candidate profile.

Approach: Meanwhile, every hiring manager has some implicit decision model for hiring. For instance how much do we value cultural fit? Do we prefer “athletes” or experts? Are we consistently hiring to fill burning needs, or are we hiring the leaders of three years from now?

While you could spreadsheet these decisions, the complexity often makes this impractical. Instead, identify a few principles specific to your firm that guide decisions, for instance “50/50 skills vs. potential” or a “no jerks policy.” Another option is to create decision trees for common hiring scenarios.

Learning

First, institute a formal 30/60/90-day review process for new hires that examines performance. Have hiring managers complete a structured assessment comparing interview performance against actual job performance.

Then, periodically review how your hiring process and decisions can be improved. Figure out what worked and what didn’t especially for the following groups:

• Bad hires → Identify missed signals.

• Great hires → Diagnose vs. taking for granted (after a 6-12-month honeymoon phase).

• ‘Ones that got away’ → Understand why strong candidates declined offers.

Finally, past a certain level of hiring, consider tracking which interviewers' assessments most accurately predict success.

Energy & Emotion

If possible, concentrate interviews across candidates for each interviewer into blocks of half a day or so. That way they can focus on candidate evaluation without context-switching between other responsibilities. Limit interviews to 3-4 per day to maintain sharp judgment.

Schedule your most important interviews during your team's peak energy hours (typically mid-morning). But in any event, schedule interviews in a time and place where both the candidate and interviewers can be at their best.

Hold interviewers accountable for the following (use my PERC framework):

• Prepared:

  • Properly reviewing the candidate’s resume in advance

  • Pre-identifying the questions they’ll ask

• Elated: Visibly positive about the opportunity to meet the candidate (vs. being a burden)

• Ready: Entering the meeting on time and organized to start (e.g. prepared to take notes)

• Calm and present: Not being hungry, tired, or stressed from a prior meeting

Finally, remind interviewers to beware ‘similarity bias.’ Strong hires may not resemble us, though many bad hires will.

Summary

Here are some questions to improve your decision in the moment:

• “Are we making decisions fast enough?”   (Speed)

• “Are we being explicit about inputs? Have we considered all options?”   (Inputs)

• “How are we modeling this decision?”   (Models)

• “Do we set up our people to make great decisions?”   (Process)

• “Are we gaining insight from past decisions?”   (Learning)

• “Am I at my best right now?”   (Energy & Emotions)

 ❤️ Andrew

Coda

I highly recommend the book Decisive by Chip and Death Heath. It is probably the best book I’ve read on making decisions.

Outro

I’m into British rap lately. I’m late to Central Cee, but here’s Sprinter from his collab with Dave called Split Decision.  

“Sprinter”

Cheers

🧠 Let’s talk: Want to 10x your leadership? Grab a free slot to meet with me, and let’s talk through some solutions. 💥 🙌

📥 Did someone forward this to you? Make sure to join to receive elite leadership tips directly to your inbox.

🔎 Find me on LinkedIn.
🎧 Podcast: Spotify | Apple
🌐 People tell me my website has some cool stuff on there.

👉 Let me know how I did: [email protected] 

I’d love to hear from you.

Get unstuck, and crush it. Double period. 🔱