Decision-making: how to make better decisions

No matter how objective you try to be - and no matter how experienced you are - nobody is completely free from thinking errors. Myself included. We make hundreds of decisions every day. What will I eat? Who gets that task? Which direction does the team take? Most of those decisions are made without really thinking them through. They happen automatically, at lightning speed, on autopilot.

That works fine as long as the context is simple. But in an organisation? Where interests collide, information is scarce, and pressure is high? That same automatism leads time and again to decisions that could have been better. Not because we are not smart enough. But because that is simply how our brains work.

The good news: once you understand how decision-making really works, you can design better decisions. For yourself, and for your team.

What is decision-making?

Decision-making is the process of choosing between alternatives. On paper it sounds like a logical, step-by-step weighing up of options: gather information, compare alternatives, pick the best one. But behavioural science shows that reality looks very different.

Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman describes in his landmark work two systems through which our brain operates:

• System 1 - fast, automatic, intuitive. Works on the basis of habits, emotions and context. Responsible for around 96% of our decisions.
• System 2 - slow, conscious, analytical. The mode for complex reasoning. Genuinely engaged in only 4% of our decisions.

The tricky part is this: we think we are using System 2, but System 1 has already decided. System 2 is then switched on to justify that automatic choice. Kahneman calls this post-rationalisation: "Forget pre-rationalisation; post-rationalisation is the new influential kid on the block."

We are not lean-mean-rational-thinking-machines that always make decisions in our own best interest.

Or as Kahneman himself puts it: "Our System 2 is a slave to our System 1." That reality is the starting point for anyone who genuinely wants to make better decisions.

Why we make bad decisions

Our brain uses cognitive shortcuts, also known as biases. These shortcuts help us act incredibly quickly in everyday situations. But in complex decision-making environments they work against us. The most important pitfalls:

Anchoring bias: the first number wins

When we receive a first piece of information, it acts as an anchor for all subsequent decisions. Imagine you open a salary negotiation with a high number - the final outcome will almost always land closer to that high number. Not because it is logical, but because the first number has become lodged in System 1 as a reference point.

Confirmation bias: you look for what you already believe

Once we have formed an opinion, we unconsciously seek out information that confirms it. Contradictory signals get filtered out. Kahneman describes it aptly: "Very quickly you form an impression, and then you spend most of your time confirming it instead of collecting evidence."

Sunk cost fallacy: keep investing because you have already invested so much

The more we have already put into something - time, money, energy - the harder it becomes to stop, even when continuing is objectively the wrong choice. The project has been running for years, the investment has been made: stopping feels like loss. But continuing is the real loss. The sunk cost fallacy is one of the most widespread and costly biases in organisational decision-making.

Decision fatigue: tiredness makes your decisions worse

As the day goes on and more decisions have been made, the quality of our choices declines. Judges give more favourable rulings in the morning than in the afternoon. Doctors prescribe antibiotics more often at the end of a busy day, even when it is not really necessary. The phenomenon is called decision fatigue - and it affects everyone, regardless of experience or intelligence.

Status quo bias: the default option always wins

We do not only choose what feels familiar - we actively choose not to change. The default option almost always wins, simply because changing behaviour costs energy and creates uncertainty. This explains why well-designed defaults have such a powerful influence on behaviour.

Framing effect: how you ask the question determines the answer

The same information leads to different decisions depending on how you present it. "90% chance of success" versus "10% chance of failure" are mathematically identical, but the first formulation consistently leads to more agreement. The framing effect is one of the most powerful mechanisms in decision-making - and one of the most underestimated.

Decision-making in organisations - extra challenges

Individual biases are challenging enough. In an organisation, the challenges stack up. A few common patterns that get in the way of good decision-making:

Groupthink

When groups place the need for harmony and consensus above critical thinking, groupthink arises. Everyone agrees - not because the decision is genuinely good, but because dissenting feels socially uncomfortable. The conformity drive of System 1 (social norms are one of the strongest comforts) means people stay quiet while they are actually doubting.

The HiPPO effect

HiPPO stands for Highest Paid Person's Opinion. In meetings, people tend to follow the opinion of the most senior person in the room, even when that opinion is demonstrably wrong. Not out of bad intentions, but because hierarchy is a powerful social signal that System 1 recognises as a safe direction.

Time pressure amplifies System 1

The more pressure there is on a decision, the more we fall back on automatic patterns. Time pressure is one of the strongest triggers for System 1 thinking. Precisely in the situations where we most need to decide thoughtfully, we do so the least.

Information overload

More information does not always lead to better decisions. Barry Schwartz showed that too many options lead to paralysis - the so-called paradox of choice. The same goes for data: when everyone is drowning in reports and dashboards, System 1 simply defaults to the shortcut that feels most familiar.

How to make better decisions - proven strategies

Better decision-making does not start with more willpower or discipline. It starts with designing a better context. Because as we always say at SUE: "Simplicity eats willpower for breakfast." Here are five proven strategies:

1. The pre-mortem: imagine it has already failed

A pre-mortem is a technique developed by psychologist Gary Klein, now widely applied. The procedure: before you execute a decision, you imagine that it has completely failed a year from now. You ask the group: "What went wrong?" By accepting the failure as a fact, people are freed from the tendency to defend the proposal. Critical thoughts that normally stay unspoken - because they break the consensus - now come to the surface.

2. Deploy defaults wisely

The most powerful intervention in decision-making is often the simplest: make the best option the default option. Research into organ donation illustrates this beautifully. In countries with an opt-in system (you have to consciously choose to become a donor), around 20-27% of people agree. In countries with an opt-out system (you are automatically a donor unless you opt out), that figure rises to nearly 100%. The same principle - completely different outcome - purely by changing the default.

3. Choice architecture: limit options and structure choices

The way you present choices determines which choice people make. Choice architecture is the science of designing decision environments. Practical applications: limit the number of options to a maximum of three or four, make the desired choice the most prominent, use visual hierarchy to direct attention, and remove unnecessary friction on the path to the desired decision.

4. Slow down System 1: sleep on it

For important decisions it is literally valuable to sleep on them. Not as procrastination, but as strategic use of how our brains work. Write the decision down. Explicitly list pros and cons. Ask someone outside the situation for their reaction. These kinds of techniques activate System 2 and make it possible to correct the automatic System 1 response.

5. Invite diverse perspectives

You break groupthink by deliberately bringing people with different backgrounds, different expertise and different experiences to the table. Not as a tick-box for inclusion, but because different perspectives expose the blind spots you cannot see yourself. Practically: ask someone explicitly to take the opposing position (the devil's advocate). Collect anonymous input before the meeting, so that hierarchy has less influence. Do not decide during the meeting - decide afterwards.

The SUE Influence Framework for better decision-making

At SUE we use the SUE Influence Framework to map the unconscious forces behind behaviour. But the same framework is a powerful tool for analysing decision-making processes - your own or your team's.

The framework identifies four forces that determine whether people move forward or stay put:

• Pains - the frustrations and downsides of the current situation that create readiness for change
• Gains - the positive consequences of a new decision, in relation to the deeper goal
• Comforts - the habits and routines that keep people attached to the status quo
• Anxieties - the fears, doubts and uncertainties that block a new decision

Imagine your team is considering a strategic change of direction. You can analyse that decision through the framework. What are the pains of the current course? What gains does the new direction offer? But also: what comforts are keeping people attached to what they know? And which anxieties - justified or not - are blocking the step forward?

This is what makes the framework so useful for decision-making in organisations. It forces you to map the restraining forces as well as the arguments in favour. And "without removing people's anxieties, nobody will move an inch," as we always say at SUE.

A concrete application: you want your management team to adopt a new decision-making process. Through the framework you look not only at the benefits of the new process (Gains), but also at the habits protecting the old process (Comforts) and the uncertainties making people hesitate (Anxieties). On that basis you design an introduction that connects to how people actually decide - not how we like to think they do.

Astrid Groenewegen and Tom de Bruyne explain the full framework in The Art of Designing Behaviour (2024), where they show how this approach transforms both individual and organisational decision-making.

Frequently asked questions about decision-making

What is decision-making exactly?

Decision-making is the process of choosing between alternatives. That sounds rational, but behavioural science shows that most decisions are not made consciously and deliberately. Around 96% of our choices are driven by System 1: the fast, automatic brain that acts on habits, emotions and context, without us being aware of it.

Why do people make irrational decisions?

People make irrational decisions because our brain uses cognitive shortcuts, known as biases. These shortcuts normally help us act quickly, but in complex situations they regularly lead to suboptimal choices. Examples include anchoring bias, confirmation bias, the sunk cost fallacy and decision fatigue.

How do you improve decision-making in teams?

Better team decision-making comes from applying a number of proven strategies: run a pre-mortem, ensure diverse perspectives, collect anonymous input before the meeting, appoint a devil's advocate, and design the context so that the best decision is also the easiest decision. This breaks groupthink and the HiPPO effect.

What is the difference between System 1 and System 2 in decision-making?

System 1 is the fast, automatic thinking system that drives around 96% of our decisions based on emotion, habit and context. System 2 is the slow, conscious thinking system you engage for complex analysis. The problem: System 1 is in charge, and System 2 is then called upon to justify that automatic choice. Once you understand this mechanism, you can engage with your own decision-making process more consciously.

Conclusion: design better decisions

Decision-making is not a rational process. It is an interplay of automatic shortcuts, comfortable habits, social pressure and emotional responses. That makes it vulnerable - but also designable. Because when you know how it works, you can structure the context so that better decisions arise naturally.

Use the pre-mortem to imagine the failure before it happens. Set the best option as the default. Limit the number of choices. Invite diverse perspectives. And use the SUE Influence Framework to expose the unconscious forces behind every decision - the pains that make change necessary, the gains that offer perspective, but also the comforts that hold people back and the anxieties that block the way forward.

Because making better decisions is not a matter of intuition, but a science you can learn and apply.

Want to go deeper? In the Behavioural Design Fundamentals training you learn in two days how to apply the Influence Framework, analyse behavioural barriers, and design interventions that actually work.