Limbo is the worst

I really struggle with limbo.

And I’m not just referring the game commonly played at Bar Mitzvahs.¹

Organizational limbo often occurs when a company is not able to move forward with clarity and focus. While this could be initiated by some external “shock” the true driver is often either 1) the inability or unwillingness to make a decision, or 2) the inability or unwillingness to align resources against that decision.

Difficulty with decisions is much more common. Now there has been a lot written about decision-making, some of it truly excellent that I won’t attempt to fully rehash here, but there’s a few core tenets that might be helpful:

• Speed is a competitive advantage: Big companies suck. That’s why so many us enjoy² the roller-coaster ride that is a startup. And one of the reasons they suck is the lethargy bred by bureaucracy and conservatism. Making a decision often requires putting together a detailed business-case, socializing, pre-wiring, presenting at multiple-committees, getting sign-offs, etc. One of a startup’s biggest advantages is it’s speed, and not having 20 committees to go through to change the coffee served in the kitchen. Avoiding, prolonging, delaying decisions removes this inherent advantage.
• Most decisions are reversible: Many are familiar with the framework of categorizing decisions as 2-way doors, i.e., reversible, and 1-way doors, i.e., irreversible commonly attributed to Jeff Bezos.³ The truth is the vast majority of decisions are 2-way doors or at worst can be phased, staged, trialed, or de-risked in a way to make them 2-way doors.
• More time doesn’t equal better decisions: I am not suggesting applying a move-fast-and-break-things mentality to decision-making but it is worth questioning what you give up with more time. Annie Duke has advocated applying the ‘menu strategy’ to most decisions and recommends speeding up decision-making in most cases. Similarly Reid Hoffman has shared that he often will ask himself: If I delay this decision, will I gain new information or be able to make a materially better decision in the future. In most cases the answer is “no.”

What we often fail to think about in many of these cases in the cost of indecision. It is so easy to say: “can we think about this from this perspective”, or “oh that means we need to have a separate conversation about x” or “well why don’t we pull data on that to help inform our decision” or “well if we do x, that means we’ll need to totally reconsider y.” Delaying is easy, it prevents decision-fatigue and gives us the feeling (not entirely unwarranted) that we’re being responsible and putting ourselves in the best position to make a decision. It honestly feels good!

But we often ignore the cost.

If you’re a leader in an organization, this cascades down. Your team doesn’t have the direction they need. In trying to maintain keep all options available, they can’t go all-in on their thoughts or ideas. They’ll start wondering what the direction is and not sure if they’re work is helping to achieve the company goals. It’s like a race car that is only going 20 mph because it needs to be ready to turn around at any moment.

That’s to say nothing of your ability to achieve your goals. A few days probably isn’t material but calendaring meetings and having all the discussions that everyone wants to have can often stretch into weeks, and before you know it, the goals you had at the beginning of the year seem even less achievable because you’ve lost the better part of a month in trying to make a decision.

To be fair, these delays can often be for very well-intentioned reasons such as trying to make all sure all voices are heard, or making sure the hiring plan is just right so you never have to consider a layoff. And there are certainly times when more time is indeed the prudent decision, but it’s less often then you think and there are usually levers to mitigate some of the risks when you think you need more time.⁴

One reasonable counter-argument is: Well if we make fast decisions and we’re wrong, won’t that feel like thrash for the team? And without context, communication, and guardrails, if you’re wrong, then yes it will. But I’d offer a few rejoinders. It’s totally reasonable to communicate: we feel strongly about X and we’re really excited about it, but there’s a chance we might be wrong; here’s how we’ll know if we’re wrong and what we’ll do about it. Additionally as noted above, items can be trialed or tested, e.g., we’re going to devote only 5% of our time to this effort, but if we see initial success, we’ll invest more.

Staying in limbo is sacrificing a big advantage for a very uncertain gain. In most instances, the better path is to, as Annie Duke notes, accept uncertainty will be inherent in the decision and focus on the the probabilities and trying to limit the range of outcomes. Now that race car can go 80 mph and if it has to adjust 10 degrees one direction or the other, it can do so with minimal slow-down.

¹ Though I’m not a big fan of that either.

² Endure?

³ I’m also partial to Ravi Gupta’s belief that the only mistakes you can’t come back from are mistakes of integrity.

⁴ Using the examples I shared, if you’re optimizing for all voices being heard having 1–2 within a week where leaders share their thoughts and concerns early via pre-reads and then come together to discuss items where perspectives differ can help. With hiring, identify the roles you’re really unsure about, which is probably the minority of your overall plan, and consider pushing them to later in your plan or bringing on a contractor or part-timer to see if it is indeed what you need.