Decision Analysis Worksheet

A senior manager facing a significant career decision who completes the weighted pros/cons framework diligently but assigns weights of 3 to nearly every factor. The net score ends up near zero not because the decision is genuinely balanced but because she hasn't done the work of differentiating what matters most. The weighting step - the part that separates this from a simple list - has been avoided.

Stop at the weight column before she completes it. 'Before you assign weights, I want to ask: of everything on this list, which two or three factors, if they went the wrong way, would make you regret this decision regardless of everything else? Those are your 5s.' That question usually surfaces the real stakes. The resistance is fairness: she doesn't want to bias the exercise by weighting heavily before completing it. Name the purpose: 'The weights aren't biasing the exercise - they're what the exercise is asking you to do. If everything is equally important, the framework can't tell you anything.'

Watch the weight distribution. If all weights are 3, or if no item is weighted below 2 or above 4, she hasn't differentiated. Also watch whether the weights she assigns to emotional factors (family, fulfillment, identity) are systematically lower than rational factors (salary, title, stability) - this is common and worth naming. Underweighted emotional factors often predict regret after the decision is made.

Start with the highest-weighted items. 'Read me your 4s and 5s. Why did these get the highest weights?' Then look at anything she weighted at 1 or 2: 'Why is this on the list at a 1 - does it actually matter?' The question that creates movement: 'If the factors with the highest weights all went in the same direction, how close to a decision does that get you - and what's left that the score doesn't capture?'

A consultant who completes the weighted pros/cons for a business decision, produces a negative net score (-7), and writes a decision statement that favors the option. He doesn't notice the contradiction. When asked about it, he says 'the numbers don't capture everything.' The decision statement and the framework are pointing in different directions and he hasn't examined why.

Don't force resolution immediately. 'Let's look at two things: the net score on the framework, and the decision statement you wrote. They're pointing in different directions. That's worth understanding before we do anything else.' The resistance is rationalization: he's already decided and believes the numbers missed something. That something is worth naming explicitly. 'When numbers and intuition disagree, the question isn't which one is right - it's what the disagreement tells you about your decision-making process.'

Watch what he says is missing from the numbers. Clients who override a negative score usually name either (a) a factor they didn't include or properly weight, or (b) an emotional reality the framework didn't capture. Both are legitimate. If it's (a), the fix is to revise the weights or add the missing factor. If it's (b), the decision statement is reflecting a value that the rational framework wasn't designed to capture. Both are worth making explicit.

Start with the disagreement. 'The score says one thing, your decision statement says another. What's missing from the score?' Let him name it fully. Then: 'If you added that factor and weighted it appropriately, what happens to the score?' If the score flips: 'Was that factor always there or did you find it after you knew what you wanted?' The question that creates movement: 'What do you need to believe about that missing factor to feel confident in your decision - and is that belief solid?'

A director who fills in the 'change condition' field - the circumstance under which she'd reconsider the decision - with conditions that already exist. She's decided to stay in her current role and writes: 'I would reconsider if I had a better offer.' She has had three better offers in the past year and turned them down each time. The change condition is nominal; it doesn't reflect her actual threshold.

Name the function of the change condition field before she reads hers back. 'The change condition is designed to help you know when this decision expires - when circumstances have changed enough that you should actively reconsider rather than drift. It should reflect your actual threshold, not a theoretical one.' Then read her field: 'You wrote X. How many times has that condition been met in the past year?' The resistance is having to confront that her stated threshold and actual behavior don't match. Name it gently: 'There's a difference between your stated threshold and your actual one. Let's find your actual one.'

Watch whether she can name a condition that would genuinely change her decision when she examines it carefully. Clients who have strong status quo bias often produce change conditions that are either already met (and ignored) or impossibly high ('I'd only leave if my manager became abusive'). Both are avoidance. The real change condition is usually something she's been reluctant to name because naming it makes the decision feel less settled.

Start with the gap between her stated condition and her history. 'Three offers that met this condition - and you stayed. What does that tell you about what you're actually waiting for?' Let her work through it. Then: 'If you wrote the real change condition - the one that would actually move you - what would it say?' The question that creates movement: 'What would have to be true about your current situation for you to stop revisiting this decision every six months?'