Scaling isn’t just about moving fast, it’s about making the right decisions at the right time. High-growth companies don’t just grow, they scale by compounding good decisions over time. Leaders who master decision velocity create momentum, those who don’t stagnate. The best executives balance speed with sound judgment, separating high performers from those who plateau.

Amazon and Netflix had great products and scaled by institutionalizing decision velocity, turning judgment into a repeatable process. In contrast, Nokia and Blackberry stagnated when their decision frameworks fell behind shifting market demands.

Mastering decision velocity requires learning a set of interrelated skills, including balancing the often-opposing forces of speed and quality. The ability to toggle between gut instinct and structured processes distinguishes great leaders from mediocre ones. As Ben Horowitz puts it:

“The ability to make good decisions quickly is almost always the distinguishing factor between high-performing and mediocre teams.”

Why Smart Leaders Rely on Decision-Making Frameworks

Structured decision-making frameworks can act as shortcuts to higher-level thinking. As Weinberg and McCann put it in Super Thinking:

"If you can understand the relevant [mental] models for a situation, then you can bypass lower-level thinking and immediately jump to higher-level thinking. In contrast, people who don’t know these models will likely never reach this higher level, and certainly not quickly."

Charlie Munger, business partner to Warren Buffett and vice-chairman of Berkshire Hathaway, popularized the “mental models” approach to solving problems. Munger advocated for drawing mental models from a wide range of disciplines – philosophy, economics, physics, military strategy, and more. In his 1994 speech at the University of Southern California Business School, he stated:

"What is elementary, worldly wisdom? Well, the first rule is that you can't really know anything if you just remember isolated facts and try and bang 'em back. If the facts don't hang together on a latticework of theory, you don't have them in a usable form."

The leaders I’ve worked with who have scaled teams and companies successfully share a common thread: embedded in their decision-making is a set of interrelated, multidisciplinary frameworks that help them understand the scope of each decision quickly, while knowing who should be making the call.

In past articles I’ve used frameworks from mathematics & complexity science, Stoic philosophy, behavioral psychology and systems thinking & behavioral economics, among other disciplines. These frameworks are tools that help high-performing leaders quickly filter through the complexity of their decisions and act with confidence.

In 1:1 coaching I help leaders apply these kinds of frameworks and mental models to the specific facts and circumstances of the situation they’re facing. The following framework comes from risk management and operational strategy and is also helpful for "strategic" answers.

How to Decide Fast: The Type 1 vs. Type 2 Framework

One of the most effective frameworks I use with executives is from Jeff Bezos, who distinguishes between Type 1 and Type 2 decisions:

Type 1 (One-Way Door): Irreversible decisions that require deep analysis and careful deliberation. These have long-term consequences and can’t be easily undone (e.g., entering a new market, implementing a major pricing change, rebranding)
Type 2 (Two-Way Door): Reversible decisions that can be adjusted later. These require less deliberation and allow for more agility. (e.g., A/B tests, marketing copy tweaks, internal policy changes.)

Scale faster by moving quickly on Type 2 (reversible) decisions and deliberating on Type 1 (irreversible) decisions more carefully. Decisions, however, don’t always fit neatly into these two categories. Often, they exist on a spectrum.

Decisions Exist on a Spectrum

To determine where a decision falls, ask yourself:

❓ How easy and how expensive will it be if we need to course-correct?
❓ If we delay, what opportunities might we miss?

Getting This Balance Wrong:

❌ Quibi (2020): Raised $1.75B but locked itself into a rigid, failing strategy (mobile-only, no desktop). When users demanded flexibility, it was too late, and six months later, Quibi was dead.

Quibi executives treated their strategy as a one-way door decision, committing to an unproven concept without room to pivot. Without adaptability, the company collapsed.

Getting This Balance Right:

🚀 Instagram (2010): Launched as a check-in app (Burbn), but users only cared about photo sharing. The team pivoted, quickly and reversibly, leading to massive success and a $1B Facebook acquisition.

Instagram treated its product focus as a two-way door decision, iterating based on user behavior, and won big.

Not All Decisions Require Immediate Resolution

Leaders can maintain agility and save energy by keeping options open and adapting as new information emerges. Sometimes, the best decision is to not decide yet.

For example, before making an irreversible decision, ask: "Can we afford to wait?" In fast-moving markets, waiting may mean losing the opportunity to act. But if the decision is critical and carries significant risk, delaying and gathering more information may help mitigate the risk.

The Need for Tiered Decision-Making

As companies scale, the centralization of decision-making can create bottlenecks. Not every decision should be pushed up to the executive team, especially when it’s a reversible decision. This approach aligns with McKinsey’s research on high-performing CEOs, showing that decentralizing decisions prevents bottlenecks and accelerates execution.

To scale effectively, I recommend using tiered decision-making. This system helps distribute decision-making authority based on impact and risk.

Here’s how the 3-Tier Decision Model (from Organizational Design & Management Science) works:

Tier 1 (High Stakes): Strategic shifts, major resource allocations, and bet-the-company-sized irreversible decisions stay with the executive team.
Tier 2 (Guided Autonomy): Mid-level leaders make decisions within predefined guardrails.
Tier 3 (Frontline Execution): Empower teams to act quickly on operational decisions without excessive approvals.

Pro Tip: Look for Hidden Motivators Behind Resistance

Sometimes, resistance to decisions at Tier 1 or Tier 2 levels may not be about the decision itself. If a leader resists a seemingly reversible decision at Tier 3, for example, there may be deeper factors at play. It could be that the resistance is rooted in:

⚡ A personality-driven need for control
⚡ Risk aversion that stems from past experiences, rather than the current context
⚡ Misalignment on decision-making authority

When resistance arises, dig deeper with these questions:

❓ What specific risks do you see? What would help you trust the decision?
❓ Is there a bigger issue driving your concern that I might be missing?
❓ Does this hesitation align with our strategic intent?

These questions can help reveal whether the resistance stems from ego, risk perception, or scope creep.

Final Thought

Scaling successfully is about more than just making decisions, it’s about creating systems that ensure the right decisions get made at the right level and with the right pace.

Want to apply these decision-making strategies to your leadership team? I work with executives to sharpen decision velocity, scale with confidence, and avoid common pitfalls. Let’s connect.

Scaling Your Team? Master Decision Velocity for Faster, Smarter Growth