Process-Quality Decision Review
Judge how you decided before judging what happened
- Difficulty
- Moderate
- Time to result
- ~weeks to results
- Steps
- 5
- Confidence
- 98%
Qureshi argues that an outcome cannot by itself reveal whether a decision was good. A weak process can get lucky, while a sound choice can still fail. Review the decision using only what was knowable at the time: the evidence considered, assumptions made, alternatives weighed, and the influence of bias or opinion. Score the quality of that process before reopening the outcome. Then use the result to test assumptions and improve the process rather than retroactively redefining the original choice. Repeating this review makes decision-making more consistent and reduces the temptation to call every success genius. It also preserves accountability by separating decision quality from the separate quality of execution.
Origin
Extracted from The Diary of a CEO
Core principles
- 01Good decisions can have bad outcomes
- 02Bad decisions can benefit from luck
- 03Outcomes are visible only retrospectively
- 04Consistent process improves decision discipline
How to run it
- 1
Freeze the original context
Capture what was known, uncertain, and unavailable when the choice was made.
Pro tip Write this before the outcome when possible.
Watch out Do not import hindsight into the evidence set.
- 2
Inspect the inputs
Separate evidence from assumptions, prejudice, bias, opinion, and emotional preference.
- 3
Rate the reasoning
Assess whether the process used the available information coherently and considered credible alternatives.
Pro tip Review execution separately.
Watch out A favourable result must not automatically earn a high score.
- 4
Use the outcome as feedback
Compare what happened with the assumptions and identify what the result genuinely teaches.
Watch out One result may not distinguish skill from variance.
- 5
Update the process
Change the evidence standard, questions, or bias checks used in the next comparable decision.
Pro tip Make the revision observable.
In the wild
Qureshi describes leadership teams that made poor decisions but received good outcomes because markets or competitors moved in their favour. A process review would assess what they knew and how they reasoned before crediting the result to skill.
→ The team avoids institutionalising a weak method merely because it worked once.
Common mistakes
Scoring only the result
This rewards lucky errors and punishes well-reasoned choices that encountered adverse variance.
Ignoring execution
A sound decision can still be undermined by poor implementation, which needs its own review.
Is it for you?
Best for
It is best for repeated decisions made under uncertainty where outcomes can mislead learning.
Not ideal for
It is not ideal as an excuse to ignore repeated poor outcomes or avoid accountability for execution.
From the transcript
“it's really important for us to not judge our decision making by our outcomes”
“we need to go back to how we made a decision”
From the episode
World Leading Psychologist: How to Succeed in Life & Work - Jamil Qureshi