Decision Evaluation: Process Over Outcome
Evaluate a decision using the information, alternatives, and reasoning available at the time. Record that reasoning so later outcomes can help you improve the process without letting hindsight turn every success into proof of skill or every failure into proof of a bad choice.
THE IDEA
Evaluate the process
A decision can be reasonable and still end badly. It can also succeed for reasons the decision-maker did not anticipate. To learn from either result, examine what you knew, how you assessed the alternatives, and why you expected the chosen action to work.
Parrish describes a firm whose decision-makers obtained the expected result for their anticipated reasons only about 20% of the time. The anecdote raises a question that a favorable result alone cannot answer: did the reasoning identify what actually mattered?
Pete Carroll’s pass call in Super Bowl XLIX illustrates the distinction. The pass was intercepted. Carroll called it the “worst result of a call ever,” but defended the reasoning behind it. Parrish uses the play to show why an unfavorable outcome does not, by itself, establish a bad decision. Assessing the call still requires examining its alternatives and risks.
The same distinction applies to a career choice. You might choose a Fortune 500 company over a startup because you need stability at that stage of life. The startup’s later success or failure does not change the information available when you chose. Its outcome can still teach you something about the assumptions you made.
| Process and outcome | What to examine |
|---|---|
| Good process, good outcome | Which expectations were borne out, and what part did chance play? |
| Good process, bad outcome | Was this an anticipated risk, or does the result expose a missing assumption? |
| Weak process, good outcome | What succeeded despite the weaknesses in the reasoning? |
| Weak process, bad outcome | Which weaknesses can be corrected before another decision? |
Resulting is the tendency to judge a decision’s quality by its outcome alone. The matrix helps separate the two without treating outcomes as irrelevant evidence.
Make the reasoning visible
Memory is a poor substitute for a record made at the time. Write down the options, assumptions, expected results, uncertainties, and reasons for choosing. Later, ask “What did I know then?” and “Did things happen for the reasons I expected?”
Writing can expose gaps before you act. It also lets other people question the reasoning and makes later review more specific. A shared decision log gives a team material for comparing expectations with results across many decisions, rather than drawing a verdict from a single win or loss.
When to use it
A manager reviews the information and reasoning behind team decisions, then compares predicted and actual outcomes to identify changes worth making.
An investor keeps a written log of factors, assumptions, and expected scenarios before each trade, then reviews it quarterly to refine strategy.
A student debriefs exam results by analyzing study methods and test-taking strategies rather than just the grade, distinguishing between knowledge gaps and bad luck on certain questions.
A project team conducts a post-mortem that focuses on the decision-making process at the time, asking 'What information was known then?' instead of judging by the final outcome.
FROM THEORY TO EVERYDAY LIFE
In practice
The Overconfident Firm
A consulting engagement revealed that the client's decision-makers expected a particular result, but that result happened for the reasons they thought it would only about 20% of the time. Most successes were luck, yet they attributed them to skill—a classic self-serving bias.
Super Bowl XLIX Play Call
Pete Carroll chose a pass near the goal line in Super Bowl XLIX, and it was intercepted. He defended his reasoning despite the result. Parrish uses the example to argue that evaluating the call requires examining the available choices, rather than treating the interception as sufficient proof of a mistake.
Career Decision Thought Experiment
You choose a Fortune 500 job over a startup based on stability and life stage. The startup then either thrives (your friend gets raises) or folds. The outcome does not retroactively change whether your decision was good or bad—only the reasoning you used at the time matters.
Roulette Analogy
Winning at roulette and attributing it to a 'system' is a mistake. A good outcome from a bad process is luck, not skill. Over time, such luck is not repeatable and will lead to losses.
A MOMENT TO REFLECT
Put it to work.
Think of a recent decision with a good outcome. Did the outcome result from your skill, or was luck involved? How can you tell?
Reflect on a decision that had a bad outcome. What was your decision-making process at the time? If you had kept a written record, what might you have learned?
How can you integrate a decision journal into your personal or professional routine to separate skill from luck and improve over time?
Often confused with
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION
Source texts
- Clear Thinking Turning Ordinary Moments into Extraordinary Results (Shane Parrish)