This book rests on three premises:

The objective of this book has been to identify and describe ways and techniques that stimulate you to learn for yourself how to become a master decision maker and how to reach clarity on difficult strategic decisions.

My approach combines traditional, rational ways that we usually use in making decisions with innovative mind-focusing techniques that enable you to access more brainpower than you normally do. The intent is to replicate an effect experienced by a person in a clarity moment—when things fall into place and a path of action becomes clear in an instant.

This book presents a practical technique—Clarity State Decision-Making—that can be used by decision makers in small and large organizations alike to make difficult decisions.

Appendix A, “Clarity State Decision-Making Techinque—A Summary,” summarizes all the major processes of this technique. I am providing it in response to many requests from decision makers I've worked with. They wanted to have a brief summary of the technique to carry around with them after reading the book. You can use it whenever you are working on a particular decision or strategy and you find yourself at the airport or some other place where you have downtime. With the summary, you can use your time productively, structuring your decision and contemplating it.

The following example traces the Clarity State Decision-Making technique from beginning to end—from when I arrived in Mitch's office to discuss his decision to the minute he made it, less than an hour later.

When I arrived at his office, Mitch told me about his decision and how he was trying to decide which way to proceed. He would get to his office, sit down, and pull out the folder in which he had been collecting materials related to the decision and go through it again. He and his team did the homework. This folder contained financial projections, pros and cons lists, and a probability tree. He had also received advice from his board members and trusted advisors. However, reviewing the material again did not make the decision any clearer.

He said that he would usually end up thinking about people with whom he could discuss this issue. The problem was that he had been over the situation with most of his advisors several times and knew what they would tell him. There was practically nobody else he could turn to.

Usually, he would sit there for a little longer and then shut the folder with mounting frustration and decide to put “this mess” aside for just a couple hours longer. “It will come to me, I'm sure,” he would think, and then he would get up and throw himself into operational issues that had been waiting for him.

I explained the Clarity State Decision-Making process to Mitch and showed him the software to measure the attainment of the Clarity State. The software was used in meetings such as this one to ensure that the decision maker has reached a certain level of physical, mental, and emotional coherence before decision contemplation. Mitch had no problem reaching the Clarity State quickly, because he normally practices relaxation techniques, so he found the process similar to what he regularly uses. We then started working on Part II of the technique—decision definition. I asked Mitch to state how he defines his decision and name an objective and constraints. The following is Mitch's initial decision definition.

In our discussion, Mitch shared his concerns. This decision had profound implications for the company's future. It felt to Mitch like a “betting the company” type of decision. Mitch believed that their cash position was not strong. If he selected a strategy that was unsuccessful, they would need to raise additional money. His major worry, however, was the aftermath of the product introduction. He was certain that the competition would introduce products of the same kind, and rather quickly. His other product lines would be weakened. “Maybe we should just forget about this product and focus on our main product lines,” he said, sharing his doubts with me.

After listening to Mitch's concerns, it was not surprising to me that Mitch considered this decision difficult. We discussed the fact that these concerns have to be reflected in the decision definition—the idea that Mitch embraced. He also agreed that, more importantly, if he did not address these concerns in the eventual solution, they could serve as barriers to a successful implementation.

We worked through the steps of Part II—defining a decision. He made major changes to his initial definition. He realized that higher growth (his initial Constraint 1) is the main objective behind this introduction.

He also added two concerns as constraints to the decision map in addition to the initial subobjective that was represented by Constraint 2—minimize risk of other products' cannibalization. In summary, he had two major concerns—the company's weak cash position, and the fear that competition could quickly introduce a similar product, even though Mitch's company had patented the product. In accordance with the process of clarifying constraints, he reworded concerns into positive, constructive subobjectives, changing “a weak cash position” into “satisfy financial parameters”and “a fear of a similar competitive product introduction” into “Be first to market and maintain product differentiation.”

After adding four solution options, Mitch finalized his decision map, as shown in Figure 13-1.

Figure 13-1. Mitch's First Decision Map

Mitch was definitely emotional about his decision. And understandably so, because he felt that he was making a “bet the company” type of decision. We started working on Part III of the process—dealing with emotions. The following is Mitch's feedback after this exercise in the Clarity State.

Mitch added a fourth constraint to his decision definition to address his fear about the product performance: “See results within three months.” He reasoned that if the product did not show signs of being successful, they could stop the investment and pull it back from the market. His updated decision map is shown in Figure 13-2.

Figure 13-2. Mitch's Updated Decision Map

Mitch shared with me that he was feeling much better about the decision and was confident that the company should proceed with an introduction. At what time, how, and at what price were still unclear.

We proceeded with Part IV of the technique—achieving clarity of perspective. The following is Mitch's feedback about this part of this process.

During this simple exercise, Mitch shifted his perspective on the decision three times. He had three insights that changed how he was thinking about the decision. Clearing out a perceived constraint will enable Mitch to have more financial flexibility. He found a way to get additional revenue from existing products—an action that was prevented by a frame that had been based on the company's history. And finally, he found a way to deal with competition by leveraging other innovations within the company that he and his team never considered in the context of this product.

The request to identify the crux of the issue introduced another perspective.

Working with another technique of Part IV, expanding his view of the decision, Mitch found yet another perspective.

At this point of the process, Mitch shared with me that he was becoming clearer on the overall situation and was almost certain what he had to do. We proceeded with the Part V technique of evaluating solution alternatives.

In summary, at the end of this evaluation process, Mitch left “retail option” (Option 2) and “distribution option” (Option 3) as viable options. Option 3 required more refinement to make it workable. The deal with the distribution partner would need to be revised, and other partners would need to be identified and signed up. Option 2 was viable, but the price level was still not clear to Mitch.

Mitch and I looked at the financial projections that were created by his team assuming different levels of product pricing. I observed that Mitch paid closer attention to the scenarios with higher product pricing—the ones that assumed the product pricing was over $150. One part remained in the Clarity State Decision-Making process—finding the best solution alignment—and we decided to proceed with it.

Mitch had fears, concerns, and awareness of risks associated with a solution option. He probably knew subconsciously that the price level that was required by the market for this product to be successful would have to be low. Through this process, he was able to face his fears and put them aside. This time he got charged with positive momentum behind the strategy, accepting all its risks and being ready to deal with them.

Mitch reached clarity on his decision within an hour. He had been “wrestling” with this decision for the last three months. Two things made it possible: one, being in the Clarity State, and two, contemplating his decision in a way that combines rational and intuitive approaches. This approach combines decision-making best practices, analytical evaluations, imagination, visualization, and intuitive reactions.

This example demonstrates how the process works overall from definition to resolution. Each decision maker experiences it differently.

In looking back on the observations and the flow of the chapters, another quite different aspect of decision-making emerges.

Many of us never question our decision-making style until we are faced with a particularly tough decision with dire consequences. When we stop to look, we rarely find a method. Instead, we usually find a big mess. We discover that sometimes we make random choices or that decisions are made for us by outside circumstances, and we just comply. Sometimes we make decisions by abdicating our power to a set of rules built into some analytical method or by rebelling against what is expected of us. And sometimes we decide because we feel like it or create an unrealistic picture in our mind that we fall in love with. Reaching mastery in decision-making requires being aware of our current methods and having the interest and drive to improve them. In other words, it requires self-discovery and self-discipline. The following elements are important: