How we make big decisions in our household

This is how we, meaning Robyn and I, make decisions in our household. It’s a technique that I learned from Prof. Maxim Sytch during our intro Management and Organizations class in business school. In his course, we learned about how to make good decisions, even though we humans have cognitive biases. It’s a process.

The key to making good decisions is to think about the criteria we should be using to make the decision, before evaluating the decision itself.

To this day, it’s one of the most foundational and important skills I’ve ever learned. Ray Dalio, founder of Bridgewater Capital, talks about this concept a lot too.

Lately, I have been thinking about how we make voting decisions (we generally make them poorly), and I will dig into that later - without advocating for a particular candidate. But before that, let’s talk about buying a house to setup the concept.

How we bought a house

To buy a house could’ve seen a bunch of houses and made a pro and con list with the ones we liked. The problem with that approach is that not all pros and cons are equally important. And when you make a list of pros and cons, it’s hard not to think of each factor as being equivalent.

If we hadn’t thought about which factors mattered most, in advance, we would’ve been susceptible to getting hustled by someone trying to sell their house on the factors they wanted to emphasize, rather than the ones we cared most about.

More concretely, this scorecard is we used to make our decision:

This logic is fairly simple. We created a list - in advance - of all the factors of the house we wanted to score against (not all are displayed here). As we attended showings of each house, we scored each house on a simple scale of 0 to 3.

Deciding the scoring criteria in advance was helpful, because important things like “commute”, “proximity to greenspace”, and “neighbors” were not obvious to us as important considerations until we started making a list.

You can’t see this directly from the image, but there’s a very simple weighting to create the weighted average. The average of all the house features (like bathroom power outlets, move-in ready, etc.) are weighted at 50%. Then our very subjective criteria of “feels like home” (which was a feeling of coziness, and being able to imagine raising a family there) was 50%.

This is not a perfect scorecard. In fact, in retrospect it’s quite flawed because the weighting is not specific or particularly robust.

But notice this: check out the scoring of houses D and E. If we looked only at the average of house features, house E was a better choice. When we included the “feels like home” weighting, house D was a better choice. And guess what we ended up picking - house D. If not for this scorecard, we might’ve ended up in the wrong house!

Either way, house E would’ve been a lovely place to live, but we often think how lucky we are to have landed where we did. The scorecard prevented us from making a lesser choice, based on the factors that mattered to us.

Job Hunting

The most recent time I used this decision-making approach (and actually wrote out a scorecard) was when I was job hunting. Here’s the scorecard I used then:

You can see that this scorecard is a little more robust. Every factor is individually weighted. I started by scoring my current job, and then all other alternatives. And, thank goodness I listed out a set of weighted criteria because:

• There was a time I was thinking about taking over my family’s small business. It was really attractive because it was lucrative and I could be an entrepreneur. But when I scored it, it became obvious that I would never be able to see my family because I’d have to commute 1.25 hours every day. The scorecard prevented me from making a switch for the wrong reasons.

• During my job search, I found a really cool job that I had a good shot at. But when I scored it, even though it sounded great and was pretty high status, it was a bad fit because of skill set. When I became really honest with myself (Robyn helped me do that) I walked away from the final round interview. The scorecard prevented me from making a switch out of desperation and because my ego really wanted a flashy title.

• You can see some greyed out factors. Those were factors I had from previous job searches. By being specific about factors, I realized that my life had changed and that some factors didn’t apply anymore. It was okay to use new criteria for a new situation! This realization was huge.

The moral of these two stories is simple - thinking about the factors to consider and putting a weight on them in advance was a way to make a less-biased decision. In our house decision or my job search, we could’ve talked ourselves into anything - so much played into our biases, egos, and the expectations of others we felt we had to live up to. Making the scorecard thoughtfully in advance helped us keep our heads right when the pressure was on.

The Lesson

Robyn and I now have repeated this process over and over, every time we make an important decision. We don’t start with the decision. We start with asking ourselves, “what are the criteria we should use when making this decision? What are the most important criteria?”. We learned that this was a way that made it much more likely that we’d make a good decision.

We used this approach when deciding when we would send our kids back to day care (or not). We used this approach when deciding how to negotiate interpersonal conflict with family and friends. The decision, we learned, is all in the criteria and the weightings. Once we debate those, we quickly figure out what data we still need to make a decision. Once we plug those data gaps, and put them into our decision scorecard, the decision becomes very easy.

And now that we’ve put this approach of really debating criteria into regular practice, it’s easier to apply the approach, on the fly, for littler decisions.

In fact, if you want to give this approach a test run, here’s something to try. The next time you’re choosing a basic item while grocery shopping (like soup, salad dressing, or pasta sauce) try to lay out some criteria and weights. It will feel oddly challenging, but the results of your reflection may surprise you.

The Lesson for Voting

As I said at the top, I’ve been thinking a lot about this for voting. The most important parts of this post are already covered, so if you’re not interested in hearing about how this applies to voting, please stop now. Thank you for reading this far, if you have done so.

—

It seems to me that for the vast majority of my life I debated the pros and cons, and perhaps policy stances, when deciding who to vote for. Which as we saw above, is not a great decision making process because it’s pretty easy to fall into my own biases. This election, I tried something different. Let’s take the presidential race for example.

I knew that I would be biased for/against certain candidates. So I forced myself to think about the criteria to vote for President in advance. I didn’t do a formal scoring on a piece of paper, but here’s a representation of my rough model (without weights):

• Executive / Managerial Skill - will they be able to effectively run the executive branch?

  • Can they pick a competent team to fill appointments?

  • Are they able to hold other managers accountable for results?

  • Are they able to cast a clear vision for the organization?

  • Do they seem to understand operations, metrics, scorecards, and other managerial systems?

  • Do they even care about their role as the chief executive of a workforce with hundreds of thousands of people?

• Political Skill - will they be able to form coalitions with the Congress, the States, industry, interest groups, and other nations to solve important problems?

  • Are they able to build rapport with stakeholders and constituents?

  • Do they understand how to use public politics, the press, and the bully pulpit effectively?

  • Do they understand public opinion and how to navigate it?

  • Do they have a demonstrated past of forming effective coalitions?

• Character and Integrity - are they fit to wield tremendous amounts of power?

  • Are they going to follow the law? (e.g., others won’t abide by the law if the President doesn’t)

  • Do they embody the virtues and culture I hope for the whole country to have?

  • Will they do the right thing, even when it’s difficult or not convenient? Do they have the courage do what’s right, even if it means being unpopular?

  • Do they admit when they are wrong, adjust, adapt, move on, and do better next time?

  • Are they able to have good judgement during a crisis?

• Intent - assuming they are able to accomplish results ethically, would they move the country in a direction that I agree with?

  • Do they prioritize effective government?

  • Do they prioritize government integrity?

  • Do they prioritize long-term problems like infrastructure, climate, R&D, and budget?

  • Do they see the world through the lens of freedom, welfare, and American families thriving?

I thought about what my scorecard of criteria was for weeks. I honestly considered both candidates (I hope). And I came to a decision. And, I had a much different set of criteria for other races, because the criteria I would use to evaluate a Senator, a Judge, a University Regent, or a Prosecutor is much different than what I would use for the presidency.

I don’t say all this to try to convince anyone to vote for a certain candidate for any office (I would happily do that in person, and if you know me, you’ve probably voted already anyway so I’ve missed my opportunity even if that’s what I wanted to do).

What I would suggest though is that the lesson of buying a house and job hunting applies to voting. What we should be debating is not individual choices (and getting into nasty fights about those candidates), we might do better by debating what the right criteria are. What I would hope is that you challenge my criteria of factors as being correct or bogus, and submit your own criteria to the same scrutiny.

That’s the kind of debate I want to seed. It’s what I think would move us out of pettiness and polarization. Actual candidates matter, but maybe it would advance the conversation more if we put individual candidates aside for a minute and talked about our scorecards - and then tried to thoughtfully learn from and persuade each other about what we think the correct criteria should be.

Talking about decision criteria has completely transformed how Robyn and I make decisions in our marriage and for our family, I suspect that it could have similarly transformative effects in our civic lives.