A costly crossroads is a decision that keeps being postponed while the business spends money and attention on incompatible directions. Work starts with one central question and ends with a commitment: what we stop, what we start and how we check the result.
When more work does not produce more growth
The founder holds several strategies, niches and scenarios in mind at once. Every idea gets some resources. The team is busy, but no direction receives enough attention to be tested.
I call this “strategy cannibalisation”: a working metaphor for initiatives competing for shared budget and time, not a scientific diagnosis. The leader's question is: which decision will bring the effort into one direction?
To apply this approach to your business, you can Decision Room: preparation, session and report or try a practical workshop: Workshop: document a reasoned decision.
What I mean by Decision Room
A focused 60-minute one-to-one session with advance review of the brief. I examine the founder's view of the business, work through contradictions and document 1–3 decisions or hypotheses for the next 30–90 days with you.
The conversation resembles a small board meeting: an external partner can challenge assumptions that the company has stopped questioning. Authority and responsibility for the decision remain with the leader.
Why this need is recognisable in the market
In executive advisory, there is a need for an external sounding board for difficult management decisions. For example, Vistage combines individual work with executive peer groups. This demonstrates that the service category exists; demand for a specific format and willingness to pay need separate testing.
McKinsey's research on decision-making links decision speed and quality with company performance. It does not mean every choice should be made in an hour. My practical takeaway is to define the decision and implementation conditions in advance.
The third foundation is testable assumptions. Strategyzer recommends making hypotheses precise, distinct and testable. In Decision Room, this means that when evidence is insufficient for a choice, the outcome is a specific test.
The work starts before Zoom
The quality of the brief determines how far we can get. Before the meeting, I therefore ask you to describe:
- The choice: which decision are you postponing, and what does the delay cost?
- The constraint: what do you believe is blocking growth?
- The testing history: what have you tried, observed and concluded?
- The data: revenue, conversions, economics and other relevant information.
Separate observation from explanation. “Conversion fell” is an observation. “We need a different audience” is a hypothesis about the cause. Mixing them embeds the answer in the brief before the decision is examined.
Three lenses: what, for whom and why
What: does the product solve a problem, or has it become a complicated collection of capabilities? For whom: who buys, in what circumstances, and what do they use today? Why: how is economic value created, and does the model fit the leader's objectives?
I use elements of TRIZ to name the contradiction. For example: “We want to scale sales, but every new client requires manual onboarding by the founder.” This directs the search towards the system's constraint.
Not every contradiction can be resolved during the meeting. Naming it clarifies whether to change the process, segment or offer, or gather missing evidence.
From conversation to commitment
We use the first minutes to define the question. Then we check the brief, clarify the desired situation in 12 months and what the leader finds unsatisfactory about it. We compare gaps and alternatives, then record the choice.
My central question: what are you willing to stop doing so the chosen direction gets resources? Without an answer, the new strategy simply joins the old initiatives.
Stopping must account for commitments to clients and the team. Irreversible changes require stronger evidence than a bounded experiment. When risk is high, a sensible outcome is to define what must be learned before deciding.
What a good hypothesis looks like
- The audience, situation and expected behaviour are clear.
- One main assumption is isolated for testing.
- There is a feasible way to gather evidence.
- The team's advantage or available resource is understood.
- An owner, deadline and reconsideration criterion are recorded.
Willingness to pay is tested through buyer behaviour. A leader's confidence or a consultant's opinion cannot replace market evidence.
Illustrative example: B2C or B2B?
A team wants to continue B2C while launching B2B. “Try both” sets no priority. A more useful result is to limit new B2C initiatives for an agreed period, test a specific B2B scenario, assign an owner for negotiations and define the next decision's conditions.
This is a teaching example, not a published client case. Timing, test scope and thresholds depend on economics and the sales cycle.
Why a post-meeting report matters
Clarity quickly fades in daily operations. Within 24–48 hours of Decision Room, I therefore send a 1–2-page report: the main constraint, key observations, 1–3 decisions or hypotheses and a focus for 30–90 days.
A good document lets the team understand the choice and what to do next. It distinguishes levels of confidence: an established fact, a probable cause and an assumption to test.
When to choose another format
If the cause of stagnation is still unclear, start with Rentgen. Interviews, market research, calculations or team implementation are separate project work. Decision Room suits one prepared choice where the leader is ready to decide or commit to a test.
Check your strategic choice
- Which single decision am I postponing?
- Which directions compete for the same resource?
- What is supported by data, and what is an assumption?
- What will I stop doing after the choice?
- Who owns the next step, and what result will trigger reconsideration?
If the answers remain vague, this is a useful starting point for Decision Room. Describe your question and we will discuss whether the format fits.
Discuss my strategic choice