Separate upsides from downsides, decide on the upside and treat the downside as a veto, then invest heavily in the strongest upsides to cut through complex business decisions.
The core insight is to split any complex decision into its positive and negative outcomes, pick the option with the biggest upside, and only reject choices when a downside is a deal-breaker. This simple framing forces you to focus on what truly moves the needle and prevents endless circular debates.
The article walks through a feature-selection scenario: deciding between building feature X or Y. By listing the upside (unique market position) and the downside (missing feature Y) separately, the decision collapses to a clear choice. Quantifying the upside/downside can further sharpen the verdict, as shown with a $10m loss versus $1m gain example.
A hiring example applies the same logic. For a VP of Marketing, list the candidate's exceptional strengths and their weaknesses. Hire if the strengths solve the most critical business problems and you can mitigate the weaknesses; otherwise, veto the hire. This turns vague preference into a concrete, risk-aware decision.
The piece then argues that you should double-down on strengths rather than merely neutralizing weaknesses. It cites the original iPhone launch, Heroku's focus on deployment, and internal WP Engine experience to show that 10x strengths outweigh fixing marginal flaws.
Finally, it advises limiting the decision to three key dimensions, using frameworks like Binstack or Fermi ROI to formalize the process, and moving quickly once the criteria are set. The goal is a clear, defensible choice without getting stuck in endless debate.
Check out the full stdlib collection for more frameworks, templates, and guides to accelerate your technical leadership journey.