The difference between Kodak and Apple? One knew how to decide.

In the 1970s, Kodak invented the first digital camera. The prototype worked, the potential was obvious, and the engineers were excited. But leadership hesitated.

Should they pursue digital and risk cannibalizing their film business? Should they wait and watch the market? Should they double down on what already made them successful?

For years, Kodak circled the question without committing. By the time they acted, competitors had already defined the digital era. The company that once dominated photography became a cautionary tale of hesitation.

Contrast that with Apple in 1997. When Steve Jobs returned, the company was bloated with dozens of scattered projects. Within weeks, he made the call. Cut nearly all of them and focus on four. That decisive clarity gave Apple a direction, saved it from collapse, and set the stage for one of the greatest corporate turnarounds in history.

The lesson is simple. Possibility is abundant, but progress depends on clear decisions. Without them, momentum leaks away. With them, even a struggling company can be reborn.

Why decision clarity matters

Every organization has ideas. Energy. Possibility. But possibility doesn't move on its own. It waits for a decision.

Decisions are the fulcrum of momentum. They translate potential into action, direction into progress.

Yet in so many organizations, decision-making is where energy dies. Meetings circle. Teams wait. Approval chains stretch. People do the work of the work, but the real bottleneck is the fog around who decides, by what criteria, and by when.

It's not disagreement that kills momentum. Disagreement can be healthy. It's ambiguity that corrodes trust. People can rally around a decision they don't fully agree with, as long as they understand how it was made and why. What they cannot rally around is indecision.

Clarity is not bureaucracy. It's freedom. It gives people the confidence to move, the trust that they're aligned, and the permission to act.

History reinforces this lesson. The failure to act clearly has toppled empires and organizations alike. Think of the Challenger disaster in 1986. Warnings about O-ring risks were raised, but no one clarified who had final authority to stop the launch. The result was tragic. On the other hand, bold clarity can create momentum that reshapes history. When Toyota committed to "just-in-time" production in the 1950s, the decision was explicit, disciplined, and non-negotiable. And it transformed the company into a global leader.

Four practices to build decision clarity

Decision clarity doesn't happen by accident. It has to be designed into the way we work. These four practices can make the difference between stalled momentum and forward movement.

Name who decides

Every project needs a clear owner of decisions. Not a vague "we'll all figure it out," but a named role. Accountability gives shape to action. Without it, everyone assumes someone else is responsible.

I've been in rooms where brilliant people spent hours debating because no one knew who actually got to make the call. It's exhausting for everyone.

Make the criteria explicit

Decisions stall when no one agrees on what matters most. Is speed more important than completeness? Is cost more important than innovation? One leadership team I worked with spent months debating a release until they finally agreed that customer impact outweighed internal convenience. Once the criteria were set, the decision followed quickly.

Turns out, clarity about what you're optimizing for makes the actual decision almost boring.

Set deadlines for decisions

A decision without a timeline is a decision deferred. Even an imperfect choice is better than endless circling. I once saw a team lose six months waiting for the "right moment" to decide. Another team, under similar pressure, simply declared "We will decide by Friday." Their imperfect but timely decision moved them ahead, and they adjusted as they went.

Make the decision visible

Too many decisions dissolve because they're never documented. People walk out of the same meeting with different interpretations. Visibility matters. Write it down. Share it broadly. Revisit it when questions arise. Visibility signals commitment and prevents drift.

I've made this mistake more times than I'd like to admit. You think everyone heard the same thing. They didn't.

Sustaining clarity in the system

Making one clear decision is easy. Sustaining clarity across dozens, hundreds, even thousands of decisions every week is where most organizations stumble. The problem isn't just what gets decided, but how decision-making is designed into the culture.

Here are four levers that help sustain clarity over time.

Create spaces for decisions

In many organizations, decisions are scattered across endless meetings with no clear purpose. People leave unsure whether a choice was made or simply discussed.

Healthy systems have defined spaces. Product councils for prioritization. Design reviews for experience choices. Weekly leadership huddles for resource allocation. When people know where decisions happen, the fog lifts.

Balance inclusion with speed

One of the biggest traps is confusing participation with clarity. Leaders try to include everyone, but end up with decision-by-committee. Others swing the other way, with a single executive decreeing everything and leaving teams disempowered.

Sustained clarity requires balance. Invite input broadly, but make ownership explicit. People can contribute without believing they must all agree.

I've been on both sides of this. Neither feels good when you get it wrong.

Always close the loop

Even when decisions are made, they often fade in silence. Teams assume. Rumors spread. Work drifts. Closing the loop means documenting the choice, sharing it openly, and explaining why it was made. The "why" is crucial. People may not love the outcome, but they'll respect the process if they see the rationale.

Review and adapt

Decision systems can't be static. What works in a 20-person startup collapses in a 2,000-person enterprise. Pathways that made sense last year may create bottlenecks today. Sustainable clarity requires periodic check-ins. Are our decision forums working? Are criteria still valid? Do teams know how to escalate when clarity is missing?

Why sustaining clarity is hard

Most organizations don't fail because they lack decision-making moments. They fail because they lack decision-making infrastructure.

Too many forums. When every meeting is "a place for decisions," none of them are. Energy gets drained in endless conversations that circle but never close.

Invisible ownership. Titles blur. Responsibilities overlap. Everyone assumes someone else is deciding, and momentum slips through the cracks.

Fear of backlash. Leaders hesitate to decide because they fear resistance. In trying to keep peace, they lose progress, creating the very frustration they hoped to avoid.

Shifting language. Even when decisions are made, the way they're communicated is inconsistent. One leader frames it as a "priority," another calls it an "experiment," and teams interpret the same choice in conflicting ways.

Constant reversals. Decisions that feel settled are reopened a week later. The effect is corrosive, not just slowing progress but eroding trust that clarity will stick.

Decision hoarding. Leaders hold onto authority even when decisions could be made closer to the work. What might be resolved in hours instead takes weeks.

The antidote isn't more process, but better design. Sustaining clarity means weaving decision-making into the rhythms of work so it becomes second nature rather than a heroic act.

Consider Toyota's lean system. Every worker on the line knows what decisions they can make instantly, what requires escalation, and how to escalate. That clarity didn't emerge organically. It was designed into the system, reinforced daily, and made visible in practice.

Or take Amundsen's Antarctic expedition. His team didn't just rely on a leader making strong calls in the moment. They created structures, routines, and shared practices that carried clarity across months of brutal conditions. Decisions weren't isolated acts of judgment, but a system embedded in how they prepared, how they traveled, and how they survived.

The lesson is simple but demanding. Clarity can't be left to chance. It must be built into the architecture around possibility.

What to ask yourself

Decision clarity isn't about perfection. It's about momentum.

Where in my team are decisions dragging?

Do people know who decides, by what criteria, and on what timeline?

What rituals or forums could I introduce to make decision-making clearer and faster?

When was the last time I explained why a decision was made, not just what the decision was?

Strong teams don't stall because they lack effort. They stall because the system of decisions isn't clear enough to carry their energy forward.

The payoff

Clarity in decisions doesn't stifle creativity. It enables it. It channels energy where it matters most.

Without it, strong teams burn out circling the same questions. With it, possibility turns into progress.

Decision clarity is the second piece of the architecture around possibility. It's the hinge that turns intent into motion, the difference between ideas that fade and ideas that move.

This is part of my ongoing exploration of The Possibility Principle of Design.

If you want these ideas in your inbox as they develop, subscribe here.