Since military leaders make decisions affecting the fates of nations and millions of lives, one would like to think their decision-making skills are as carefully honed as their combat skills. So I was gratified to find plenty of reassuring evidence among the leaders of the Norwegian Resistance in the excellent book by Neal Bascomb called The Winter Fortress.

Bascomb’s book provides several examples of consistently excellent decision making. Whether this was the result of specific training, excellent role models, or natural clarity, I will never know. However, the contrast between their uncommon methods and the way most people approach decisions is like night and day.

Decision Making by Shrewd Leaders

Establishing Objectives

For the Norwegian Resistance and their allies in Britain that are featured in this book, the objectives were perfectly clear: stop the Germans from obtaining heavy water and do it with a minimum loss of lives to both Norwegians and Germans. While the occupying forces deserved little protection or sympathy, the British and, most of all, the Norwegian leaders knew that harming Germans led to painful, if not fatal, retaliation against many innocent Norwegians. I give them an A+ for clarity of objectives!

Finding Alternatives

These leaders planned their initiatives by developing a wide range of alternatives, some of which seemed totally ridiculous. This is smart because sometimes “crazy” alternatives turn out to be the best alternative. Furthermore, crazy ideas often lead to more ideas. When seeking alternatives, it is good to consider lots of ideas. For example, when the Norwegian Resistance planned an assault on the Vemork Hydro Station built into a cliff high above the river, they identified every possible approach. From a massive air assault to a small team of saboteurs. From descending from above to scaling the cliff from below to crossing the heavily guarded suspension bridge. They passed no judgment on any approach until they identified as many alternatives as they could. Only then did they select the best option relative to their goals. For this thorough list of alternatives and careful assessment against the objectives, they earn another A+.

Assessing Risks

Only after picking the best alternative did they consider the risks involved. What’s important here is that they did this last. The best alternative relative to objectives can have substantial risks. The existence of risks does not mean you toss out the alternative. You want your best option to succeed. However, you need to examine the risks with the intention of eliminating them, minimizing their impact, or consciously deciding you can live with the consequences. The Norwegian Resistance leaders get another A+ for their thoroughness, resourcefulness, and ability to make tough decisions.

When the Norwegian Resistance decided to approach Vemork Hydro Station by sending a small team of saboteurs up the cliff, an idea that seemed preposterous, they chose it because it best met their objectives. It posed huge risks to the saboteurs and to the success of the mission itself, but every other option endangered civilians and German troops who would take out their anger ten-fold on innocent Norwegians resulting in horrific torture and additional fatalities. If they failed, even if these six men lost their lives, the possibility of trying other options would still exist. I won’t spoil the story for you now, and there is no need to. The decision process, not the plight of the saboteurs, is what matters here.

This clear, disciplined decision-making method matches the one I extol and there are multiple examples of its use throughout the book. They get Straight As from me!

Decision Making by Most Everyone Else

Establishing Objectives

To compare this approach to the most common approach, I’ll use a typical example of a decision that just occurred. I was asked to provide a keynote at a prestigious business school in Massachusetts. They were excited to talk to me. I was willing and I requested a video recording of the session in lieu of a portion of my fee. In the end, my contact told me the committee couldn’t get past the video and that she was very disappointed. Let’s look at what this outcome says about their decision process.

Had the business school followed the process used repeatedly by the Norwegian Resistance leaders, their first step would have been to establish their objectives. Presumably, this means they would have decided what impact they hoped to achieve with the keynote address. Did they want to shake people up? Get them thinking in new ways? Inspire them with immediately applicable and concrete techniques they would be excited to apply? In short, what did they hope would be different when the keynote ended?

Is this how they started their decision process? I doubt it. Had they done so, the evidence should have been obvious. At some point, they would have told me either that I seemed to be an excellent fit or someone else seemed a better fit. I heard neither.

What they most likely did is what most people do: skip the objectives and dive into a debate of the alternatives. This is a huge mistake because if you can’t agree on objectives, you will never agree on an alternative. My contact’s disappointment with the committee’s decision supports this conclusion. They never reached consensus, thus they probably never agreed on desired outcomes.

Finding Alternatives

The next step would be to generate a list of alternatives. This is the one step in the decision-making process people never skip. I know the business school had several possible speakers. Did they consider enough alternatives to maximize the likelihood of shaking people up, changing perceptions, and energizing them with new techniques, including ideas as ridiculous as sending saboteurs up a cliff? I don’t know. I wasn’t in the room. If they were typical, they considered a handful of handy choices and personal favorites.

Assessing Risks

Now suppose they had decided I was the best fit. The next step would have been to talk about potential risks and that’s the first time the video should have entered the conversation. This is an important point! If my video request came up sooner, that is evidence of either unclear objectives or the sacrifice of objectives in favor of risks, neither of which is a sign of smart decision making.

As for that video, there are two legitimate concerns that I can think of:

• Some participants might be uncomfortable and less likely to contribute.
• Participants might have to grant permission.

Remember, your objectives are of primary importance and the risks are supposed to be managed. Only when you absolutely can’t mitigate a show-stopper do you sacrifice your top choice. Could they have eliminated, reduced, or lived with these video concerns in exchange for not having to eliminate their first choice speaker? Countless organizations have, but that doesn’t mean they could. That’s not for me to decide. Obviously.

However, had the business school decided they couldn’t live with the video, they would likely have contacted me and explained that they really wanted me to be the speaker (because the video never would have come up otherwise), but would I reconsider my request to record the session or might I have any suggestions for dealing with their video concerns. That’s not what happened. More evidence of a sloppy process.

Though sloppy, their process was not unusual. This is what most people do when making a group decision: they conflate the distinct steps of decision making into one muddled conversation ruled by pros, cons, personality, and gut reactions. They don’t reach agreement on objectives, don’t entertain enough alternatives, don’t manage risks appropriately, and don’t reach a strong consensus around a compelling decision.

For better results, emulate the Norwegian Resistance leaders, not by asking your friends to scale dangerous cliffs, but by being a shrewd decision-maker who follows a disciplined, transparent process that results in better, faster decisions that generate confidence and commitment.

Ann Latham is an expert on strategic clarity and author of The Clarity Papers.

Take The Clarity Quiz! Actually, take them all! Download a free copy of The Clarity Quiz Collection.

This article first appeared on Forbes, March 7th, 2018.