That you cannot run a business without making decisions is a fundamental fact. The problem is that strategic errors caused by making the wrong decision can be disastrous.

Obviously, that is not always the case as minor errors can be seen quickly and easily rectified with lessons learned for the next time – and most of the time small decisions will either be right, not that important, or not even noticed.

But getting a big decision wrong can have a serious negative impact and even put the business at risk.

So how can a business be confident it is making the right decision when indecisiveness creates stagnation and can bring the business to a standstill, while knee-jerk decisions can be reckless and irresponsible? Not to mention that our personal bias means that when we have an opinion of what we should do, or want to do, we nearly always find evidence to support it while discounting, or at least minimising, the evidence against it.

One route to the answer may be the process of tackling the issue head on by weighing up the conflicting evidence and considering the pros and cons of the decision.

As impartially as you are able, why not robustly argue first for a decision and then equally robustly against it? That way you are far more likely to uncover all the issues for consideration rather than simply making the decision for which you are likely to be unconsciously biased.

By working through opposing views, you can simply cut to the chase at the point where the two views agree – making the big decisions easier to make.