- Some decisions can be reversed easily (two-way door decisions) while others are irreversible and require careful consideration (one-way door decisions)
- One-way door decisions should be analyzed thoroughly and elevated to senior executives for review
- Two-way door decisions can be made by individuals or small teams within the organization
- Disagree and commit is a principle that allows for decision-making even when there is disagreement, with the understanding that the decision can be revisited if necessary
- Compromise and a war of attrition are not effective resolution mechanisms, as they do not lead to truth-seeking
- Escalation to higher-level decision-makers is preferred over a prolonged disagreement
- Quick and decisive decision-making is important for increasing velocity and maintaining a fast-paced culture within an organization.

Lex Fridman Podcast full episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcWqzZ3I2cY
Please support this podcast by checking out our sponsors:
- Notion: https://notion.com
- Policygenius: https://www.policygenius.com/
- MasterClass: https://masterclass.com/lexpod to get 15% off
- Eight Sleep: https://www.eightsleep.com/lex to get special savings
- InsideTracker: https://insidetracker.com/lex to get 20% off

GUEST BIO:
Jeff Bezos is the founder of Amazon and Blue Origin.

PODCAST INFO:
Podcast website: https://lexfridman.com/podcast
Apple Podcasts: https://apple.co/2lwqZIr
Spotify: https://spoti.fi/2nEwCF8
RSS: https://lexfridman.com/feed/podcast/
Full episodes playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrAXtmErZgOdP_8GztsuKi9nrraNbKKp4
Clips playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrAXtmErZgOeciFP3CBCIEElOJeitOr41

SOCIAL:
- Twitter: https://twitter.com/lexfridman
- LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lexfridman
- Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/lexfridman
- Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lexfridman
- Medium: https://medium.com/@lexfridman
- Reddit: https://reddit.com/r/lexfridman
- Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/lexfridman

If you make the wrong decision, if it's a two-way door decision, you walk out the door, you pick a door, you walk out, and you spend a little time there, it turns out to be the wrong decision, you can come back in and pick another door.

Some decisions are so consequential and so important and so hard to reverse that they really are one-way door decisions.

You go in that door, you're not coming back.

And those decisions have to be made very deliberately, very carefully.

If you can think of yet another way to analyze the decision, you should slow down and do that.

So, you know, when I was CEO of Amazon, I often found myself in the position of being the chief slowdown officer, because somebody would be bringing me a one-way door decision.

And I would say, okay, I can think of 3 more ways to analyze that, so let's go do that.

Because we are not gonna be able to reverse this 1 easily.

Maybe you can reverse it, but it's gonna be very costly and very time consuming, we really have to get this 1 right from the beginning.

And what happens unfortunately in companies, what can happen is that you have a 1 size fits all decision-making process where you end up using the heavyweight process on all decisions.

Including the lightweight ones, the two-way door decisions.

Two-way door decisions should mostly be made by single individuals or by very small teams deep in the organization.

And one-way door decisions are the ones that are, the irreversible ones, those are the ones that should be elevated up to, you know, the senior most executives who should slow them down and make sure that the right thing is being done.

Yeah, I mean part of the skill here is to know the difference between 1 way and 2 way.

I think you mentioned Amazon Prime, the decision to sort of create Amazon Prime as a one-way door.

I mean, it's unclear if it is or not, but it probably is, and it's a really big risk to go there.

There are a bunch of decisions like that that are, you know, changing the decision is gonna be very, very complicated.

Some of them are technical decisions too, because some technical decisions are like quick drying cement.

You know, if you're going to, once you make them, it gets really hard.

I mean, you know, choosing which propellants to use in a vehicle, you know, selecting LNG for the booster stage and selecting hydrogen for the upper stage, that has turned out to be a very good decision.

But if you change your mind, that would be a very big setback.

So that's the kind of decision you scrutinize very, very carefully.

Most decisions should be made by single individuals, but they need, and done quickly, in the full understanding that you can always change your mind.

Yeah, 1 of the things I really liked, perhaps it's not a two-way door decision, is I disagree and commit phrase.

So don't, so somebody brings up an idea to you, if it's a two-way door, you state that you don't understand enough to agree, but you still back them.

Yeah, disagree and commit is a really important principle that saves a lot of arguing.

It's very common in any endeavor in life, in business, in anybody where you have teammates.

You have a teammate and the 2 of you disagree.

At some point you have to make a decision.

And, you know, in companies we tend to organize hierarchically so there's this, you know, whoever's the more senior person ultimately gets to make the decision.

So ultimately the CEO gets to make that decision.

And the CEO may not always make the decision that they agree with.

So like, you know, I would often, I would be the 1 who would disagree and commit.

Some, 1 of my direct reports would very much want to do something in a particular way.

They would say, Jeff, I think you're wrong, and here's why.

And I would often say, you know what, I don't think you're right, but I'm gonna gamble with you.

And you're closer to the ground truth than I am.

I don't know that I'm right either, not really, not for sure.

But at least then you've made a decision.

And I'm agreeing to commit to that decision.

So I'm not gonna be second guessing it, I'm not gonna be sniping at it, I'm not gonna be saying I told you so, I'm gonna try actively to help make sure it works.

That's a really important teammate behavior.

There's so many ways that dispute resolution is a really interesting thing on teams, and there are so many ways when 2 people disagree about something, even though I'm assuming the case where everybody's well-intentioned, they just have a very different opinion about what the right decision is.

And we have in our society and inside companies, we have a bunch of mechanisms that we use to resolve these kinds of disputes.

So an example of a really bad way of coming to agreement is compromise.

So compromise, you know, look, here's, we're in a room here and I could say, Lex, how tall do you think this ceiling is?

And you'd be like, I don't know, Jeff, maybe 12 feet tall.

And I would say, I think it's 11 feet tall.

And then we'd say, you know what, let's just call it 11 and a half feet.

Instead of, the right thing to do is to get a tape measure or figure out some way of actually measuring, but think getting that tape measure and figure out how to get it to the top of the ceiling and all these things, that requires energy.

Compromise, the advantage of compromise as a resolution mechanism is that it's low energy.

And so in things like the height of the ceiling where truth is a knowable thing, you shouldn't allow compromise to be used when you can know the truth.

Another really bad resolution mechanism that happens all the time is just who's more stubborn.

This is also, let's say 2 executives who disagree and they just have a war of attrition in which everyone gets exhausted first, capitulates to the other 1.

Again, you haven't arrived at truth, and this is very demoralizing.

So this is where escalation, I try to ask people who are on my team, I say, never get to a point where you are resolving something by who gets exhausted first.

Because that's so de-energizing, and such a terrible, lousy way to make a decision.

Do you wanna get to the resolution as quickly as possible because that ultimately leads to a high velocity of the story?

Yes, and you wanna try to get as close to truth as possible.

So you want, exhausting the other person is not truth seeking.

So it doesn't mean, now, and there are a lot of cases where no 1 knows the real truth and that's where disagree and commit can come in.

But it's, escalation is better than war of attrition.

Escalate to your boss and say, hey, we can't agree on this.

We like each other, we're respectful of each other, but we strongly disagree with each other.

We need you to make a decision here so we can move forward.

But decisiveness, moving forward quickly on decisions, as quickly as you responsibly can, is how you increase velocity.

Most of what slows things down is taking too long to make decisions at all scale levels.

You know, so it has to be part of the culture to get high velocity.

You know, Amazon has a million and a half people and the company is still fast.

And that's because the culture supports that.

At every scale and in a distributed way, try to maximize the velocity of decisions.


Speaker 0: If you make the wrong decision, if it's a two-way door decision, you walk out the door, you pick a door, you walk out, and you spend a little time there, it turns out to be the wrong decision, you can come back in and pick another door. Some decisions are so consequential and so important and so hard to reverse that they really are one-way door decisions. You go in that door, you're not coming back. And those decisions have to be made very deliberately, very carefully. If you can think of yet another way to analyze the decision, you should slow down and do that.

So, you know, when I was CEO of Amazon, I often found myself in the position of being the chief slowdown officer, because somebody would be bringing me a one-way door decision. And I would say, okay, I can think of 3 more ways to analyze that, so let's go do that. Because we are not gonna be able to reverse this 1 easily. Maybe you can reverse it, but it's gonna be very costly and very time consuming, we really have to get this 1 right from the beginning. And what happens unfortunately in companies, what can happen is that you have a 1 size fits all decision-making process where you end up using the heavyweight process on all decisions.

For everything, yeah. Including the lightweight ones, the two-way door decisions. Two-way door decisions should mostly be made by single individuals or by very small teams deep in the organization. And one-way door decisions are the ones that are, the irreversible ones, those are the ones that should be elevated up to, you know, the senior most executives who should slow them down and make sure that the right thing is being done.

Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean part of the skill here is to know the difference between 1 way and 2 way. I think you mentioned Amazon Prime, the decision to sort of create Amazon Prime as a one-way door. I mean, it's unclear if it is or not, but it probably is, and it's a really big risk to go there.

Speaker 0: There are a bunch of decisions like that that are, you know, changing the decision is gonna be very, very complicated. Some of them are technical decisions too, because some technical decisions are like quick drying cement. You know, if you're going to, once you make them, it gets really hard. I mean, you know, choosing which propellants to use in a vehicle, you know, selecting LNG for the booster stage and selecting hydrogen for the upper stage, that has turned out to be a very good decision. But if you change your mind, that would be a very big setback.

Do you see what I'm saying? So that's the kind of decision you scrutinize very, very carefully. Other things just aren't like that. Most decisions are not that way. Most decisions should be made by single individuals, but they need, and done quickly, in the full understanding that you can always change your mind.

Speaker 1: Yeah, 1 of the things I really liked, perhaps it's not a two-way door decision, is I disagree and commit phrase. So don't, so somebody brings up an idea to you, if it's a two-way door, you state that you don't understand enough to agree, but you still back them. I'd love for you to explain that.

Speaker 0: I'm gonna start using that. Yeah, disagree and commit is a really important principle that saves a lot of arguing.

Speaker 1: Yeah.

Speaker 0: So, you know.

Speaker 1: I'm gonna use that in my personal life. I disagree, but commit.

Speaker 0: It's very common in any endeavor in life, in business, in anybody where you have teammates. You have a teammate and the 2 of you disagree. At some point you have to make a decision. And, you know, in companies we tend to organize hierarchically so there's this, you know, whoever's the more senior person ultimately gets to make the decision. So ultimately the CEO gets to make that decision.

And the CEO may not always make the decision that they agree with. So like, you know, I would often, I would be the 1 who would disagree and commit. Some, 1 of my direct reports would very much want to do something in a particular way. I would think it was a bad idea. I would explain my point of view.

They would say, Jeff, I think you're wrong, and here's why. And we would go back and forth. And I would often say, you know what, I don't think you're right, but I'm gonna gamble with you. And you're closer to the ground truth than I am. I've known you for 20 years.

You have great judgment. I don't know that I'm right either, not really, not for sure. All these decisions are complicated. Let's do it your way. But at least then you've made a decision.

And I'm agreeing to commit to that decision. So I'm not gonna be second guessing it, I'm not gonna be sniping at it, I'm not gonna be saying I told you so, I'm gonna try actively to help make sure it works. That's a really important teammate behavior. There's so many ways that dispute resolution is a really interesting thing on teams, and there are so many ways when 2 people disagree about something, even though I'm assuming the case where everybody's well-intentioned, they just have a very different opinion about what the right decision is. And we have in our society and inside companies, we have a bunch of mechanisms that we use to resolve these kinds of disputes.

A lot of them are, I think, really bad. So an example of a really bad way of coming to agreement is compromise. So compromise, you know, look, here's, we're in a room here and I could say, Lex, how tall do you think this ceiling is? And you'd be like, I don't know, Jeff, maybe 12 feet tall. And I would say, I think it's 11 feet tall.

And then we'd say, you know what, let's just call it 11 and a half feet. That's compromise. Instead of, the right thing to do is to get a tape measure or figure out some way of actually measuring, but think getting that tape measure and figure out how to get it to the top of the ceiling and all these things, that requires energy. Compromise, the advantage of compromise as a resolution mechanism is that it's low energy. But it doesn't lead to truth.

And so in things like the height of the ceiling where truth is a knowable thing, you shouldn't allow compromise to be used when you can know the truth. Another really bad resolution mechanism that happens all the time is just who's more stubborn. This is also, let's say 2 executives who disagree and they just have a war of attrition in which everyone gets exhausted first, capitulates to the other 1. Again, you haven't arrived at truth, and this is very demoralizing. So this is where escalation, I try to ask people who are on my team, I say, never get to a point where you are resolving something by who gets exhausted first.

Escalate that. I'll help you make the decision. Because that's so de-energizing, and such a terrible, lousy way to make a decision.

Speaker 1: Do you wanna get to the resolution as quickly as possible because that ultimately leads to a high velocity of the story?

Speaker 0: Yes, and you wanna try to get as close to truth as possible. So you want, exhausting the other person is not truth seeking. And compromise is not truth seeking. So it doesn't mean, now, and there are a lot of cases where no 1 knows the real truth and that's where disagree and commit can come in. But it's, escalation is better than war of attrition.

Escalate to your boss and say, hey, we can't agree on this. We like each other, we're respectful of each other, but we strongly disagree with each other. We need you to make a decision here so we can move forward. But decisiveness, moving forward quickly on decisions, as quickly as you responsibly can, is how you increase velocity. Most of what slows things down is taking too long to make decisions at all scale levels.

You know, so it has to be part of the culture to get high velocity. You know, Amazon has a million and a half people and the company is still fast. We're still decisive, we're still quick. And that's because the culture supports that.

Speaker 1: At every scale and in a distributed way, try to maximize the velocity of decisions.

Speaker 0: Exactly. You You

See all Lex Clips transcripts on Youtube

Jeff Bezos on how to make decisions | Lex Fridman Podcast Clips