In a recent LinkedIn post, Nick Curum delves into the often-overlooked reasons why meetings and decision-making processes falter, arguing that the true culprits are rarely a lack of analysis but rather issues of clarity, ownership, and pace. Curum challenges the common assumption that more analysis leads to better decisions, suggesting that stalls often occur due to quieter, more fundamental problems.
He highlights a personal experience where a meeting dedicated to a foregone conclusion lasted two hours, resulting in an action list that achieved nothing. “We left with an action list that moved nothing,” Curum writes. “The thinking was not weak. Nobody could say out loud what kind of problem it was, or whose call it finally was.” This anecdote serves as a foundation for his exploration of frameworks designed to address these deeper issues.
Identifying the True Bottlenecks
Curum proposes a set of seven tools, divided into categories that address problem identification, answer testing, and pace/ownership setting. He emphasizes that the real challenge often lies not in the analytical tools themselves, but in the willingness to confront the underlying issues they are designed to uncover.
According to Curum, common frameworks like Cynefin are crucial for distinguishing between merely complicated issues and genuinely complex ones. He also points to bias identification as a tool to uncover hidden motivations, such as defending sunk costs. “Bias identification asks which of you is defending a sunk cost,” he states, underscoring the importance of confronting psychological barriers that can impede progress.
“Cynefin sorts the merely complicated from the genuinely complex.”
Testing Answers and Setting the Pace
Beyond problem identification, Curum discusses tools for testing potential solutions. These include scenario planning, multi-criteria analysis, and fostering a data-driven decision culture. These methods, he suggests, help to rigorously evaluate options before a commitment is made.
However, Curum argues that the most significant hurdles often arise when establishing the speed of decision-making and assigning clear ownership. He introduces the OODA loop for speed and the RAPID framework for accountability. “OODA for speed. RAPID for accountability,” he notes, framing these as essential for ensuring that decisions are not only made but also acted upon effectively.
“Here is the part worth arguing with me about. Rooms reach for the middle three because analysis looks like work. The stall is almost always in the last two.”
The Danger of Analysis Paralysis by Avoidance
Curum issues a strong caution against using analytical tools as a substitute for confronting difficult truths about authority and ownership. He observes that teams often gravitate towards the analytical aspects of decision-making because they appear more tangible and less confrontational than addressing who truly owns the decision or how quickly it needs to be made.
He elaborates on this critical point: “Use multi-criteria analysis when the disagreement is about criteria. Use RAPID when the disagreement is about authority.” Curum warns that attempting to bypass disagreements about authority by focusing solely on analysis is a futile exercise that leads to repeated meetings without progress.
“A room that runs the first to avoid the second will meet again next month, with the same slides.”
Ultimately, Curum’s message is a call to action for leaders to look beyond the surface-level analysis and address the core issues of problem definition, ownership, and urgency. He encourages readers to save his insights for future capital decisions, implying that a more direct approach to these challenges can lead to more effective outcomes.
📝 About This Content
This article is based on insights shared by Nick Curum on LinkedIn.
📅 Originally posted on September 1, 2026 | View original post on LinkedIn →