It was exactly one day after my company was officially acquired by one of our competitors. I'm sitting in a conference room where everyone else is at least two grade levels above me. The discussion: how to integrate all customer-facing resources across the organization without disrupting customers. Every sales rep gets a job offer for a specific territory. Time to decide and begin executing: less than 60 days.

No big deal.

But I don't remember much of that conversation. What I won't forget is what the senior leader said when he pulled me aside in the hallway afterward.

"Tell people we're building something new and better."

Great sound bite. But what it really gave me was the signal — he would back my move. Permission to stop managing political risk and just focus on the best possible outcome.

Whose territory design, Company A or B?
Neither. This new one balances workload and opportunity better.

Whose sales methodology, Company A or B?
Neither. This one is more consistent with our commercial strategy.

No more politics. Just sound decision-making.

Most stalled decisions aren't waiting on data. They're waiting on courage. And the reason courage is so hard to summon isn't weakness — it's wiring. Psychologists call it Omission Bias: we judge a bad move far more harshly than we judge doing nothing, even when the outcome is exactly the same.

Omission Bias is why your team keeps choosing the status quo — even when everyone knows it's wrong.

Omission Bias & The Outcome Shift

You have to shift the conversation from "options" to "outcomes." That's the move. Everything else follows from it.

Options debates are the status quo's home court. Every new move gets compared to where you are now — and where you are now always looks safer because it doesn't come with a visible price tag. You're not choosing between options. You're choosing between the known and the unknown, and the unknown always loses that fight.

Outcomes debates change the court. Now the status quo has to justify itself too. Staying put isn't neutral anymore — it's a decision with consequences you've named out loud. That's the shift. That's what moves people.

Options sound like "should we launch this product"
Outcomes sound like "we're selling a wider range of products, which divides our attention but creates paths to more revenue"

Options feel like tradeoffs. (negative framing)
Outcomes feel like direction. (positive framing)

Loss aversion and omission bias will kill the conversation fast if you let them dominate it. The moment your team is debating options, you've already lost the frame.

In that conference room, one day into a merger, the signal from above gave me permission to anchor every discussion to outcomes, not politics. That's what freed us to move. Most leaders don't have a senior sponsor handing them that permission. Which means you have to create it yourself — by changing the frame before anyone else does.

The frame is "which outcome do we most want, and which path gets us there?"

👥 If you lead a team:

Your role is twofold. First, be explicit about which options are on the table and which aren't — ambiguity feeds omission bias. Second, force the outcome frame early. Ask: "Which future is more attractive" or "What else will be true if this works?" and "What does it cost us if we stay here for 12 more months?" Stay consistent. The team will follow the frame you hold.

⚡ If you’re running solo:

When I challenge myself to think about outcomes, the framing that most often breaks me out of the status quo is the “what would future Andy want me to do?” And future Andy always wants current Andy to grow. The "future Andy" frame is just one version of an outcome frame. It activates questions about who I most aspire to be and which option moves me furthest on that path.

✝️ If you’re navigating this with faith:

In the Parable of the Talents, the servant who was judged most harshly wasn't one who made a risky investment and lost; it was the one who did nothing out of fear. He chose the status quo to protect himself from the blame of a "bad move," not realizing that burying the talent was itself a harmful action. I can't imagine or more clear example of the cost of letting Omission Bias win.

A Note to Mid-Level Leaders:

Mid-level leaders, your situation isn’t fair. It wasn’t designed to be.

The organizational incentives are completely out of whack. Those at the top can play it safe and outlast everyone, or take big swings with big payoffs. Your team has little or nothing to gain — and more to fear. You’re caught in the middle, trying to move people who are wired to stay put, with limited air cover from above.

To move them, you have to stop the “options” debate and force an Outcomes Audit:

• Step 1: Assign the “Cost of Inaction” (COI): Ask the team to quantify what we lose (revenue, hours, morale) if we stay exactly here for 12 more months.
• Step 2: Kill the “One-Way Door” Myth: Ensure that they see the pivot as a Type 2 decision (reversible if it fails). If feasible, label the status quo as a Type 1 decision (dangerous to stay).
• Step 3: Establish Ownership via DACI: Ensure there is one “Approver” for the new outcome. When ownership is diffuse, Omission Bias wins. When one person owns the outcome, action becomes the only way to protect their reputation.

Two years after that acquisition, the same senior leader took an even bigger swing — and the board stepped in to stop it. The options changed overnight. I was suddenly in a politically unsafe position.

That’s the life of a mid-level leader.
But this kind of audit is still your best bet. Why?

It shows you identified the decisions most aligned to the current strategy.
It shows you’re a leader whose team will follow them when it’s hard.
And it puts your name on something worth protecting.

The leader who stops defending the status quo and starts owning outcomes becomes someone their team will follow into hard moves. That's not a management technique. That's who you become when you decide to stop waiting.

The decision in front of you isn't just a decision. It's a signal — to your team, to your organization, and to yourself — about the kind of leader you're building toward.

✅ Action Step This Week

Take the decision your team has been “discussing” for more than two weeks. Draw two columns: “Outcome of Pivot” vs. “Outcome of Staying the Same”. Explicitly list the immediate cost of staying (e.g., lost opportunity, team burnout). If the status quo doesn’t have a price tag, you’ll never leave it.

Then once you’ve been transparent about that, move the discussion to outcomes.

Remember you’re selecting the option that gives you the best chance of the outcomes you want. The outcomes are what you’re choosing. The options are just the paths to get there.

Know another mid-level leader tired of getting squished between the floors? Please forward this to them and encourage them to subscribe.

I've been in that conference room. I've felt the weight of a room full of people waiting for someone to move first. It's heavy. But it lifts the moment you shift the frame.

May this week’s decisions find you anchored, wise, and courageously faithful.

Andy

1445 Woodmont Lane NW #713, Atlanta, GA 30318
​Unsubscribe · Preferences​