So it seems that some companies pay more importance to making the “right” decision than executing the better follow-through. I suspect more often than not, you can make a “wrong” decision “right” in its follow-through. Doing so, along with setting up few arbitrary constraints, lessens the often debilitating and sometimes paralyzing effects of decision-making in an over-abundance of choices, no matter how much you break the process down. And it increases the chances of a “command presence”. Also, it opens up the possibility of more than one decision being right (or wrong, but don’t think about that too much because you’d never know until later anyway), especially since information relevant to decision-making is almost always trickling in. Quite unlike in the STEM academia where often all relevant information can be known via some analytical processes and the “correctness” of decision-making therefore mostly rests on how you apply those processes and put their results together, in actuality you can often never fully know all that is relevant. Therefore, you have to act on incomplete imprecise implicit data points and shifting goal posts or evolving requirements. But by making the follow-through important, you end up taking more shots. And while that decreases your batting average, it increases the probability of more home runs.
Updated: Aug 2011
* The Problem with Perfection