Needed, but undertrained
60% of leaders call decision-making and prioritisation critical. Only 39% say they have received training.
Decision practice for leaders. Proof for L&D and exec ed.
Real-company cases that stop at the decision, for one session or a whole course. Leaders commit in writing before the ending; you see how the group reasoned.
10 chapters · 18 methods · 58 cases with outcomes withheld
Leadership programmes are asked to build judgment with tools that mostly count attendance.
Expensive when it fails
61% of managers say at least half of decision time is ineffective—about $250M in annual wages at a typical Fortune 500 company.
Wanted, but unfunded
98% of L&D respondents want to quantify impact. Only 24% of organisations allocate a specific measurement budget.
Sources: DDI Global Leadership Forecast 2025 (10,796 leaders / 2,014 organisations); McKinsey 2019 (1,200+ managers); GP Strategies / Watershed 2025 (n=241).
Most stacks record content and confidence. Decidenda records a decision.
We do not pretend a three-week programme proves business ROI. We produce the missing leading evidence: people made a call, defended it and improved a shared reasoning pattern.
A real attempt
Every learner commits to a private written decision before seeing the outcome, feedback or anyone else’s view.
A transparent review
Feedback is organised around the same five FRAME moves, with the evidence behind it visible to the learner.
A shareable pattern
Whoever runs the programme sees how the group split and how it moved between a first and a final decision. No leaderboard.
Industry baseline: completion and attendance are used on most programmes in 83% of organisations; realistic decision assessment is routinely used by a minority. eLearning Guild / LTEM evaluation survey, 2019.
Launch judgment practice without building a curriculum from scratch.
- 01
Choose a prepared 3-, 6- or 8-week sequence for the capability you need.
- 02
Add the cohort and set one start date—no case writing or weekly assembly.
- 03
Invitations, private practice, reminders and deadlines run in one flow.
- 04
Close with a report that compares the group’s first and final decisions.
Not another content library and not an LMS migration.
decidenda.com · The course in 3 weeks
Introduction and chapters 1–2 · free for a team
The course in 3 weeks
Week 1First decision · Rolls-RoyceWritten alone, before any chapter
Week 2Introduction and chapters 1–2At each person’s pace
Week 3Final decision · KlarnaThe group report opens from five people
Invitations and reminders scheduledPreview participant view
FRAME turns “good judgment” into five observable moves.
The same rubric follows every case. Participants know exactly what to improve; faculty can debrief the reasoning without forcing one “correct” answer.
Focus
Define the decision and its limits.
Relevant evidence
Use facts that could change the choice.
Alternatives
Compare at least two real options.
Manage uncertainty
Name the risk, trigger and fallback.
Execute and learn
Choose a path and say when to revisit it.
Open the discussion with the room’s own calls.
When answers close, the results show how the group split, the reasons people chose to show without their names, and where the group was thinnest in this session.
On screen for the room, or printed for a colleague who teaches it. Led by you, with no decidenda logo on the page.
Among the cases ready for a session:
NikeNetflixNokiaMcDonald’sBloombergNovo Nordisk
Example · the results of one sessionNike
19answered of 24 expected
MManage uncertainty
2questions on one step
Question 2 · Launch a brand of your own while under contract?
Launch a competing brand while under contract58%
Renegotiate from weaknessfewer chose this42%
In this session the group was thinnest on Manage uncertainty, 1.5 points of 20 or more below the average of the other steps. From the AI reviews of the group’s answers.
Shown answer · no name
Because Onitsuka is already courting other distributors: if we wait, we renegotiate after the leverage is gone.
Led by you · print or show on screenNo names
We solve the proof–privacy trade-off instead of choosing one.
In the course, each person’s reasoning stays theirs, and the group report opens only from five people who made both decisions. In a case room, the people leading it read every answer by name unless the room allows anonymous answers, and the invitation says which.
The reviewer is an OpenAI model: it receives the answer and the case, never the person’s name or address. Accounts are stored in the United States. An organisation or a participant whose rules require another region (the UK, the EU, Kazakhstan) can ask, and we store their data there. The data processing agreement
Learning signals are not employee assessments and must not be used for hiring, promotion, dismissal or compensation decisions.
Participant account
Your memo stays yours.
- Original written reasoning
- Individual FRAME review
- Evidence behind each score
- Recommended next practice
Private→No individual content crosses this line
Course owner
Run the cohort without reading the work.
- Invited, joined and submitted
- Reminder controls
- Aggregate report at n ≥ 5
- No names, memos or rankings
End with a business conversation—not a completion report.
- Who made both decisions, first and final
- Each FRAME step before and after, in whole points of 20, with the range the change likely falls in
- The weakest shared reasoning move
- A ready prompt for the next team debrief
The example is invented. Nothing opens below five people who made both decisions.
Compared with the previous session
ExampleAnswered in both: 9
- Focusno clear change11 → 12 of 20 · +1, likely −1 to +2
- Relevant evidenceno clear change10 → 10 of 20 · 0, likely −1 to +2
- Alternativesstronger8 → 11 of 20 · +3, likely +1 to +4
- Manage uncertaintystronger8 → 10 of 20 · +2, likely +1 to +4
- Execute and learnno clear change11 → 11 of 20 · 0, likely −2 to +1
Where the same people stood on each step the first time and the second, and each person’s own change, averaged, in whole points out of 20. “Likely” is where the group’s average change most probably lies (a 90% range): it is wider when fewer people answered or when they moved in different directions. A step is called stronger or thinner only when it moved by 1.5 points or more and the whole range is above or below zero. Points are not percentages: +2 of 20 does not mean “10% better”, and has nothing to do with the 1% in a payback model. The points come from the AI reviews of each answer, not from a teacher’s or a host’s marking. The same people on two decisions, step by step. The cases differ and there is no control group: an observation, not proof that the practice caused it.
Is this worth repeating?
The course in 3 weeks · free for a team
One cohort, three weeks and success criteria agreed before launch. Expand only if the team participates, the report is useful and the owner effort is sane.
- W0
Plan
Choose one cohort, the capability question and the evidence that would justify a repeat.
Success criteria - W1
First decision
Everyone makes the first decision alone, before any chapter.
Where the group starts - W2
Chapters
The introduction and chapters 1–2, at each person’s pace.
Repeatable rhythm - W3
Final decision
Everyone makes the final decision, then you read the group report together.
Expand / change / stop
Let us prove the programme with one cohort—not with a sales promise.
Bring one group and one question. You set up a case room or the course in about ten minutes; we help with the first one and read the results with you.
Personal practice is free. For a team, the first case room and the course in 3 weeks are free; then $149 a case room, $599 a course for up to 30 people, or $49 per participant a month for everything, with the first month free and no card.
Run by Vova Ermolaev, CEO of Feedle Inc · hello@decidenda.com
Arrow keys · swipe · space