Training teams to think before they act

Building a culture of smart speed: the organisations that succeed with this aren’t just training individuals, they are redesigning systems, writes Bethan Winn.

Last month, I watched a professional services company reverse a major software rollout that cost them six months of invested time, energy and money. The decision to implement had been made in a two-hour meeting, driven by competitive pressure and a sales demo that impressed the leadership team. Sound familiar?

Kudos to them for admitting their mistake and rectifying it, but all too often in our rush to be agile and responsive, we’ve created workplaces where speed often trumps sense. But here’s what I’ve learned from working with Australian organisations across industries: the most effective teams aren’t the ones that act immediately; they’re the ones that think quickly and act smartly.

The challenge for HR leaders is building this capability systematically, especially as AI adoption and hybrid work arrangements add new layers of complexity to our decision-making processes.

The real cost of ‘ready, fire, aim’

The pressure to move fast is real. An accounting firm I worked with recently calculated that poor hiring decisions were costing them $127,000 per wrong appointment when you factor in recruitment costs, training, productivity loss, and team disruption. Yet their hiring process remained reactive: posting jobs when teams were already stretched, conducting interviews without structured frameworks, and making offers based on “gut feel” rather than systematic evaluation.

Similarly, I’ve seen organisations rush into hybrid work policies without proper consultation, leading to equity issues, productivity drops, and the need for costly reversals, which impact culture, morale and the bottom line.

The pattern is consistent: when we act first and think later, we often end up doing the work twice.

Framework one: muddy puddles v leaky ceilings

The first tool I introduce to leadership teams helps them assess true urgency. Not every issue requires immediate action, and teaching teams this distinction transforms decision quality with this concept by Adam Grant:

Muddy puddles are problems that resolve themselves if left alone – like temporary team tensions after a restructure, or initial resistance to new software that fades with familiarity.

Leaky ceilings are issues that worsen without intervention, like a deteriorating relationship with a key client, or small compliance gaps that could become major risks.

In practice, this looks like starting team meetings with a simple question: “Is this a muddy puddle or leaky ceiling?” A government department I worked with found that 40 per cent of their “urgent” decisions were actually muddy puddles that resolved naturally, freeing up time for genuine strategic thinking.

The psychological safety lens is crucial here. Teams need permission to say “let’s wait and see” without being labelled indecisive.

Framework two: The POINT decision process

For genuine leaky ceilings, teams need structured thinking that maintains momentum while improving quality. The POINT framework works particularly well in group settings:

• Permission: Who actually has authority to make this decision? I’ve watched too many committees spin their wheels on decisions they can’t actually make.
• Zoom out: How does this align with our broader strategy and values? A retail organisation used this step to reject a cost-cutting measure that would have damaged its customer service reputation.
• Zoom in: What specific data do we have, what are we missing, and which is the metric that truly matters? This prevents decisions based on assumptions or incomplete information.
• Noise: What biases, politics, or urgencies might be clouding our thinking? Teams and individuals can become remarkably self-aware when asked this directly.
• Test: What’s the smallest step we can take to move forward and gather feedback?

The beauty of POINT is that it can help land a five-minute small decision or can be spread across several meetings for complex ones.

Meeting templates that embed thinking

To make this cultural, you need to build thinking time into regular processes. Here are two templates that work:

The five-minute pause: Before any significant decision, introduce a five-minute structured conversation:

• “What type of problem is this?” (muddy puddle versus leaky ceiling)
• “What assumptions are we making?”
• “What would ‘good’ look like in six months?”

Monthly decision audits: Review recent decisions as a team:

• “What were we trying to achieve?”
• “What actually happened?”
• “Why was there a difference?”
• “What can we learn from this moving forward?”
• “What would we do differently knowing what we know now?”

A financial services firm found these audits reduced their decision reversals and increased the confidence of emerging leaders to make decisions and take on more responsibility, as they understood how to think, not what to think, and applied their learning.

Building the cultural shift

The real challenge isn’t teaching frameworks; it’s shifting from a culture that rewards quick action to one that values smart action. This requires intentional leadership behaviour.

Start by modelling thoughtful decision-making yourself. When someone brings you an urgent request, respond with: “This sounds important. Let me take some time to think it through properly.” You’re not being slow; you’re being responsible.

Create language that values thinking time. Replace “Let’s decide quickly” with “Let’s decide well.”

Celebrate examples of teams who paused to think and avoided costly mistakes.

Most importantly, distinguish between urgency and importance in your reward systems. The person who rushes to fix a problem they could have prevented isn’t a hero; they’re highlighting a system failure.

The AI and hybrid factor

AI tools and remote work arrangements add new complexity here. Teams working across time zones need clearer decision-making protocols. AI recommendations can feel authoritative but still require human judgment about context and values.

Build “AI check” questions into your processes: “What context might the AI be missing?” and “How does this recommendation align with our values and culture?”

For hybrid teams, create explicit agreements about which decisions can be made asynchronously versus when they need real-time discussion.

Making it stick

The organisations that succeed with this aren’t just training individuals, they are redesigning systems. They build thinking time into project timelines. They create decision templates that prompt better questions. They measure decision quality, not just speed.

Most importantly, they recognise that in a world where AI can handle routine decisions, our competitive advantage lies in our ability to navigate complexity, uncertainty, and competing values. That requires teams that can think before they act.

The investment in building these capabilities pays dividends quickly. Better decisions, fewer reversals, and teams that feel confident in their ability to navigate complexity. In my experience, that’s the kind of speed that actually matters.

Bethan Winn is an author, speaker, and critical thinking expert.