Making Decisions – Vol. XIII: Fatigue

            The concept of “decision fatigue” is a somewhat controversial one among those who study decision-making performance in various circumstances.  The notion that our decision-making capabilities are depleted through repeated use, akin to physical stamina, is anathema to many in the field.
            In order to competently study a phenomenon and its effects on human performance, it must be clearly defined.  A consensus definition of decision fatigue has been elusive, however, and remains a key point of contention in debates on the subject.  Disagreements about decision fatigue are as fundamental as whether or not the phenomenon is “real.”
            In this installment of the “Making Decisions” series, the definition of decision fatigue and the controversy it spurs are explored.  An alternative perspective is also offered, which sidesteps academic debate in favor of practical application of knowledge gained about what we call “decision fatigue” to improve individual and organizational outcomes.

Definition Spurs Debate
            Despite this being the thirteenth installment, the term “decision fatigue” does not refer to any difficulty that may be experienced engaging with the “Making Decisions” series in its entirety.  An enduring goal of this series is to limit the effects of fatigue by providing tools that facilitate decision-making by maintaining structure and rationality.  This installment also provides additional tips for minimizing the influence of fatigue on decisions.
            To be more accurate than the section title, the lack of a widely-agreed definition of decision fatigue contributes to disagreements about its causes, effects, and even validity of the concept.  Many discussions contain descriptions of decision fatigue that do not rise to the level of “definition.”  Some refer to causes, some to effects, some are circular, and some include terms that require further explanation (i.e. definition) to be helpful.  The summary table provided by Pignatiello, et al. (Exhibit 1) reflects the dispersion of the term’s meaning among researchers.

            Decision fatigue is a term used generically to refer to one’s decline in, or impairment of, decision-making ability as additional decisions are made.  The implication is that the more successive decisions are made, the lower their quality becomes as a consequence of the cognitive load endured.  This generic formulation neglects other influences; specifically, other types of fatigue that effect decision-making.
            The lack of a well-formed, inclusive definition leads some to conclude that decision fatigue “is not real.”  If a narrow definition that neglects important influences is used, their arguments may be persuasive.  However, such debates provide little to no value to those seeking better outcomes from their professional and personal decision-making processes.
            To maintain focus on practical application of available information, in lieu of academic debate, readers are encouraged to make a cognitive transformation.  When the term “decision fatigue” is encountered, replace it with “fatigue’s effects on decision-making,” or similar phrase, in the mental model formed.  This simple transformation separates the relevant subject matter from the fruitless debates about the term’s definition, facilitating practical application with minimal confusion.  Central to this transformation’s value is its broader inclusion of fatigue types and other influences on decision quality.

Contributors
            A variety of conditions can contribute to fatigue that impairs decision-making capabilities.  Among them, physiological, emotional, cognitive, and situational factors combine to establish one’s overall state of fatigue.  The complexity of the human psyche ensures that these factors are also interrelated, where the onset of one may exacerbate others.
            Physiological factors affecting a decision-maker are typically most salient to others.  Physical exhaustion, due to exertion or sleep deprivation, is often the only type of fatigue recognized, as many are unaware of the others’ significance.  Illness and injury add to fatigue by diverting the body’s resources, as well as decision-maker’s attention, from cognitive tasks to recovery.  Other physical conditions, such as low blood sugar, can also contribute to physiological fatigue.
            Emotional fatigue can also leave one feeling drained of energy, despite the absence of physical exertion.  Contentious relationships are common sources of emotional fatigue; competition with a coworker, unresolved disagreements with family members, and disputes with neighbors or unsatisfactory service providers are typical examples.  Concern for another, such as a friend’s or family member’s illness, injury, self-destructive behavior, or death, can also contribute substantially to emotional distress and fatigue.
            Decision fatigue, as often defined, is one form of cognitive fatigue.  That is, making several decisions in succession may be an underlying cause of one’s cognitive fatigue, but it is not necessarily the only, or even the dominant one.  Decision-makers are typically responsible for a wide range of cognitive tasks, of which decision-making is only a subset.  Writing reports, solving logistical challenges, administering subordinates’ performance reviews, and so many more activities, often unrelated to a pending decision, engage cognitive resources and deplete energy reserves.
            The most proximate source of cognitive fatigue, and perhaps the most relevant to decision-making, is the effort required to collect, organize, analyze, and understand all of the information needed to render a rational decision.  The more complex the decision environment, the more difficult this task becomes.
            Situational factors are easily overlooked, or dismissed, in many circumstances because they are deemed “normal” and, therefore, unworthy of special consideration.  Though they often are “normal,” they may be far from ideal; team members should remain cognizant of their impacts on decision-making processes.
            The number, rate, and sources of inquiries regarding the status of a decision can influence a decision-maker’s process.  Likewise, people hovering while they await a decision, particularly if they are high-ranking individuals, can also exert influence.  This is true whether or not their presence is intended to apply pressure for an expedited decision or to achieve a specific result.
            The time of day at which a decision is rendered may seem like an extraneous detail; however, it often plays a significant role in decision-making processes.  An important reason for this is its relation to decision-makers’ level of fatigue, accumulated throughout the day.  Another is its relation to a deadline.  For example, a decision deadline of “close of business” on a given day is common.  If all required information is available before lunch, the afternoon may be sufficient to render a quality decision.  However, scrambling to locate necessary data at 4:00 PM is likely to result in a very different decision process and lower quality.

            The preceding discussion has alluded to the interrelationship of fatigue contributors; reciprocal influences exist among all of the contributors presented.  For example, excessive emotional fatigue can lead to difficulty sleeping or unhealthy lifestyle choices.  Subsequent physiological fatigue reduces performance in a variety of contexts.  Recognition of impaired performance can cause new stresses, initiating a deleterious cycle.  Preoccupation with an external situation or distraction, with myriad potential causes, creates a situational factor that could have a significant effect on the final decision and the process used to reach it.  Similarly, situational factors can exacerbate an emotional contribution to fatigue.

Consequences
            There are myriad, often stealthful, ways for fatigue to rear its ugly head.  Issues encountered in a decision-making process, whose root cause is fatigue, can easily be misdiagnosed as incompetence, lack of fortitude, or other uncomplimentary affliction.  Difficulties in execution and dissatisfaction with results of a decision are subject to similar misdiagnosis.
            Fatigue can render a compilation of decision-relevant information nearly incomprehensible.  Additional time required to review information reduces the efficiency of a decision-making process and further fatigues the decision-maker.  Quality suffers when decisions are based on erroneously-interpreted data or when a lack of comprehension causes important information to be discounted or disregarded.
            Difficulty processing decision-relevant information can increase its perceived complexity.  This can drive a decision-maker to overanalyze a situation or overestimate a decision’s significance to broader objectives.  If others perceive it to be a straightforward, or “simple,” decision, delays may cause them to lose confidence in the decision-maker’s fitness for the position s/he holds.  In an often counterproductive attempt to maintain the confidence of peers and leaders, a decision-maker may be tempted to take a variety of shortcuts.  These may be prompted by a genuine desire to contribute to team success, or simply face-saving measures.  Either way, shortcuts are risky and often misguided.
            One potential shortcut is to satisfice, reducing decision-making effort by accepting the first alternative, or course of action, that appears to satisfy minimum requirements.  A lower-quality decision results, but it can be rendered quickly and decisively.
            Two shortcuts that represent “opposite sides of the same coin” are conservatism and impulsivity.  Increasingly-conservative decisions tend to result from a focus on risks and de-emphasis of upside potential; that is, a decision-maker becomes more risk averse.  This is often a preference for the status quo to a difficult, detailed analysis that could reveal deficiencies in decision-makers’ comprehension or ability to execute.
            Conversely, impulsive, or risk seeking, decisions often reflect decision-makers’ overconfidence or short-term perspective.  Such bravado can also be used to disguise an inability to sufficiently analyze and comprehend relevant information.  Impulsivity can be more dangerous than satisficing, as even minimum performance may not be assured with an impulsive decision.  The sad irony is that this approach exacerbates the situation; ostensibly, a decision is reached efficiently, but progress is actually hindered.  Constant “firefighting” and failed initiatives leave little opportunity to improve decision-making processes, develop analysis skills, or recover from fatigue.
            Difficulty processing information can lead to procrastination and avoidance of a decision.  Lack of participation in low-value decision-making may be inconsequential, or appropriate prioritization of duties.  However, these decisions also require little effort and may cause more stress when allowed to linger than if made poorly.  In contrast, putting off an important decision, such as a response to a competitor’s new product launch or promotional campaign, could be catastrophic.
            It is useful to compare avoidance to selection of the “Do Nothing” option.  Choosing to “Do Nothing” is an active decision, requiring analysis and consideration of alternatives.  The decision is often accompanied by stated contingencies or related parameters, such as “revisit in 6 months” or “reconsider if stock price falls below $80/share.”  The potential modifications to a “Do Nothing” decision are innumerable, including financial, competitive, geopolitical, climatic, resource availability, technological, and other considerations.
            Decision avoidance is passive; analysis is incomplete and alternatives are not vetted.  The situation may change, for better or worse, but the dynamics are not monitored and, therefore, cannot be exploited or the consequences mitigated.  A decision-maker defines what is done in a specific circumstance, while avoidance allows the circumstances to define what is done to the decision-maker or his/her organization.

            A fatigued decision-maker may rely on biases and heuristics to a greater extent than normal, often unaware of the shift.  Heuristics can be useful, particularly for low-risk decisions.  They can also be used to simplify portions of a larger analysis; however, the more complex or consequential a decision, the greater risk is inherent in the use of heuristics.
            Biases come in many varieties and are rarely, if ever, helpful.  Positive outcomes derived from decisions influenced by bias are likely coincidental and suboptimal.  The topic of bias is too expansive to adequately present here; therefore only a brief introduction to a few biases prevalent in decision-making are discussed.
            Confirmation bias leads a decision-maker to place greater emphasis on information that supports a desired conclusion.  When a decision is based on a superficial review of alternatives, confirmation bias is a powerful tool of justification used to reinforce one’s self-image as a competent decision-maker without expending the effort required for thorough analysis.  Confirmation bias also causes contradictory information to be discounted as inaccurate or irrelevant without proper consideration of its implications.
            Recency and availability biases cause decision-makers to assign more “weight” to highly-salient information, though it may not be the most critical or accurate information available.  This is the “squeaky wheel gets the grease” style of decision-making; if a decision-maker is bombarded with details of risks, it is unsurprising when his/her decisions become more conservative.
            Social biases can also unjustifiably impact decisions.  A decision-maker may be influenced by other stakeholders’ political, religious, or family affiliations, attendance of a rival university, residence in a particular city or state, or other group status.  While the other biases mentioned prompt inappropriate prioritization, the information involved is usually still valid.  Social biases, however, cause decision-makers to dwell on extraneous details in lieu of proper consideration of the merits of alternatives and are, therefore, especially pernicious.
            In general, fatigue can be expected to reduce decision quality, consistency, and efficiency.  Fortunately, there is a number of techniques that can be employed to combat the negative impacts of fatigue on decision-making.

Defenses
            Employing the tools and techniques outlined in previous installments of this series can reduce decision-making effort and fatigue in a cyclical manner.  To maximize the potential benefit, begin by developing a decision-making standard, as presented in “Vol. IV:  Fundamentals of Group Decision-Making” [20May2020] in the section titled “How should a decision-making standard be structured?”  Although presented in the context of group decision-making, the portions of the process not directly related to group dynamics are fully applicable to individual decision-makers.
            The purpose of a decision-making standard is two-fold:  it serves to maintain consistency in decision-making, increasing efficiency, while ensuring thorough analyses are conducted by appropriate means.  When brainstorming, participants are encouraged to “think outside the box.”  Decision-making, however, is more reliable when conducted “in a box;” an established standard is the “box” in which effective decision-making is done.
            An established process can minimize procrastination and avoidance behaviors by being transparent to stakeholders and other observers.  Repeated execution, with subsequent refinement, builds confidence and reduces stress, further reducing tendencies for procrastination.
            Within an individual’s or group’s decision-making standard, third-party-developed guidelines may also be utilized.  Financial decisions are facilitated by guidelines that incorporate savings, investment, and retirement objectives.  Diagnosis of psychological disorders is expedited by referencing the Diagnostic and Statistics Manual (DSM).  Equipment failures are analyzed by following a troubleshooting guide.  Code compliance is evaluated with a regulatory checklist.  Such examples are numerous; guidelines can be as general or specific as needed to support the decisions undertaken.
            As mentioned previously, there are some situations in which the use of heuristics is advisable, though they must be customized and carefully reviewed to ensure they are appropriate.  Like any other aid, heuristics should be refined by experience, including the scope of applicability, to prevent transition from valuable tool to detrimental shortcut.
            Generalized heuristics are uncommon due to the vast expanse of potential decision environments.  However, some do exist, including the common examples of wardrobe and meal planning.  Wearing only one type or color of garment and eating a specific meal on a given day of the week simplify shopping and laundry.  Eliminating these decisions, proponents claim, frees cognitive resources to be expended on more-important decisions.  While the logic of eliminating unnecessary decisions is valid, these examples are unsatisfying, as they should not be terribly stress-inducing.
            A better example is an automobile lease or purchase.  Colors and features that provide the highest safety and reliability ratings can guide all future vehicle acquisitions.  In addition to eliminating seemingly simple decisions, the heuristic also provides value in the form of lower insurance and repair costs and reduced suffering from accidents.
            Decisions should be prioritized and scheduled.  This ensures that the most-important issues are addressed first and that decision-making isn’t relegated to a “spare time” activity.  As “spare time” doesn’t exist, unscheduled decisions are often made haphazardly at the last possible moment – the perfect formula for low-quality decisions and disappointing outcomes.
            Noncritical, low-value, or long-time-frame decisions can be delegated.  The lower they appear on one’s prioritized list of decisions to be made, the better candidates they are for delegation.  This, too, must be done carefully, however; review “Of Delegating and Dumping” [27Mar2019] for tips on effective delegation.
            Advice that readers may be familiar with is to “sleep on it.”  Many times, this expression is used quite literally; a decision is postponed until the following morning when the decision-maker, presumably well-rested and clear-thinking, is best-equipped to render an optimal decision.  Taken less literally, a decision can be postponed for a longer period of time; the key is to schedule the final decision to be rendered at a time when the decision-maker is not excessively fatigued, otherwise impaired, or under undue influence.  That is, a time when the decision-maker expects to reach the best decision.  Obviously, this is not an option for time-critical “firefighting” situations, but can be advantageous for intermediate time-frame objectives.
            Detailed data should be summarized and simplified to aid comprehension and retention of relevant facts.  An automobile purchase, again, provides a representative example.  A build sheet that specifies low-rolling-resistance tires, a 4-cylinder engine, vinyl interior, and manual (crank) windows can be summarized as “economical.”  One specifying Z-rated tires, V8 engine, and a 1000 W stereo is described as “fun.”  Exotic leather seats, extra sound insulation, automatic climate control, and voice-activated entertainment and navigation systems earns a label of “luxurious.”  If approving a company car for a Senior Vice President, the luxurious model may be acceptable, but the delivery driver is probably getting the economical one.  If it’s for yourself, choose the fun car.  Obviously.
            Distilling a set of data, features, etc. down to an accurate, comprehensible, and retainable summary may require a decision-maker to rely on the expertise of others.  This is not delegation; it is translation of information from its raw form to one more useful to the decision-maker.  If the decision-maker possesses the requisite expertise to perform the translation, assignment to another may still be done to meet time constraints.
            Break complex decisions into pieces; that is, replace one “big decision” with a series of smaller, simpler ones.  Doing so may facilitate later decisions, as optimization of early decisions clarifies objectives or eliminates alternatives, reducing analysis effort.  This is not always a viable option, but when it is, decisions can seem less daunting, allowing them to be made with greater efficiency and less stress.
            As an example, consider a rack stereo system; a prepackaged system can be purchased or each component specified individually.  Comparing features and specifications of prepackaged systems may be difficult and the sound quality unpredictable.  It is also possible that every available system lacks an important feature and would, therefore, be unsatisfactory.
            Selecting the desired turntable (vinyl is making a comeback), receiver, subwoofer, and speakers limits the selection of amplifiers with sufficient inputs and output power to drive the system.  If a home theater system is to be integrated, the selection of capable amps is further reduced.  By deciding on constituent components individually, even a hardcore audiophile is assured satisfaction with the completed system.  Also, far fewer tradeoffs or concessions are needed, eliminating the associated analysis.
            The framing of a decision is the way it is presented to decision-makers and stakeholders.  Its urgency, scope of influence, potential implications, and relationship to higher-level objectives are all part of a decision’s framing.
            To properly frame a decision, ask a series of question pairs to identify information that is relevant to the decision and that which is not.  “What is/is not at stake?” elucidates the scope of the decision.  Similar information may be gleaned by asking “what is gained by making the ‘right’ decision?” and “what is lost by making the ‘wrong’ one?”
            “What is the deadline for this decision?” and “what is the earliest that all required information will be available?” establishes a timeframe in which decision-makers must operate.  It also identifies decisions that must be based on incomplete information (i.e. deadline occurs prior to information availability) so that appropriate strategies can be devised to limit the impact.  “What information is/is not available?” serves to inform such strategy development.
            To identify how a decision fits in the grand scheme of objectives, ask “what lower-level objectives directly influence this decision or its outcomes?” and “to what higher-level objectives does this decision pertain?”  “Can this decision be divided to improve optimization?” and “should this decision be combined with any other to ensure consistency in organizational stewardship?” further define the relationship of the decision to the desired direction of the organization.
            The example question pairs cited are generalized and near-universal.  Additional questions, general or specific to a decision environment, can be developed to guide decision framing.
            Framing a decision appropriately helps decision-makers in several ways.  It provides information needed to prioritize it among all other responsibilities competing for attention.  This, in turn, assures that necessary resources are assigned to it.  Maintaining an appropriate sense of urgency allows efficient decision-making processes to be followed without undue stress.  If all decisions are treated as existential threats, stress levels will be high, but decision quality will be low.
            Choosing the proper framing constitutes an early stage of research.  Answering framing questions identifies information, expertise, time, and other resources needed to execute an efficient decision-making process.  Much of the “behind the scenes” activity needed to support analysis and rendering of a final decision is defined by framing.
            Proper framing of a decision also serves to verify that potential outcomes are aligned with the organization’s objectives.  If they are not, it is best to discover as early as possible so that adjustments can be made or the decision abandoned to avoid squandering resources.
            Underlying all of the defenses to fatigue is self-care.  Physical and mental health, socialization, intellectual stimulation, safety, and security are all important components of well-being.  Each contributes to the various types of fatigue and influence decision-making individually, collectively, and synergistically.
 
 
            Awareness of the types of fatigue and their potential impacts is the basis for improvement of decision-making processes and, subsequently, outcomes.  Recognizing fatigue, without misdiagnosing it as a character flaw, relies on widespread understanding.  Learning how to defend oneself and an organization against the effects of fatigue begins the improvement process in earnest.  Learning how to limit fatigue is a great leap forward.  Incorporating this knowledge in daily practices and organizational policies is the final component of an efficient decision-making process.

            For additional guidance or assistance with decision-making or other Operations challenges, feel free to leave a comment, contact JayWink Solutions, or schedule an appointment.

            For a directory of “Making Decisions” volumes on “The Third Degree,” see Vol. I:  Introduction and Terminology (8Apr2020).

References
[Link] “Why do we make worse decisions at the end of the day?”  Lauren Braithwaite.  The Decision Lab.
[Link] “The Morning Morality Effect.”  Maryam Kouchaki and Isaac H. Smith.  Psychological Science; January 2014.
[Link] “Decision fatigue: A conceptual analysis.”  Grant A Pignatiello, Richard J Martin, and Ronald L Hickman Jr.  Journal of Health Psychology; January 2020.
[Link] “What is decision fatigue?”  Jon Johnson.  Medical News Today; July 7, 2020.
[Link] “Decision Fatigue Is Real. Here’s How to Beat It This Year.”  Rachel Feintzeig.  The Wall Street Journal; January 3, 2022.
[Link] “Is Decision Fatigue Real?”  Eva M. Krockow.  Psychology Today; September 28, 2023.
[Link] “6 Tactics To Reduce Decision Fatigue.”  Svetlana Dimovski.  Forbes; April 1, 2024.
[Link] “Identifying the Causes and Effects of Decision Fatigue through a Systematic Review (Extended Abstract).”   Nurul Ahad Choudhury and Pratima Saravanan.   Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting; September 2024.
[Link] “How To Avoid Decision Fatigue: 10 Tips and Examples.”  Indeed Editorial Team.  Indeed.com; July 24, 2025.
[Link] “No evidence for decision fatigue using large-scale field data from healthcare.”  David Andersson, Malou Lindberg, Gustav Tinghög, and Emil Persson.  Communications Psychology; February 26, 2025.

Jody W. Phelps, MSc, PMP®, MBA
Principal Consultant
JayWink Solutions, LLC
[email protected]