By Zach Vander Veen
I’m fascinated by decision processes, especially as my roles have required making more complex choices with broader consequences. Part of that curiosity is inward—examining why I make the decisions I do—which I’ve been exploring through the excellent book Thinking, Fast and Slow. That book forces you to question the cognitive shortcuts and biases that shape every choice.
Beyond self-reflection, there’s the practical challenge of making decisions in a group. Group decision-making is often messy, and when something is messy I lean on frameworks to bring clarity. Frameworks are useful, but they sometimes need to be adjusted. Here’s how I’ve been thinking about that adjustment.
Yes / No Required?
Early in a role I tend to simplify complex issues into binary branches—if/then and yes/no choices. The goal is to force a decision so work can move forward and I can plan for likely consequences. That kind of decisiveness is often necessary.
Imagine a district has a one-time opportunity to order a couple dozen Flux Capacitors for special instructional buses. These hypothetical devices might allow a few extra months of school to make up for pandemic learning loss and offer summer instruction to students who need it. The decision looks straightforward on paper: order them or don’t. Either way the organization moves in a defined direction and you manage outcomes from there.
In many situations, that binary flow works: a yes or a no produces a clear path and you respond to whatever follows. The challenge appears when decisions aren’t truly binary.
But it’s Never Truly Binary, is it?
There is almost always a third option in any yes/no question: doing nothing, delaying, or choosing to defer. That third branch complicates the tidy flowchart we often prefer.
When that third branch appears and a group chooses not to answer, unexpected complexities can emerge. One of the more important lessons I’ve learned is that inaction is sometimes the most prudent choice. The difficulty is discerning when inaction is deliberate and protective, and when it’s simply avoidance or indecision.
As someone naturally oriented toward action, I find not answering particularly unsettling. It triggers a set of questions that I use to diagnose the situation:
- Are there political dynamics I missed that make a public decision risky?
- Did I fail to present clear if/then outcomes that would allow the group to choose confidently?
- Is deferring the decision actually protecting the group or institution from harm or exposure?
- Is the timing wrong—would delaying until more information or stakeholders are ready lead to a better outcome?
A flowchart can be misleading because not answering still produces outcomes—sometimes outcomes very similar to the yes or no branches—yet often less controllable. That uncertainty can feel risky even when inaction is the wiser path. Learning to tolerate and interpret that uncertainty is part of developing good judgment in leadership and group decision-making.
If you’re learning to lead groups or facilitate decisions, consider reframing “no answer” as a valid node on the decision tree. Build explicit criteria for when to defer: what additional information is required, which stakeholders need to be consulted, and a clear timeline for revisiting the question. This turns passive inaction into a strategic pause rather than an accidental omission.
So when faced with the choice to answer or not, remember: choosing not to decide can be a form of learning and protection. Recognizing when that choice is appropriate is a skill worth cultivating.
About the author
Zach Vander Veen has worn many hats in education, including history teacher, technology coach, administrator, and director of technology. He loves learning, teaching, traveling, and seeking adventures with his family. Currently, Zach is the co-founder and VP of Development and Customer Success at Abre.io, an education management platform.
This article was originally published by The Learning Counsel, a research institute and news media hub focused on the shift in education toward digital curriculum.