Sponsored by
The Afternoon I Couldn’t Choose a Font
I was working on a presentation that genuinely mattered-a strategic review, the kind where the room would be full of people whose opinions I cared about-and I spent eleven minutes selecting a font.
I counted the decisions I’d already made that day, out of something between curiosity and self-reproach: nine emails requiring replies, four meeting-time negotiations, three choices about who should be in which room, two template calls, a lunch order, a slide deck colour, and whatever small things filled the rest.
Thirty-one in total. None of them individually significant. All of them drawing from the same account.
That’s the honest version of what decision fatigue feels like. Not paralysis. Just a flat, frictionless indifference to outcomes that should have had more weight.
I picked a font. I moved on. But I left that day knowing something had been spent that I hadn’t noticed spending.
How Jennifer Aniston’s LolaVie brand grew sales 40% with CTV ads
The DTC beauty category is crowded. To break through, Jennifer Aniston’s brand LolaVie, worked with Roku Ads Manager to easily set up, test, and optimize CTV ad creatives. The campaign helped drive a big lift in sales and customer growth, helping LolaVie break through in the crowded beauty category.
The Real Shape of the Problem
It Is Not a Willpower Problem
The common framing is that each decision depletes a fixed reserve of willpower. That framing makes people feel personally responsible for something structural.
The more accurate picture: the brain doesn’t distinguish between decisions by their importance. It treats a lunch order with roughly the same processing weight as a hiring decision.
The sequence of your decisions matters as much as the decisions themselves. If thirty inconsequential choices land before the one that counts, that one gets a diminished version of you-not because you’re weak, but because the architecture of the day consumed the resource before it was needed.
“Which decision today actually needs the sharpest version of you-and is it getting that version?”
Small decisions are not cheap. They just feel that way. By the time the expensive decision arrives, the cheap ones have already run up the tab. |
|---|
The Consequential / Inconsequential Split
The model I use takes three seconds. Before committing to a decision, I ask: is this consequential or inconsequential?
Consequential means the outcome still matters in six months. Everything else is inconsequential.
The distinction sounds obvious. In practice it is violated constantly, because the inconsequential decisions arrive first and loudest-inbox, Slack, the calendar request before 9am-while the consequential ones wait for whatever is left. Which is usually not much.
CONSEQUENTIAL | INCONSEQUENTIAL |
Decide when fresh. Who gets your time this quarter. Which project gets the next ninety minutes. Whether to say yes to something that changes the shape of your week. These deserve the first version of you. → Protect the morning for these. | Decide or delegate later. Where to book the team lunch. Which template to use. The meeting time that works for everyone. These will get done. They don’t need the sharpest version of you to do them. → Batch, defer, or automate. |
The sequencing of your decisions is a design problem. Most people treat it as a discipline problem.
The same pattern applies to AI tools. Opening your assistant to rephrase a low-stakes email at 8:45am spends the cognitive warm-up that belongs to the first hard problem of the day.
The tool makes the task faster. It doesn’t make the sequencing smarter. That part is still yours.
Your ads ran overnight. Nobody was watching. Except Viktor.
One brand built 30+ landing pages through Viktor without a single developer.
Each page mapped to a specific ad group. All deployed within hours. Viktor wrote the code and shipped every one from a Slack message.
That same team has Viktor monitoring ad accounts across the portfolio and posting performance briefs before the day starts. One colleague. Always on. Across every account.
One Rule Before You Open Anything
The First Decision Shapes All the Rest
Four months after the font incident I started writing one sentence on paper before opening anything: the single most consequential thing I need to do that day.
Not a list. One thing. Then I do it first-before email, before Slack, before the AI assistant and every other entry point designed to convert my attention into other people’s priorities.
The inconsequential decisions still get made. They just get made by a version of me that is already finished with the thing that mattered.
The afternoons are still imperfect. I still pick fonts with more deliberation than they deserve.
But the presentation that matters has usually already been thought through by then. That, at least, is something.
What is the single most consequential thing you need to think through today-and have you given it the first version of yourself, or the last? Reply and tell me what it is. I’m collecting these-the patterns across readers are striking, and I’ll share what I find in a future issue. |
“The cost of a bad decision is high. The cost of a good decision made last is higher.”