Notice the kind of decision
Kolar, Biloslavo, Pišot, Veličković and Tušak's 2025 Frontiers article develops a conceptual framework for coaches in conventional sports, particularly gymnastics. It distinguishes strategic, tactical and operational decisions and relates them to thinking processes and leadership. The authors explicitly call for empirical verification of the framework and its links with outcomes.
That status matters. The article offers a way to organise questions, not evidence that assigning a decision to a category will improve performance. The workplace example below is an original editorial analogy. It extends the discussion beyond the paper's setting and has not been validated by the study.
Separate the horizon from the urgency
Imagine a fictional learning centre considering a new programme. Choosing its long-term educational purpose is one discussion. Designing next term's timetable is another. Responding when a room becomes unavailable requires an immediate practical choice. Calling all three decisions urgent would conceal differences in what participants need to know and who should contribute.
Try writing each decision on a separate card. Add the time available, the people affected and the information still missing. Ask whether a quick workaround changes the original educational purpose or simply helps carry it out. An unresolved question about purpose may need a different conversation from an unresolved question about room allocation.
Let experience challenge the map
After the programme begins, revisit a small selection of decisions. Compare what participants expected with what happened and record where the categories were unclear. A timetable problem might expose a resource assumption that deserves reconsideration. The exercise should leave room for this feedback instead of treating the first classification as final.
For research, the next step would require a defined setting, observable decisions and a credible way to assess the proposed relationships. For a learning discussion, a more modest goal is enough: make the assumptions visible and identify the next question that needs evidence.
Questions to carry forward
- Is the group choosing a direction, organising a plan or responding to an immediate problem?
- Which participant has relevant knowledge that the current discussion lacks?
- What feedback would justify revisiting the original decision?