Decision Making for New Warehouse Managers: Part 1 - Everyday Decisions
The two traps most new managers fall into, and how to avoid them.
Picture this: It's 10:30 AM on a busy Monday. You're three hours into your shift as a warehouse manager when a team lead approaches with news that one of your critical employees isn’t feeling well and has gone home early. In the next five minutes, you need to decide whether to pull someone from another area, call for voluntary overtime, or redistribute the workload among existing team members. Meanwhile, two other issues are brewing, your boss is asking for yesterday's numbers, and your team is waiting for direction.
Sound familiar? For new warehouse and manufacturing managers, this scenario isn't the exception—it's Tuesday. And Wednesday. And every other day of the week.
The transition from individual contributor to leader brings many challenges, but perhaps none more constant than the sheer volume of decisions you're suddenly responsible for making. While some of these decisions are significant and strategic, the vast majority are everyday operational choices that keep your area running smoothly: staffing adjustments, workflow modifications, resource allocations, and problem-solving interventions.
This post—the first in a three-part series on decision-making for new managers—focuses specifically on these everyday operational decisions. In subsequent installments, we'll tackle high-impact decisions and building a decision-making culture, but mastering these routine choices is where effective leadership begins.
As I've discussed in a previous post on how to make the right call, there's a crucial difference between consequential, irreversible decisions and everyday choices. Today, we'll build on that foundation and focus specifically on how new warehouse managers can develop the confidence and framework to handle routine decisions efficiently and effectively.
Understanding Type 2 Decisions
In my previous post on decision-making, I referenced Jeff Bezos's influential framework that distinguishes between two types of decisions:
"Some decisions are consequential and irreversible or nearly irreversible—one-way doors—and these decisions must be made methodically, carefully, slowly, with great deliberation and consultation... We can call these Type 1 decisions.
But most decisions aren't like that—they are changeable, reversible—they're two-way doors. If you've made a sub-optimal Type 2 decision, you don't have to live with the consequences for that long. You can reopen the door and go back through. Type 2 decisions can and should be made quickly by high judgment individuals or small groups."
For new warehouse managers, recognizing that the vast majority (often 90%+) of your daily decisions are Type 2 is liberating. These decisions include:
Adjusting staffing between areas to address volume fluctuations
Modifying break schedules to maintain coverage
Implementing small process improvements
Prioritizing tasks within a shift
Addressing minor equipment issues
Handling routine quality exceptions
What makes these decisions Type 2 is not that they're unimportant—they're critical to daily operations. What defines them is that they're reversible. If your staffing adjustment doesn't work as intended, you can change it again. If the process improvement creates unforeseen issues, you can revert to the previous approach.
Understanding this distinction helps overcome one of the most common mistakes new managers make: treating all decisions with the same level of analysis, deliberation, and approval-seeking. When you recognize that most decisions are reversible, you can approach them with appropriate speed and autonomy.
The Decision Paralysis Trap
The most expensive decision is often the one you never make. When facing the constant barrage of choices that operational leadership demands, many new managers fall into decision paralysis—the inability to make timely choices. This creates significant operational costs:
Operational Bottlenecks: When decisions stall, workflows stall. In fast-paced warehouse environments, even 15 minutes of delay can impact dozens of downstream processes.
Resource Misallocation: Teams and equipment stand idle while waiting for direction, creating waste in a system designed for efficiency.
Opportunity Costs: Quick wins and improvements remain unrealized while decisions languish in analysis.
Team Disengagement: Nothing frustrates capable team members more than watching problems persist while solutions await approval.
Beyond these direct costs, there's an even more significant long-term impact: decision paralysis trains your team to stop bringing you problems or suggestions. They learn that the decision pipeline is clogged, so they either make decisions without you (sometimes beyond their authority) or—worse—stop trying to improve things altogether.
As I explored in my post on the art of prioritization, leaders must focus on what truly matters. Allowing routine decisions to consume disproportionate time and mental energy prevents you from addressing the strategic priorities that genuinely require your attention.
Several factors contribute to decision paralysis:
Fear of Failure: New managers often feel that every decision is a test of their competence. This creates pressure to make perfect choices rather than good ones.
Data Addiction: The desire for complete information before deciding leads to unnecessary delays. While data is valuable, waiting for perfect information often costs more than making a reasonable decision with what's available.
Unclear Authority Boundaries: Without explicit guidance on decision-making authority, new managers tend to assume they need approval, even when they don't.
Experience Gaps: New managers may lack confidence in their judgment simply because they haven't yet built a library of similar situations to reference.
The result is a tendency to move too slowly on decisions that should be made quickly and efficiently. I've observed this pattern repeatedly: new managers spending hours researching options for decisions that experienced leaders would make in minutes.
To overcome decision paralysis:
Adopt the "70% Rule": If you have 70% of the information you wish you had, that's typically enough to make a Type 2 decision. Waiting for the remaining 30% rarely changes the outcome but significantly delays benefits.
Create a Decision Timer: For routine operational choices, set appropriate time limits based on the decision type. For example, staffing adjustments might get a 10-minute timer, while process modifications receive 30 minutes. This prevents analysis paralysis.
Practice "Reversible" Thinking: Before delaying a decision, explicitly ask: "If this doesn't work out, can we easily change course?" If the answer is yes, proceed with your best judgment.
Document and Learn: Instead of fearing mistakes, plan to learn from them. Keep a brief decision log that notes what you decided, why, and what happened. This builds your experience base rapidly.
These practices help break the cycle of overthinking routine decisions, allowing you to maintain operational momentum while still exercising appropriate diligence.
The Approval-Seeking Cycle
The second common trap for new managers is excessive approval-seeking—a pattern that creates operational delays with additional organizational burden.
This cycle typically works as follows:
Manager faces a routine decision within their authority
Uncertainty or fear triggers the desire for "cover"
Manager escalates the decision to their supervisor
Supervisor must gather context the manager already has
Decision returns, often unchanged but significantly delayed
Pattern reinforces itself as the default approach
This cycle is particularly problematic in warehouse environments where timing is critical. While it may feel safer to get approval, this approach:
Delays implementation of necessary changes
Creates frustration at multiple organizational levels
Prevents you from developing decision-making confidence
Trains your boss to micromanage your area
In my post on how to improve your relationship with your boss, I looked at how taking appropriate initiative can actually strengthen your relationship with leadership. Demonstrating sound judgment on routine decisions builds trust that benefits your career growth and day-to-day autonomy.
Breaking the approval-seeking cycle requires clarity and courage:
Clarify Decision Boundaries: Have an explicit conversation with your manager about which decisions you're empowered to make independently. Most leaders appreciate this initiative.
Adopt "Inform, Don't Ask": For decisions within your authority, shift from seeking approval to simply informing relevant stakeholders. "I've decided to implement X because of Y" rather than "Can I implement X?"
Embrace Rapid Iteration: Recognize that making a reversible decision and adjusting as needed is often more effective than waiting for approval. Most Type 2 decisions can be refined through quick iterations.
Practice Decision Ownership: When communicating decisions to your team, take full ownership rather than attributing them to higher authorities. This builds your leadership presence.
Many new managers discover that their bosses actually want them making more independent decisions than they initially assumed. The approval-seeking habit often comes from the manager's own uncertainty, not from organizational expectations.
A Framework for Everyday Operational Decisions
With an understanding of the common traps, let's establish a practical framework for approaching everyday decisions in warehouse environments. This framework is specifically designed for the high-volume, rapid-fire nature of operational leadership.
The "Hat, Haircut, Tattoo" Decision Framework
Different operational decisions warrant different levels of consideration based on their permanence and consequences. The "Hat, Haircut, Tattoo" framework provides an intuitive way to categorize your decisions:
Hat Decisions: Easily reversible with minimal consequences
Staffing movements between areas
Break scheduling modifications
Task prioritization within established processes
Simple problem troubleshooting
These decisions are like trying on a hat—if you don't like it, you can simply take it off. They can be made quickly with minimal analysis and easily reversed if needed.
Haircut Decisions: Moderately reversible with temporary consequences
Workflow modifications to address bottlenecks
Equipment usage allocation
Response to quality exceptions
Implementing supervisor or team lead suggestions
Like a haircut, these decisions will have effects that last for a while, but they'll grow out eventually. They deserve more consideration and possibly consultation with others, but don't require extensive analysis.
Tattoo Decisions: Difficult to reverse with long-lasting consequences
Process improvements affecting multiple areas
Significant resource reallocations
Decisions affecting team structure or roles
Implementing new standard work
These decisions are like tattoos—they'll have lasting effects and are difficult to reverse. They warrant thorough analysis, appropriate consultation, and careful consideration of potential outcomes.
This framework helps allocate your decision-making energy appropriately, preventing both hasty judgments on consequential issues and unnecessary deliberation on easily reversible matters.
The RAPID Decision Framework: An Introduction
For decisions that involve multiple stakeholders, the RAPID framework (developed by Bain & Company) provides clarity about roles:
R - Recommend: Who is responsible for making a proposal or recommendation?
A - Agree: Who needs to agree with the decision? (Usually limited to legal or compliance)
P - Perform: Who will implement the decision?
I - Input: Who should provide information or expertise?
D - Decide: Who has final decision-making authority?
For the everyday operational decisions we're focusing on in this post, you'll typically use a simplified version of this framework. Many Type 2 decisions don't require formal agreement steps or extensive input gathering. For routine operational decisions, you're often serving as both the recommender and the decision-maker, with only informal input from team members.
However, understanding the full RAPID framework is valuable because it will become increasingly relevant as we discuss more complex decisions in Parts 2 and 3 of this series. For now, focus on clarifying whether you are the "D" (decision-maker) versus when you are the "R" (recommender). Many approval-seeking behaviors stem from confusion about these roles.
In warehouse environments, you are typically the "D" for:
Day-to-day staffing deployments
Workflow adjustments within your area
Implementation timing for approved changes
Problem-solving approaches for routine issues
Work prioritization within established guidelines
While you are usually the "R" for:
Changes affecting multiple departments
Significant deviations from standard operating procedures
Issues with potential safety or compliance impacts
Decisions with substantial cost implications
Clarifying these boundaries with your leadership creates decision-making confidence and appropriate autonomy.
The Four-Question Test for Everyday Decisions
When facing an operational decision, run it through these four questions:
Is this reversible? If yes, it's likely a Type 2 decision you can make independently.
Does this align with established priorities and metrics? If yes, you're on solid ground to proceed.
Does this stay within my budgetary/resource authority? If yes, you likely don't need financial approval.
Does this impact other departments or shifts? If no, you can usually proceed without extensive consultation.
If you can answer these four questions appropriately, you generally have the green light to make the decision and move forward, informing others as needed rather than seeking permission.
As I explained in my post about creating a culture of openness and honesty, trust is built when leaders demonstrate both competence and reliability. Making sound, timely decisions on routine matters establishes your credibility as a leader who can handle greater autonomy and responsibility.
Decision-Making in Action
Let's examine how this framework applies to common warehouse scenarios:
Scenario 1: Unexpected Staffing Shortage
Situation: Two employees called out sick from the packing department, creating a potential bottleneck.
Decision Type: "Hat" decision (easily reversible with minimal consequences)
Application:
Is it reversible? Yes, staffing can be readjusted if needed.
Aligns with priorities? Yes, maintaining throughput is a core metric.
Within authority? Yes, managers typically control intra-shift staffing.
Impacts other areas? Yes, but within normal operational flexibility.
Action: Temporarily reassign two associates from non-critical areas to packing. Inform (don't ask) your supervisor and affected team leads of the adjustment.
Scenario 2: Process Modification Suggestion
Situation: A team lead suggests rearranging a work line to reduce walking distance.
Decision Type: "Haircut" decision (moderately reversible with temporary consequences)
Application:
Is it reversible? Yes, the layout can be returned to the original configuration.
Aligns with priorities? Yes, efficiency improvements support productivity metrics.
Within authority? Yes, as long as safety standards are maintained.
Impacts other areas? No, changes are contained within your department.
Action: Spend time validating the suggestion with a quick diagram and consultation with an experienced associate. If the idea holds merit, implement it for a single shift as a test, measure results, and then decide whether to continue.
Scenario 3: Recurring Quality Issue
Situation: A particular product consistently shows packaging damage during the shipping process.
Decision Type: "Tattoo" decision (difficult to reverse with long-lasting consequences)
Application:
Is it reversible? Yes, any changes to handling procedures can be modified, but training and implementation represent significant investment.
Aligns with priorities? Yes, quality is a core metric.
Within authority? Yes, for process adjustments within standard guidelines.
Impacts other areas? Potentially receiving and vendor relations.
Action: Allocate appropriate time to thoroughly investigate the issue, including product flow observation and team member interviews. Develop a handling modification, document it clearly, implement with proper training, and monitor results.
In each scenario, the framework provides clarity about your decision-making authority and appropriate time investment, preventing both unnecessary delays and hasty judgments.
Building Your Decision-Making Muscle
Like any skill, effective decision-making improves with deliberate practice and reflection. Here are strategies to accelerate your development:
Start a Decision Journal: Keep a simple log of key decisions, your reasoning, and outcomes. Weekly review helps identify patterns and improvement opportunities.
Establish Decision Criteria: For recurring decision types, document the factors you consider. This creates consistency and speeds future decisions.
Create Feedback Loops: Actively seek input on how your decisions are working out. This builds both better judgment and team trust.
Find a Decision Mentor: Identify a more experienced manager who makes decisions effectively, and discuss challenging choices with them.
Practice Explaining Decisions: The discipline of clearly articulating your reasoning improves both the quality of decisions and their implementation.
Set Decision Goals: Challenge yourself to make decisions at the appropriate level without unnecessary escalation. Track your progress.
Similar to what I discussed in my post on keeping a failure log, documenting and reflecting on your decisions—both successes and failures—accelerates your development as a leader. This practice helps you internalize lessons that might otherwise be lost in the daily rush of operational demands.
These practices turn everyday operational decisions from potential stress points into development opportunities that strengthen your leadership capabilities.
From Theory to Action
Ready to improve your everyday decision-making? Start with these practical steps:
Conduct a Decision Audit: For the next three days, track every decision you make or defer. Note the time spent, whether you sought approval, and whether the decision could have been made faster. This baseline assessment reveals your current patterns.
Create a Personal Authority List: Document decisions you're confident are within your authority, those you believe require consultation, and those that need approval. Compare this with your supervisor's expectations to identify any misalignments.
Implement the "Hat, Haircut, Tattoo" Framework: For one week, consciously categorize each decision you face using this framework. Be mindful of how much consideration you give to each type of decision, ensuring you don't overanalyze "hat" decisions or rush through "tattoo" decisions.
Practice "Inform, Don't Ask": Identify three decisions this week where you would typically seek approval but are actually within your authority. Handle these independently, then inform relevant stakeholders of your decision and reasoning.
Develop Standard Responses: Create scripts for common decision scenarios you face repeatedly. Having pre-formulated approaches speeds response time and creates consistency.
Build a Decision Tree: For one complex but recurring decision type (like staffing adjustments), create a simple decision tree that maps conditions to actions. This turns subjective judgments into systematic approaches.
Establish a "Decision Feedback" Channel: Create a simple mechanism (like a team huddle question) to gather input on how your operational decisions are working on the floor. This builds both better decisions and team engagement.
Schedule a Decision Boundary Conversation: Meet with your manager specifically to clarify decision authority expectations. Come prepared with examples of decisions you're uncertain about to ensure practical clarity.
By implementing these practices, you'll develop the confidence and capability to handle everyday operational decisions efficiently and effectively. This frees your cognitive resources for the more complex challenges of operational leadership while building your team's trust in your decisive guidance.
As I explored in my post on responding to stressful situations, your ability to maintain composure under pressure directly impacts your team's response. Having clear decision frameworks reduces the stress of operational leadership and helps you set a positive emotional tone during challenging situations.
In the next installment of this series, we'll explore how to approach high-impact decisions—those less frequent but more consequential choices that require a different decision-making approach. Until then, remember that mastering everyday decisions isn't just about operational efficiency—it's about building the foundation of your leadership presence and effectiveness.
Want to stop feeling overwhelmed by daily decisions? Join our community of operational leaders focused on practical skill development.