Every nonprofit — whether a charity, professional association, or community group — faces a constant flow of choices. Some are big and irreversible, others small and routine. But all of them involve ‘decision doors’: a threshold between what we know and what’s next.

The Decision Doors framework helps us pause at that threshold. Instead of charging through every open doorway or hesitating in front of them, we can ask: what kind of door is this, really, and how does that influence our deliberations? That’s where the nine decision types come in (see header image above).

This article revisits and extends several ideas first introduced in “Doorways, Gateways, Passages, Portals of Change”. In that earlier post, I explored the symbolic and structural significance of thresholds — the ways in which doorways and portals mark transitions not only between spaces, but between states of governance, institutional form, and collective imagination. Those metaphors of passage were concerned with moments of movement and initiation: how systems open, invite, or resist transformation.

Here, we approach those threshold dynamics from a different perspective. If the earlier piece examined the architecture of entry and emergence, this one turns toward the rhythms and recursions that follow — how once-open, portals give rise to cycles of consolidation, repetition, or decline. It asks how the spaces we cross eventually shape the trajectories we inhabit, and how patterns of rise and fall might themselves be seen as a kind of passage: from vitality to introspection, from expansion to reflection.

Taken together, these articles trace an evolving inquiry into the morphology of change — from the design of openings to the temporal arcs that follow them.

The Nine Decision Types

These nine categories give structure to the everyday mix of board and leadership choices. The first five — the classical types — are well established in management theory. The next four extend the model to reflect real-world governance: reflection, ethics, crisis, and learning.

Together, they describe how decisions differ by scope, speed, reversibility, and consequence — from predictable approvals to principle-driven calls that define who we are as an organisation.

Thinking at the Threshold

Once you know what type of decision you’re facing, you can choose the right kind of door and deliberative approach.

• One-way doors are consequential and hard to reverse.
• Two-way doors are low-risk and encourage experimentation.
• Stage gates keep strategy on track by demanding evidence at checkpoints.
• Option doors open onto a corridor of choices — pick one, peek inside, or change direction later. They remind us that decision-making is often about exploring possibilities, not locking in early.
• Trigger doors activate automatically when certain conditions are met — like tripwires or safety switches that save time and prevent hesitation when action is clearly needed.
• Exit doors offer a safe way out when things don’t go to plan. They represent contingency and humility — the wisdom to leave a room gracefully rather than doubling down on a bad decision.
• Peek doors let you learn before committing.
• Advice doors open collaboration.
• Lock-in doors remind you that some commitments are meant to hold.

Using these metaphors helps clarify how much analysis, consultation, and courage a decision really deserves.

Beyond the Obvious: Alternative Door Metaphors

Real life isn’t all about neat hinges and clean thresholds. Some doors slide open through timing and subtle shifts. Others squeak under bureaucratic friction. A few are trapdoors, catching us off guard when we’ve missed hidden risks.

These “extended doors” are creative ways to surface what might otherwise stay invisible — like slow processes, cultural inertia, or blind spots in governance. They add colour and humour to what’s often a very serious topic.

Matching Decision Types and Deliberative Styles

In the above table, each of the nine main decision types is associated with two deliberative styles. You may have more than 18 deliberative styles in your repertoire, but these examples offer a good illustrative selection.

Different doors call for different ways of thinking. A strategic decision benefits from foresight and consensus-building, while an operational one relies on rapid cycles and continuous improvement.

Ethical decisions, meanwhile, demand principled reasoning, and learning decisions thrive on hypothesis-driven experimentation.

Pairing decision types with deliberative styles keeps discussions fit-for-purpose — neither over-analysed nor rushed.

Seeing How the Doors Align

These two charts connect the nine decision types with their most natural door archetypes. For example:

• Strategic decisions → often One-Way or Lock-In doors.
• Operational decisions → Trigger or Two-Way doors.
• Reflective decisions → Advice or Stage Gate doors.
• Learning decisions → Peek or Two-Way doors.

Seeing them together helps boards and teams calibrate their approach — matching the door’s nature to the decision’s importance.

Consequence and Reversibility

The classic one-way/two-way door matrix makes this even clearer:

• If a decision is reversible and inconsequential, move quickly.
• If it’s irreversible and consequential, slow down and involve more voices.

The key is proportionality — giving each decision the time and attention it deserves, and no more.

Closing Reflections

Decision Doors aren’t about adding bureaucracy; they invite us to see thresholds clearly.

When boards and leaders understand which kind of door they’re facing — and which deliberative style suits it — they build confidence, agility, and shared understanding.

So next time you’re standing on the threshold of a big choice, ask:
🪞 Is this a one-way door, a two-way door, or a door of some other kind?
🗝️ Who holds the key?
🚪 And what will we find on the other side?

See also:
Doorways, Gateways, Passages, & Portals of Change
The Consequentiality of Unintended Consequences – Part 1
The Consequentiality of Unintended Consequences – Part 2
The Consequentiality of Unintended Consequences – Part 3
Fusing experience and expectation in decision-making