Decision fatigue at work: why settled decisions get reopened

What is decision fatigue?

Decision fatigue is the erosion of self-control after making repeated decisions, which is how a 2014 research letter described the term's use by psychologists. The authors, who were studying antibiotic prescribing in primary care, hypothesised that cumulative cognitive demand may erode clinicians' ability to resist inappropriate choices.

The term travels further than it is defined. Occupational health bodies cover the same ground in other words: workload, intellectual demands and decision-making latitude. Quebec's public health institute, the INSPQ, defines workload as the quantity of work, the intellectual demands and the time constraints. Among the questions it suggests asking workers are whether tasks are often interrupted, whether demands are often contradictory, and whether the work requires intense concentration for long periods.

Is decision fatigue real?

Not conclusively. The studies that point to it are observational, one of them drew a published comment and reply, and the broader idea that willpower runs down like a tank failed a large preregistered test.

One study on this topic looked at parole hearings. In 2011, Danziger, Levav and Avnaim-Pesso reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that the share of favourable rulings fell from about 65% to nearly zero within each of three sessions set by the judges' food breaks, then returned to about 65% after a break. The journal later published a comment on the analysis, titled "Overlooked factors in the analysis of parole decisions", and the authors replied with "Extraneous factors in judicial decisions persist". If you cite the finding, cite it with that in mind.

In 2014, a research letter in JAMA Internal Medicine looked at 21,867 visits for acute respiratory infections, seen by 204 clinicians in 23 primary care practices; 44% ended in an antibiotic prescription. Compared with the first hour of a clinic session, the adjusted odds of prescribing were 1.14 in the third hour and 1.26 in the fourth. The authors name the limits themselves: one health system, scheduled time standing in for actual time, possible unmeasured confounding, and other things that build up over a session, such as glucose or general fatigue, that could explain the pattern.

The wider idea, that self-control is a resource that depletes, has been tested head on. In 2021, 36 laboratories and 3,531 participants took part in a preregistered study, and its confirmatory test found a nonsignificant result (d = 0.06). The authors concluded that depletion is not as reliable as previously assumed. That study used laboratory tasks, not decisions at work, so it does not settle the question for managers. It does mean nobody should write that science has shown decisions drain willpower.

Why do managers reopen decisions?

Reopening a decision often says more about the conditions it was made in than about the manager. The decision may have no clear owner, may have been taken between two interruptions, or may carry consequences that feel too heavy to leave closed.

In OHA's framework this is decisional load, one of the Five Loads. A team that carries it leaves traces: the same item returns to the agenda three weeks running, people hold their work until someone confirms, and a settled choice is quietly revisited in a one-on-one. Reopened decisions are one of five signs a team is overloaded, where they sit beside the signs of the other four loads.

Two readings are possible, and the practical advice is the same under both. If decision fatigue is real, the decisions taken at the end of a day of back-to-back meetings are the ones most likely to be revisited. If it is not, the cause is more likely unclear ownership and interruption. Either way, the step is to look at when, by whom and under what conditions the decision was made.

The check below takes about a minute. It uses five of the ten statements in OHA's capacity self-portrait, one for each load, including statement 2, "I reopen decisions I thought were settled", so you see all five side by side.

Does more control over decisions help a team under pressure?

Research on work organization points that way, but it is about control, not about fatigue from deciding. In 1979, Robert Karasek described job strain as what occurs when job demands are high and job decision latitude is low.

The Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety (CCOHS) makes the same point in practical terms: even when demands are high, employees who also have high decision-making ability will be able to thrive. It lists involvement and influence, being included in discussions about how important decisions are made, among the psychosocial risk factors. The INSPQ adds that several studies have linked a high workload combined with low decision-making autonomy to mental illness and to musculoskeletal and cardiovascular disease.

That changes the manager's question. Rather than "how do I make fewer decisions?", ask who decides what, and whether that person has the information and the authority to close the decision.

What should a manager change first?

Pick one recurring decision and write down who takes it, by when, and what would justify reopening it. New information is a reason to reopen; discomfort is not.

Then move the heaviest decisions out of the end of the longest days. The authors of the 2014 study suggested, for clinicians, shorter sessions and mandatory breaks. That is not proof for managers, but it costs little to try.

Tell the team the rule in one sentence. Run the same five statements again in about 90 days so the comparison is like for like. These steps are designed to help, and a score that has not moved is also information: the load was elsewhere.