Three questions test a hard decision: is it right, is it smart, is it sustainable? A decision that fails one of them is unstable, whatever it gains in the short term.
Decisions reveal the self
Your choices show how your principles hold up when a decision is difficult, uncertain, or unpopular. A stated value matters when it shapes what you actually do. Epictetus, in a line this book paraphrases, put it this way: show your philosophy through the way you act.
Under pressure, you need a personal structure for testing assumptions and choosing a course you can explain and review.
Why a framework helps
Intelligence and military teams use pre-established frameworks to make sense of fluid situations. When time is short and stakes are high, these structures can help teams recognize panic, groupthink, or drift. Their value depends on whether people use them to challenge assumptions. Even a practiced framework needs review when circumstances change.
The Stoic Strategist is careful here. It cites Admiral James Stockdale, who described how the teachings of Epictetus helped him endure captivity in Vietnam. It calls this a demanding example of principles practiced under pressure, not a promise that a framework removes suffering.
Three pillars
A personal framework rests on three pillars.
Principles: what do I stand for? These are your non-negotiables, defined explicitly. The book’s examples: “I do not lie to gain advantage.” “I face discomfort rather than escape truth.” “I value justice over popularity.”
Priorities: what am I actually trying to achieve? Every decision trades one thing for another. If you have not defined your priorities, you will borrow them from the loudest voice in the room.
Processes: how do I get there? A repeatable structure, such as reflective questions, a checklist, or a method like the SWOT map and the red-team review from the last two weeks.
The three-part filter
| Test | Question | What it checks |
|---|---|---|
| Right | Does this align with my core principles? Does it honor justice, temperance, courage, and wisdom? | Anchors the action morally |
| Smart | Does it make sense based on current realities? Am I accounting for risk, timing, and stakeholder effects? | Checks it against reality |
| Sustainable | Can I live with this over time: morally, emotionally, strategically? Will this action build or erode my foundation? | Tests it against time |
If the answer is yes to all three, proceed. If not, reorient.
A Quiet Boundary
A team leader is repeatedly asked to take on work outside her scope. The requests disrupt her focus and reflect deeper dysfunction in the organization. She wants to say no, but she fears being seen as uncooperative. She runs the filter.
Is it right? She believes in cooperation, but also in responsibility. Enabling poor boundaries undermines both. Is it smart? The requests are emotionally driven, not strategic, and agreeing would dilute her team’s performance. Is it sustainable? Saying yes sets a precedent that could destabilize her future leadership credibility.
She checks the team’s existing commitments and identifies which deadlines would slip. She declines the extra work and explains the capacity conflict. She offers to revisit the request if leadership changes the team’s priorities or provides resources.
Her refusal may disappoint colleagues or carry a professional cost. The framework does not guarantee approval. It helps her explain the tradeoff and accept responsibility for her choice. The pressure did not change. Her method did.
What this looks like for a manager
A rushed approval. A senior colleague asks a manager to sign off a vendor contract before the review is finished, so a deadline can be met. Right: he has a standing principle that he does not sign what he has not checked. Smart: the deadline is real, but the review can close in two days, and the cost of waiting is a shorter lead time, not a lost contract. Sustainable: one exception would make the next one easier to ask for.
He tells his colleague he will sign when the review closes, and asks what the delay would cost. The answer may not be welcome. The filter gives him reasons he can state.
Consistent, not easier
A decision framework does not make choices easier. It makes them consistent. It becomes useful through practice, especially when a decision exposes a conflict between your priorities.
The drill
Four steps from Chapter 9 of The Stoic Strategist.
Define three core principles. What do I stand for, no matter what happens? Write three statements that express your non-negotiables.
Clarify your strategic priorities. List your top three across life or leadership, such as trust, impact, peace, growth, integrity, or resilience.
Choose or design a process. The filter, a SWOT map, a red-team prompt, or a personal checklist. Commit to applying it before your next difficult decision.
Run a trial. Take a recent decision you struggled with and run it through your framework. What would you have done differently?
Final Reflection
Do I have a system that protects my values, especially from my own uncertainty, fear, or ambition?
