Making difficult decisions is an inevitable part of being a leader. However, research shows that humans have a natural tendency to avoid or delay making decisions that involve trade-offs, uncertainties, or emotionally difficult choices (Anderson, 2003). As leaders, giving in to the urge to dodge difficult decisions can undermine effectiveness and harm the organization.
Today we will explore psychological reasons why people try to avoid difficult decisions and provide practical guidance for organizational leaders on how to overcome this tendency.
Psychological Biases that Foster Decision Avoidance
Several well-documented cognitive biases contribute to our natural inclination to put off difficult decisions. Understanding these biases is the first step leaders can take to recognize and overcome this tendency in themselves and others.
Status Quo Bias: Status quo bias is where we prefer to maintain the current state of affairs rather than change, even if change may be better (Samuelson & Zeckhauser, 1988). This leads people to delay decisions that upset the status quo or rock the boat. The appeal of avoiding short-term disruption can override the long-term benefits of change.
Loss Aversion: People are psychologically impacted more by potential losses than similar-sized gains (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979). Facing a choice with potential downsides or trade-offs triggers loss aversion and the urge to delay deciding amid uncertainty over outcomes. This aversion to potential losses, even if unlikely, can immobilize decision-making.
Ambiguity Effect: Humans prefer known probabilities to true uncertainty and want to avoid options with ambiguous outcomes (Ellsberg, 1961). But many difficult decisions involve ambiguous factors that cannot be precisely quantified. This ambiguity triggers anxiety and a tendency to delay deciding until more information provides clarity and certainty, even if perfect information is unattainable.
Organizational Challenges that Enable Decision Avoidance
Certain dynamics within organizations exacerbate natural human tendencies to avoid difficult choices:
Complexity of Organizational Problems: Difficult decisions in complex organizations involve multiple trade-offs between competing stakeholders and priorities. This complexity makes weighing alternatives more ambiguous and challenging (Palich et al., 2000). More moving pieces provide cover for leaders to delay deciding amid a confusing array of considerations.
Bureaucratic Inertia: Large, bureaucratic organizations develop momentum and standard operating procedures that are difficult to change (Merton, 1957). This inertia favors preserving the status quo over potential upheaval from difficult transformations. Bureaucratic rules and red tape can give the impression that no decision is actually required.
Lack of Accountability: When responsibility is diffuse within complex hierarchies or collective bodies like committees, accountability for outcomes becomes blurred (Weber, 1922). This ambiguity reduces the perceived need to make a definite call and allows passing responsibility back and forth.
Fear of Criticism and Failure: High-stakes decisions put a leader's judgment on the line. The prospect of blowback or future "I told you so's" if a tough call does not pan out as hoped triggers avoidance instincts to minimize personal risks (Hambrick & Mason, 1984). Delay or lack of decision passes potential criticism to others.
Short-Termism: Quarterly earnings pressures and short job tenures favor tactics to minimize immediate disruptions over long-term strategic thinking requiring difficult choices today (Lazonick & O'Sullivan, 2000). This short-term focus enables decision postponement.
How Leaders Can Build Decision-Making Muscles
To overcome natural human and organizational tendencies to avoid difficult decisions, leaders must develop discipline and a systematic process:
Accept Difficult Decisions as an Inevitable Leadership Duty: Leaders who view decision-making as the core responsibility of their role, including hard calls, free themselves from avoidance instincts (Kotter, 1990). They accept difficult decisions as part of the job.
Cultivate a Learning Mindset over Perfectionism: Rather than waiting for perfect clarity or certainty, leaders with a learning orientation feel comfortable with ambiguity and know that experience will reveal the best path (Senge, 2006). Small, experimental decisions move organizations forward.
Establish Processes for Timely yet Thoughtful Decisions: By setting clear thresholds for when a decision is "good enough" to make forward progress, yet still allowing time for reflection, leaders balance decisiveness with care (Eisenhardt & Zbaracki, 1992). Strict deadlines prevent procrastination.
Consider Multiple Options and Gather Diverse Input Early: Examining a range of reasonable alternatives keeps options open and garners support, which mitigates fears of failure for any one approach (Nut, 2012). Early involvement of affected stakeholders builds transparency.
Clarify Trade-Offs and Make Values Explicit: By openly discussing tensions between priorities, hard choices snap into clearer perspective and the rationale becomes evident to all involved, improving buy-in for the final determination (Keeney, 1992).
Learn from Experience with Pilot Tests and Phased Rollouts: Where prudent, leaders try new approaches on a contained scale before committing resources to evaluate impact before doubling down (Thomke, 2003). Reversible changes reduce perceived risks from committing too soon.
Find the Gut to Trust Your Gut Sometimes: After due process of reflection and input, leaders must trust their judgment and intuitive sense of what feels right, even amid imperfect information (Khatri & Ng, 2000). Perfection paralyzes progress.
Conclusion
Making difficult decisions is an unavoidable duty for leaders. By understanding psychological and organizational forces that favor avoidance, and cultivating processes, skills, and mindsets focused on learning and transparency, leaders can overcome natural tendencies to dodge tough calls. With practice over time, decision-making muscles strengthen. Leaders accept that not all outcomes can be predicted and realize that decisiveness itself maintains credibility and forward momentum. While avoiding hard choices may provide short-term reprieve from disruption or criticism, leadership requires embracing reality and steering the organization with care, conviction and courage through difficult waters toward its north star.
References
Anderson, C. J. (2003). The psychology of doing nothing: Forms of decision avoidance result from reason and emotion. Psychological Bulletin, 129(1), 139–167. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.139
Ellsberg, D. (1961). Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axioms. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75(4), 643–669. https://doi.org/10.2307/1884324
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Zbaracki, M. J. (1992). Strategic decision making. Strategic Management Journal, 13(S2), 17-37. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250130904
Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193–206. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1984.4277628
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185
Keeney, R. L. (1992). Value-focused thinking: A path to creative decisionmaking. Harvard University Press.
Khatri, N., & Ng, H. A. (2000). The role of intuition in strategic decision making. Human Relations, 53(1), 57–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726700531004
Kotter, J. P. (1990). A force for change: How leadership differs from management. Simon and Schuster.
Lazonick, W., & O'Sullivan, M. (2000). Maximizing shareholder value: a new ideology for corporate governance. Economy and society, 29(1), 13-35. https://doi.org/10.1080/030851400360541
Merton, R. K. (1957). Bureaucratic structure and personality. Social Forces, 35(4), 560–568. https://doi.org/10.2307/2575585
Nut, G. (2012). The lessons of leadership. Wiley.
Palich, L. E., Cardinal, L. B., & Miller, C. C. (2000). Curvilinearity in the diversification-performance linkage: An examination of over three decades of research. Strategic Management Journal, 21(2), 155–174. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(200002)21:2<155::AID-SMJ88>3.0.CO;2-K
Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1(1), 7–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00055564
Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. Crown Business.
Thomke, S. (2003). Experimentation matters: Unlocking the potential of new technologies for innovation. Harvard Business Press.
Weber, M. (1922). Bureaucracy. In Economy and Society: An outline of interpretive Sociology, (pp. 956-1005). University of California Press.
Jonathan H. Westover, PhD is Chief Academic & Learning Officer (HCI Academy); Chair/Professor, Organizational Leadership (UVU); OD Consultant (Human Capital Innovations). Read Jonathan Westover's executive profile here.
