Leading also means making the decision nobody wants to make

Some decisions everyone can see need to be made, yet nobody wants to own.

Shutting down a project that took months of work. Revisiting a strategy that was defended with conviction. Telling a client that a deadline is not feasible. Having a difficult conversation about performance. Admitting that a hire did not work out.

These are the moments when leadership carries a weight that rarely shows up in management presentations.

Leaders have to deal with legitimate interests that do not always point in the same direction. What keeps things comfortable today can hurt the team tomorrow. What looks like loyalty to one person can become unfairness to everyone else. A necessary decision can frustrate capable, well-meaning people.

That responsibility shows up at every level: coordinating a team, running a project or managing a department. The title changes. The discomfort of deciding stays.

Putting it off has consequences too

There is a quiet way of handing problems to the team: avoiding a decision so you do not have to face the conversation that comes after it.

While the leader waits for the situation to sort itself out, someone absorbs the extra load. A conflict drags on. A priority loses ground. A client keeps hearing a promise the team already knows it cannot keep.

Of course, some decisions need more time. Investigating the facts, listening to the people involved and weighing alternatives are part of the job. The problem starts when gathering information becomes a permanent excuse not to act.

One question helps separate prudence from procrastination: what do I still need to know in order to decide, and what does waiting cost?

The context changes. The responsibility remains

Ben Horowitz wrote that “peacetime and wartime require radically different management styles” in his essay Peacetime CEO/Wartime CEO.

The metaphor is useful for moments when an organization faces a real threat to its survival. In those situations, priorities have to become clearer, resources have to be concentrated, and some choices cannot wait for consensus.

But turning every difficulty into a war has a price too. Permanent urgency can become an excuse to centralize everything, ignore warnings and treat people as obstacles.

My view is that leaders need to adjust how they act to the context, while preserving the team’s ability to say what is going on, especially when the news is bad.

Deciding with courage takes judgment

Jeff Bezos offers a useful distinction: “Many decisions are reversible, two-way doors,” from his 2016 letter to shareholders.

Trying out a new work routine allows quick adjustments. Closing an operation or letting someone go carries very different consequences. Applying the same speed and the same process to all of these situations raises the chance of getting it wrong.

Before a hard choice, it helps to work through a few questions:

What problem are we trying to solve?
What facts support the decision?
What alternatives did we consider?
Who will be affected, and how can we reduce the harm?
What can be reversed if we are wrong?
When will we review the outcome?

No list removes uncertainty. It helps keep pressure, pride or irritation from deciding for us.

Firmness also takes respect

Discussing psychological safety and accountability, Amy Edmondson says: “I see these as two different dimensions, not as a tradeoff” (Leading in Tough Times, Harvard Business School, 2022).

The idea matters because a team needs to be able to raise risks and admit mistakes while still being held to high standards of work.

Listening to disagreement does not oblige a leader to accept every suggestion. It does oblige them to consider information that could change the decision. And communicating a hard choice requires clarity about the reasons, respect for confidentiality and a willingness to answer the questions that can be answered.

If the decision involves a person, their dignity must be preserved. If it involves a project, the effort already invested deserves recognition, even when continuing no longer makes sense.

Owning the decision includes what comes after

Responsibility does not end with the announcement.

You have to follow the effects, support the transition and change course when results or new information show that it is necessary. You also have to acknowledge your own part in the problem, instead of spreading the blame to protect the image of whoever decided.

For me, maturity in leadership comes down to this: standing by a necessary decision, explaining the criteria behind it and staying present to deal with its consequences.

Which decision are you putting off because you still lack information, and which one because the conversation will be uncomfortable?

Originally published in Portuguese on LinkedIn on 1 November 2026. English edition translated for this site.