Choices Always Come with Fear
In the spring of 2026, the CEO of a global company stood before the board. In his hands was a report containing two strategic directions: one was maintaining the status quo to guarantee stable profits, and the other was an AI transition plan carrying high risks but immense future growth potential. The board was divided, and the data supported both sides. And he had to decide—today, right now, in this very room. This is the reality of a leader.
According to McKinsey & Company research, the global uncertainty index has surged to nearly double its level in the mid-1990s. Compounded by complex shocks ranging from the pandemic-driven digital acceleration to the AI revolution and geopolitical conflicts, the environment facing leaders has reached its most challenging level in history.
Options have multiplied, data overflows, and stakeholders have grown more complex, yet the time available to make decisions has actually shrunk.
This article is written for leaders standing at that crossroads. It addresses the fundamental question of "how to choose" rather than "what to choose."
1. Avoiding a Decision Is Another Decision
Many leaders mistakenly believe that delaying a decision buys them time. However, the reality is quite the opposite.
McKinsey points out that waiting to make decisions in an uncertain environment is a decision in itself. For instance, postponing the cancellation of a non-urgent surgery ultimately fails to secure medical personnel and hospital capacity, putting more patients at risk.
The same applies to business. Postponing a new product launch is a decision to hand the competitive advantage to rivals; delaying hiring is a decision that burdens the current team with burnout; and putting off investment is a decision to accept opportunity costs. Choosing not to decide is not "no decision," but in most cases, no different from "making a bad decision."
There are already over 350 published definitions of leadership. Despite this, our society and organizations still experience severe leadership issues. With an abundance of theories, why doesn't reality improve? The reason is simple: the core of leadership is not "knowing" but "doing," and the most pivotal form of that action is "deciding." A leader who fears making decisions ultimately leaves the organization to drift. A ship without a direction can find no favorable wind.
2. Data Does Not Provide Answers, Only Direction
We live in an age of data overflowing with dashboards, KPIs, predictive analytics, and AI recommendation algorithms. Yet paradoxically, the more data there is, the more difficult decisions often become. This is because data is a tool that explains the past. Data tells us "what happened," but "what will happen" remains in the realm of a leader's judgment and courage.
Deloitte's 2024 Global Human Capital Trends survey (covering approximately 14,000 leaders) emphasizes that we must move beyond traditional performance metrics such as efficiency, output, and predictable outcomes, analyzing that organizations must now foster human connection, resilience, adaptability, and imagination to work amidst uncertainty.
A good leader analyzes data without becoming a slave to it, reads the direction suggested by the data, and makes the final decision using their own experience, intuition, and organizational values.
Amazon CEO Andy Jassy said, "Listen to what customers are truly struggling with, ask yourself why those constraints have to exist, and begin inventing on behalf of the customer." This is the essence of innovative decision-making that goes beyond data.
Data can be compared to a map, but simply having a map does not mean you will walk the path. Ultimately, it is people who walk, and it is the leader who chooses the direction.
3. Four Principles for Making High-Risk Decisions
McKinsey emphasizes that amidst geopolitical uncertainty, CEOs must establish clear scenarios and make decisions based on those scenarios to find a stable strategic foothold. In fact, some CEOs have begun reporting the financial impacts of geopolitical risks—such as tariff changes—to their boards alongside traditional financial forecasts.
Ultimately, the core of high-risk decision-making lies not in "what to choose" but in "by what criteria to choose." Field-tested principles can be summarized in the following four points:
① Map Trade-Offs Clearly
Every decision involves both gains and losses. A good leader does not turn a blind eye to this, but openly lays out before the team, "What must we give up if we make this decision?"
Apple CEO Tim Cook anticipated US-China trade friction years ago and decided to reduce reliance on India as a new base. As a result, approximately 14% of iPhones were produced in India as of fiscal year 2024. This decision was possible because the trade-off between short-term costs and long-term risks was clearly mapped out.
② Stress-Test the Plan
Before making a decision, what is known as "red team thinking" is necessary—intentionally seeking out counterarguments under the assumption that the decision is wrong. A leader who listens only to supporters is merely confirming their own bias.
McKinsey emphasizes that while leaders may feel an impulse to concentrate authority in a few hands during crisis situations, they should instead involve more stakeholders and encourage debates from diverse perspectives, an approach that leads to wiser decisions without sacrificing speed.
③ Decide by Principles, Not Policies
Policies are rules, while principles are values. Even in situations without regulations, a leader with values can make decisions. In the face of unexpected situations or unprecedented crises, what shines is not a manual, but the core values the organization has cultivated over a long time.
Gartner's 2024 Leadership Vision report analyzes that transparency and ethical behavior are increasingly demanded by stakeholders. This is why a leader who internalizes principles into organizational culture is far more resilient in a crisis than one who thickens the rulebook.
④ Name the Change
There is something more important than the decision itself: making organizational members understand why it is a necessary change. When a leader names a decision, gives it meaning, and turns the direction into a narrative, the organization finally accepts that decision as its own.
JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon once directly pointed out that checking smartphone notifications or reading emails during meetings is "rude and a waste of time." This was not merely setting a meeting rule, but an act of publicly naming the cultural value of an "organization that focuses."
4. Leaders Who Acknowledge Uncertainty Are More Trusted
Many leaders harbor the fear, "If I say I don't know, won't I lose trust?" However, research suggests the opposite.
According to studies in international academic journals, decision-makers are generally assumed to be more competent and trustworthy when they show confidence in their choices. However, many decisions are inherently uncertain, and what matters is the type of uncertainty. Internal uncertainty—indicating a lack of knowledge or low reliability—can be viewed negatively, whereas acknowledging external uncertainty caused by complexity and environmental randomness actually builds trust.
Put simply: saying "I don't know much about this problem" can damage trust, but saying "This market itself is so unpredictable that we are preparing this way" actually enhances trust in the leader. According to PwC's 2024 Global Workforce Survey, transparently disclosing decision-making processes by leaders during technology adoption, such as AI, plays a pivotal role in building trust and confidence among employees.
McKinsey also emphasizes that the age of uncertainty requires leaders with the right temperament and character. These leaders are curious, flexible, and capable of making hard decisions without fearing that it will make them unpopular. After gathering diverse perspectives, they make decisions for the best of the organization rather than their own careers.
A transparent leader is not a weak leader. They are leaders who face reality and respond to uncertainty alongside their members, which is the strongest form of leadership.
5. Acknowledge Leadership Limitations and Distribute Capacity
There are two types of leaders in the world: leaders who believe they must decide everything themselves, and leaders who design who should decide what.
The former becomes a bottleneck for the organization, while the latter keeps the organization alive. JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon redefines decision-making authority to a small number of actual owners, emphasizing the need to distinguish types of decisions given that not all choices are high-risk. At one global apparel retailer, buyers were given full authority to independently purchase designs and fabrics within set limits, bypassing traditional hierarchies.
This decision, aimed at keeping pace with fast-changing consumer fashion trends, paradoxically illustrates how slow an organization becomes when a leader tries to control everything.
According to KPC's 2025 HRD Trend Report, the top competency office workers demand in their leaders is organizational management (57%), followed by people management (52%), demonstrating that teamwork, organizational culture building, coaching, and motivation are increasingly vital.
Meanwhile, a survey of domestic office workers in their 20s and 30s showed that 1 in 3 (32.5%) do not want a middle management position, with the main reasons being increased workloads and pressure regarding performance responsibility.
This is evidence that leadership is becoming an increasingly heavy and difficult role, which is precisely why leaders rationally distributing decision-making structures themselves becomes a matter of organizational survival, not just efficiency.
6. The AI Era: How Must Leadership Decisions Change?
Artificial intelligence does not replace a leader's decisions. However, it certainly changes how leaders make decisions.
Even if AI excels in data analysis and decision support, uniquely human domains such as empathy, creativity, and ethical judgment remain the leader's responsibility. Particularly as issues of AI bias and algorithmic transparency come to the fore, the role of leaders in supervising and guiding the ethical use of technology becomes even more critical.
According to PwC's 2024 survey, organizations must emphasize that high-risk decision-making must be performed by "humans," and human review and validation of AI-generated outcomes are always required.
This "human-led, tech-powered" approach is the core principle of leadership in the AI era.
Gartner's 2024 Future of Work Trends report predicted that by 2025, 60% of leaders will require AI-related training. We have entered an era where leaders are evaluated not on how well they utilize AI, but on how well they judge and verify AI results.
According to McKinsey's 2025 State of AI report, the average number of AI-related risks managed by organizations has doubled from 2 in 2022 to 4 today, meaning the domain of judgment leaders must manage has expanded accordingly.
AI provides fast analysis, but humans read the context; AI recognizes patterns, but humans interpret meaning; AI suggests options, but it is always the leader who takes responsibility.
7. What Leaders Truly Need When Deciding: "Capacity," Not Competence
INSEAD Learning Lab Director Ann Pessikam emphasizes that while leaders build competence by adding skills, frameworks, and experience, what they truly need to build is "capacity."
This grows through "unlearning"—dropping the previous assumption that speed, reassurance, and control are absolutely necessary in complex leadership decisions. If competence is what leaders need to smoothly manage and organize a business, capacity is the power that enables leaders to remain present even during moments when the business and its people are shaking. The distinction is decisive: a competent leader excels in normal times, but a leader with capacity remains unshaken in a crisis.
Among the six core characteristics of 21st-century leadership identified by McKinsey are positive energy, balance and inspiration, servant leadership, continuous learning and humility, grit and resilience, spaciousness, and stewardship.
Among these, humility and resilience are particularly noteworthy. A humble leader gathers more diverse perspectives because they know they could be wrong, and a resilient leader bounces back quickly after a wrong decision without collapsing.
According to PwC's survey, about two-thirds (62%) of surveyed employees reported experiencing more changes at work over the past year than before, and one-third experienced four or more major changes. The pace of change is unlikely to slow down. In this era, what leaders truly need is not more knowledge, but the strength to endure the unknown—that very capacity.
8. Inclusive Leadership: Diversity Makes Better Decisions
Good decisions do not emerge in isolation. Stronger decisions are born when diverse perspectives collide and merge.
According to McKinsey research, organizations with diverse leadership teams are more likely to outperform financially than those without. In particular, companies ranking in the top 25% for ethnic and cultural diversity on executive teams were 36% more likely to achieve above-average profitability compared to the bottom group. KPC's 2025 HRD Trend Report similarly analyzed that inclusive leadership showed a meaningful response rate of 32%, emphasizing that leadership of understanding and respect—such as gender sensitivity and diversity—is coming to the forefront.
The core of inclusive leadership is recognizing differing perspectives and experiences not as "differences" but as "diversity." Because innovation happens at the intersection where diverse viewpoints collide and merge, leaders must act as facilitators creating this synergy. Just as grapes of different varieties meet to produce a wine with unique flavors, decisions that could never emerge from a homogenous group are forged within diversity.
9. Post-Decision: Only Leaders Who Take Responsibility Earn the Next Decision
Making a decision and taking responsibility for it are entirely different matters.
Many leaders are courageous in the former but vulnerable in the latter. When a wrong decision is made, an outstanding leader does two things simultaneously: admits it quickly and corrects it quickly. These two actions do not damage trust; rather, they build it.
According to a 2023 Gallup survey, highly engaged teams are 23% more profitable and 18% more productive than disengaged ones, and that team engagement stems from a culture where leaders admit mistakes and move forward together.
DDI's 2023 Global Leadership Forecast report revealed that 72% of leaders feel "exhausted" by the end of the day, a 12% increase from 2020. Because leaders are human too, creating a structure where the weight of decisions is shared across the organization rather than borne alone is a condition for sustainable leadership.
The language of responsibility following a decision is this: "I chose. I take responsibility for the outcome. And we learn from here." People willingly gather around leaders who can sincerely speak these short sentences.
Conclusion: At the Crossroads of Choice, What Should a Leader Choose?
Let us return to our initial question. At the crossroads of countless choices, what should a leader choose? There is no correct answer. But there are principles.
Do not delay decisions. Rely on data, but do not become enslaved by it. Acknowledge uncertainty, but do not be overwhelmed by it. Distribute decision-making rights, but do not drop responsibility. Utilize AI, but let humans make the judgment. Embrace diverse perspectives, but keep the final direction clear. Quickly admit and correct wrong decisions. And above all, rather than merely building competence through technology and frameworks, cultivate the inner capacity to endure the unknown.
Leadership is not the ability to make perfect decisions.
It is the power to decide for the organization even amid imperfect information, take responsibility for those decisions, and rise again when wrong. What leaders at the crossroads need is not more data, but deeper principles, broader perspectives, and the courage to decide.