What We Do
.svg)
Uncertainty is not new. Markets have always moved. Political environments have always shifted. Organisations have always had to make decisions without perfect information. What has changed is the nature and intensity of uncertainty and, more importantly, how leaders are responding to it.
There is a telling statistic in PwC’s 29th Global CEO Survey, published in January 2026 and drawing on the views of 4,454 chief executives across 95 countries. CEOs now spend 47% of their time on issues with a time horizon of less than one year. That is three times the proportion they devote to thinking beyond five years. A third of CEOs say geopolitical uncertainty is making them less likely to make large new investments. In a period defined by rapid geopolitical change, technological disruption and climate volatility, the leaders of the world’s most significant organisations are overwhelmingly focused on what is immediately in front of them.
This is not a failure of discipline. It is a very human response to sustained pressure. And that, precisely, is the problem. In today’s environment, the greatest risk is often not external volatility itself. It is the human reaction to it.
When faced with uncertainty, the natural human response is to seek clarity. Leaders look for clear narratives, predictable patterns and definitive answers. This instinct is understandable. It creates a sense of control, alignment and direction, all of which are things that organisations genuinely need. But in a world shaped by overlapping risks, geopolitical shifts and non-linear events, the drive to simplify can become a form of distortion.
Complex realities get reduced into overly neat conclusions. Ambiguity gets forced into certainty. And in doing so, organisations risk making decisions based not on how the world is, but on how they need it to appear. Modern organisations are also deeply reliant on data, models and structured thinking, which are essential tools. But under genuine uncertainty they can create false confidence. Forecasts are extended further than the evidence supports. Scenarios are treated as probabilities rather than possibilities. Narratives are built around incomplete information and then defended as fact long after the underlying conditions have moved on.
As HEC Paris Professor Matt Mulford has observed, the danger lies in misdiagnosis: leaders who treat deep structural uncertainty as if it were ordinary, quantifiable risk end up relying on the wrong tools and making predictable mistakes. More data and sharper forecasts are powerful instruments for managing risks you can model. They are much less useful for navigating uncertainty that is genuinely open-ended.
Uncertainty creates pressure. Boards expect direction. Markets expect confidence. Teams expect leadership. In response, leaders often default to action: accelerating decision-making, committing to strategies prematurely, prioritising momentum over reflection. Action in itself is not the issue. The issue is action without sufficient understanding of what is actually happening.
In stable environments, this can still produce acceptable outcomes. In complex, shifting environments, it amplifies error. Sometimes the most effective response to uncertainty is not speed but pause and recalibration. The organisations that moved most effectively after the Red Sea shipping crisis or Ukraine’s impact on global food supply chains were not the ones that reacted fastest. They were the ones that read the situation most clearly and moved with deliberate purpose rather than reactive urgency.
And yet the data shows that paralysis is at least as common as recklessness. PwC found that only 30% of CEOs are confident about revenue growth over the next twelve months, down from 56% in 2022, a five year low. A separate PwC survey of US executives in early 2026 found that 57% said they were missing opportunities because they could not make decisions fast enough, while 68% said they struggle to translate uncertainty into concrete business decisions at all. The paradox is sharp. PwC’s own data shows that the companies planning major acquisitions and large investments despite the uncertain environment are growing faster and enjoying higher profit margins than their more cautious peers. Caution, when it becomes the dominant mode, does not reduce risk. It transfers it.
At the heart of many leadership missteps is a deeper psychological driver: the need for control. Uncertainty challenges this need directly and uncomfortably. In response, leaders may over-engineer strategies, rely excessively on detailed planning, and attempt to eliminate variability rather than work with it. This creates an illusion that uncertainty can be contained through effort and structure. In reality, excessive control reduces flexibility, slows response times and limits an organisation’s ability to adapt when conditions shift. The more rigid the system, the more vulnerable it becomes precisely when it is most tested.
This dynamic shows up in a pattern that Wharton Professor Maurice Schweitzer has written about: leaders underappreciate how genuinely random and uncertain the world is, and as a result they reward good outcomes rather than good decisions, and punish bad outcomes rather than bad decisions. Over time this produces an organisation that becomes less capable of sound judgement under uncertainty, because the implicit lesson reinforced at every review is that the goal is to be right rather than to think well. Building the capacity for good decisions under uncertainty requires something different: the willingness to examine the quality of reasoning and the assumptions behind it, independently of whether the outcome happened to be favourable.
Another common response to uncertainty is selective interpretation. Leaders tend to overweight information that confirms existing views, underestimate weak signals that do not fit current narratives, and dismiss anomalies as outliers. In stable environments this bias may go largely unnoticed. In periods of structural change it becomes critical, because early indicators of major shifts rarely present as clear, undeniable signals. They appear fragmented, inconsistent and easy to overlook. The danger is not that leaders lack information. It is that they filter it through assumptions that no longer reflect reality.
This is compounded by what might be called the emotional undercurrent of decision-making. Uncertainty is not just an analytical challenge. It introduces anxiety about outcomes, fear of being wrong and pressure to appear decisive. These emotions shape behaviour in ways that are often subtle and rarely acknowledged openly. Confidence may be projected even when doubt exists. Decisions may be framed more strongly than the evidence supports. Alternative perspectives may be suppressed in order to maintain alignment and momentum. The result is a form of collective overconfidence: organisations that appear certain externally while significant uncertainty remains unresolved internally.
If uncertainty cannot be eliminated, then leadership must evolve to operate within it more effectively. The research points consistently toward practices that are somewhat counterintuitive, because they require leaders to do things that feel uncomfortable in the short term in order to be effective over the longer one.
The first shift is from certainty to clarity of thinking. Leaders do not need all the answers. They need a clear and honest understanding of what is known, what is genuinely unknown, and what is actively changing. Acknowledging uncertainty does not weaken leadership. It is the foundation of better decision-making. As one study published in the journal Leadership Quarterly found, leaders who framed uncertainty as an external, objective condition rather than a personal failing were perceived as more competent, not less.
The second shift is from speed to timing. Acting quickly is not the same as acting effectively. Knowing when to move and when to wait, and having the organisational confidence to make that distinction openly, is one of the most valuable and underrated capabilities in leadership. The organisations handling uncertainty well are making decisions faster and reviewing them more frequently, not because they have abandoned long-term thinking but because they have recognised that strategy in a volatile environment must be implemented through a series of shorter, revisable commitments rather than single large bets.
The third shift is from control to adaptability. The goal is not to eliminate uncertainty through planning and structure. It is to build organisations that can adjust as conditions evolve. This means investing in scenario literacy rather than forecast accuracy, so that when conditions shift, the organisation has already thought through what that means and what it would do. PwC found that 65% of executives say they lack the data needed to assess geopolitical risks and opportunities properly. The instinctive response is to seek better data. The more useful response is to build better capability for reasoning under ambiguity.
The fourth shift is from optimising for the world that existed to questioning whether that world still holds. The business models, risk frameworks and strategies that most organisations rely on were built during a period of increasing globalisation and broadly stable geopolitical conditions. Optimisation and resilience are not the same thing. A highly optimised system is one calibrated for a defined set of assumptions. When those assumptions change, the efficiency becomes fragility. The organisations navigating this period most effectively are not those that have made their existing models more efficient. They are the ones willing to ask whether their existing models still rest on assumptions the world is prepared to honour.
There is a final distinction that runs through all of this. Managing uncertainty implies that it is something external to the organisation, a condition imposed by the environment that leadership’s job is to contain. Leading through uncertainty implies something different: that the organisation’s own capability, culture and decision-making quality are themselves variables in how well it navigates what comes.
The organisations that will perform best over the next decade are not necessarily those operating in the most favourable environments. They are the ones that have built genuine capacity for operating well under conditions that cannot be fully predicted or controlled. That capacity is partly structural. But it is also deeply human: the quality of judgement that comes from experience, the courage to act without complete information, and the intellectual honesty to distinguish between what is known, what can be inferred, and what must simply be held as open.
Uncertainty is not going away. The organisations that succeed will not be those that find a way to eliminate it. They will be the ones that have learned to understand it clearly, challenge their own assumptions about it honestly, and create the space for better judgement to emerge. Because in the end, uncertainty is not just something that happens to organisations. It is something that reveals them.
.svg)
