Managerial decision making: the courage of not knowing as an act of leadership
In managerial decision making, the most critical issue isn’t only what gets decided, but the inner state the decision comes from.
In April’s blog post we looked at what happens when a leader’s attention is captured by neuro-emotional automatic reactions. When the alarm system is triggered, the person gradually stops being in charge of their own choices and starts reacting to inner impulses they don’t recognise and, precisely for that reason, don’t control.
It is in decisions, more than in intentions, that leadership leaves its deepest mark on the organisation. That is why managerial decision making is one of the most delicate elements of strategic leadership.
Conscious decisions and reactive decisions
In many companies the real sequence is this: first the decision, made in a reactive state, and only afterwards the explanation, often brilliant and rationally consistent.
It is essential to distinguish between two profoundly different processes.
When a person chooses from a state of presence and clarity, the path is linear: they observe, assess, weigh up and decide. If asked why they made that choice, they simply share reasoning that has already taken place inside. The explanation is the verbal translation of a conscious decision.
When a person acts from a reactive state, the process is reversed. The action happens before the reason is truly available to awareness. The choice comes from an inner tension, an unrecognised need or an emotional automatic reaction.
Only afterwards does the explanation arrive. And this is where decision making risks becoming dangerous.
The story the mind builds seems consistent, plausible and even convincing, but it doesn’t match the real cause of the choice: the reaction.
One question then becomes central to decision-making leadership:
“Am I explaining a choice… or justifying a reaction?”
The Umbrella Theory and the rationalisation of decisions
At the end of the nineteenth century, the French physician Hippolyte Bernheim, founder of the Nancy School, observed a phenomenon that is still highly relevant to business decision making today.
In his experiments, he gave a hypnotised subject a post-hypnotic command: at a given signal, once awake, they were to open an umbrella in a setting where it made no sense, such as a living room or a closed room.
The subject carried out the gesture without hesitation.
When asked why, they always gave a logical, plausible explanation. The true cause of the choice, however, remained outside their awareness, because the command had been given outside the field of consciousness.
Bernheim thus observed a fundamental principle: when human beings don’t know the true origin of a behaviour, the mind builds a consistent explanation anyway.
This dynamic is what we call the Umbrella Theory:
the automatic action is the umbrella; the rationalisation is what the mind builds underneath it to preserve continuity, identity and meaning.
When reactive leadership becomes organisational structure
These dynamics don’t stay individual. When the person reacting holds a leadership position, private reactions tend to turn into organisational culture.
An organisation is, first and foremost, a system of attention. Wherever the leader’s presence is focused, that is where the energy, priorities and behaviours of the whole business ecosystem are directed.
If attention is driven by unconscious needs, the company’s decision-making processes also start to take shape around reactions justified after the fact.
Micro-management and the need for control
One of the most common effects of reactive leadership is micro-management.
It doesn’t come from precision or a focus on quality, but from an unrecognised need for control.
The leader supervises every detail, constantly steps in and gets involved in every operational process. The explanations are often impeccable:
“If I don’t check, things don’t get done properly.”
“In the end, the problem always lands back on my desk.”
“It’s quicker this way.”
The sequence, however, stays the same: first the reaction, then the explanation.
The organisational cost is significant:
- decision-making autonomy decreases;
- people stop taking responsibility;
- the leader becomes an operational bottleneck;
- the company loses its distributed intelligence.
In trying to increase control, the organisation reduces its own ability to evolve.
Impulsive decisions disguised as strategic urgency
Another typical sign of leadership under pressure is the constant use of urgency.
Sudden changes of direction, continual acceleration, drastic decisions presented as inevitable.
Here too the process is identical: the action arises to discharge an inner tension before it is meant to solve a strategic problem.
Only afterwards do the explanations come:
“The market demands it.”
“There was no alternative.”
“We couldn’t wait.”
Over time, the organisation learns that priorities can change without a readable, shared process. This doesn’t create alignment, but defensive adaptation.
Selective listening and neutralised feedback
Reactive leadership often produces conditional listening.
The leader says they are open to discussion, but only takes on board feedback that doesn’t challenge their inner balance.
The most uncomfortable observations are postponed, played down or rationalised:
“It’s not the right time.”
“It’s not a priority.”
“We don’t have the full picture.”
The exclusion happens immediately. The explanation comes later.
Over time, people stop bringing relevant information and the organisation gradually loses critical capacity and internal transparency.
When reaction absorbs leadership
Another common effect is disproportionate attention to the problem person.
Time, listening and energy are absorbed almost entirely by whoever creates friction or tension.
Here too the explanations sound plausible:
“If I don’t keep an eye on them, it gets worse.”
“They’re struggling.”
“I need to be there.”
But the systemic effect is clear: the professionals who create value receive less attention, less dialogue and less recognition.
Reaction gradually replaces conscious choice.
When the problem isn’t what you decide, but where you decide from
All these phenomena have one thing in common.
They aren’t simply errors of method or a lack of management skills. They are decisions made in a reactive state and then made acceptable through consistent rationalisation.
The Umbrella Theory shows clearly that the problem isn’t the explanation, but the inner state the decision comes from.
When the real need isn’t recognised, the choice becomes automatic.
When the automatic reaction isn’t observed, the mind builds consistency.
And when that consistency seems credible, the organisation adapts… often paying an invisible price.
The true act of leadership: staying with not knowing
Mature managerial decision making begins with an act of inner presence.
The central question becomes:
“Am I choosing… or reacting?”
The courage of a modern leader doesn’t lie in always having an immediate answer, but in being able to hold back from acting when they sense an automatic reaction emerging.
Staying with not knowing.
Remaining present.
Not opening the umbrella straight away.
Only from this space can a truly conscious decision arise, one that doesn’t need to be justified afterwards.
Because, from the very start, it comes from presence.
