Building decision power in a permacrisis

There was a time when uncertainty felt like an interruption. A deviation from the plan. Something to manage, mitigate, and ideally move past. That framing no longer holds. What we’re experiencing now is something closer to a permanent condition - what many have started calling a permacrisis. A state where economic volatility, geopolitical shifts, and technological acceleration aren’t exceptions, but constants. In this post, I reflect on what it takes to lead in a Astate of constant uncertainty.

According to Willis Towers Watson, leaders broadly expect sustained volatility across markets, tech, and politics. And interestingly, a Forbes study highlights that 74% of leaders now see uncertainty not only as a threat, but as an opportunity.

That shift in mindset is important. But it also raises a harder question:

If uncertainty is no longer episodic - but structural - what does it actually require of us as leaders?

Because it’s one thing to accept uncertainty intellectually. It’s something else entirely to make decisions inside it, repeatedly, without perfect information, and while others are looking to you for clarity.

A situation that felt familiar - and different

A few months ago, we were working on a new partnership initiative at Børsen. It had all the usual ingredients: a promising commercial angle, strong stakeholder interest, and a fairly tight timeline. On paper, it made sense.

But the environment around it was shifting faster than expected. Budget signals were unclear. A key partner hesitated. At the same time, internally, we were juggling multiple strategic priorities that all felt urgent.

Normally, I would have tried to “solve” this by pushing for more clarity: more data, more alignment, more certainty before committing.

This time, that approach felt off.

Not because clarity isn’t valuable - but because waiting for it would likely mean missing the window entirely.

So instead, we did something slightly uncomfortable: we moved forward without full conviction. We defined a smaller version of the initiative, aligned on a few non-negotiables, and agreed to test it in a contained format.

No big launch. No perfect plan. Just a structured experiment.

And what stood out wasn’t just the outcome (which, by the way, was better than expected). It was the shift in how we operated:

Less need for certainty upfront.

More willingness to act with partial information.

More focus on learning than on being right.

It sounds simple. In practice, it required a different kind of discipline.

What uncertainty actually does to decision-making

One thing I’ve noticed - both in myself and in teams - is that uncertainty tends to trigger two opposite but equally problematic reactions:

1. Analysis paralysis

We delay decisions in the hope that more data will reduce ambiguity. It rarely does.

2. Reactive decision-making

We move too quickly, driven by pressure rather than clarity, and end up correcting course constantly.

Neither is particularly effective in a permacrisis environment.

What seems to work better is something in between: A form of deliberate decisiveness. Acting with intent, but without the illusion of certainty.

That requires a subtle shift in how we think about decisions:

Not as one-off commitments - but as hypotheses.

Not as “right or wrong” - but as “tested or untested”.

This reframing matters more than it might seem.

Because when decisions become hypotheses, you’re no longer trying to predict the future perfectly. You’re trying to learn your way forward.

And that changes both the speed and the quality of how you operate.

Three practical ways to build decision power under uncertainty

I don’t think there’s a single playbook for this. But there are a few principles that I’ve found helpful - especially in environments where clarity is limited and stakes are real.

1. Shorten the Distance Between Decision and Feedback

In stable environments, you can afford long decision cycles. In volatile ones, that becomes a liability.

One of the most practical shifts is to design decisions in a way that allows for fast feedback.

Instead of asking:

“What’s the perfect strategy for the next 12 months?”

Ask:

“What can we test in the next 2–4 weeks that gives us signal?”

This doesn’t mean thinking short-term. It means breaking long-term ambition into smaller, testable steps.

In the partnership example, we didn’t try to validate the entire business case upfront. We tested a slice of it - enough to learn whether the core assumption held.

It reduced risk. But more importantly, it created momentum.

There’s something powerful about moving — even when the direction isn’t fully clear.

2. Be Explicit About What You Don’t Know

This one sounds obvious. It’s not.

In many leadership settings, there’s an implicit pressure to project confidence - sometimes at the expense of honesty about uncertainty.

But I’ve found that being explicit about unknowns actually strengthens decision-making.

It allows you to:

• Identify which assumptions matter most

• Align the team on what needs to be tested

• Reduce false confidence in fragile plans

In practice, this can be as simple as saying:

“These are the three things we’re assuming. If any of them turn out to be wrong, we’ll need to adjust.”

It creates a shared awareness that the plan is provisional - and that adaptation is part of the process, not a failure of it.

Interestingly, this also tends to build trust. Not because you have all the answers - but because you’re clear about where the gaps are.

3. Separate Identity from Outcome

This might be the hardest one.

In uncertain environments, you will make decisions that don’t work out. That’s not a risk - it’s a certainty.

The question is how you relate to that.

If every decision becomes a reflection of your competence, it’s almost impossible to take the kind of calculated risks that uncertainty requires.

But if you can create a bit of distance between you and the outcome, something shifts:

You become more willing to test.

More open to adjusting course.

Less defensive when things don’t go as planned.

For me, this is still very much a work in progress.

I tend to hold myself to a high standard. Which is useful in many contexts - but can become a constraint when speed and experimentation matter more than precision.

What helps is reframing success slightly:

Not as “getting it right” - but as “moving it forward”.

Where this leaves us

If uncertainty is the new normal, then leadership is less about having answers - and more about creating movement.

That might sound abstract. But in practice, it shows up in very concrete ways:

• Making decisions earlier than feels comfortable

• Testing ideas before they feel fully formed

• Being transparent about what you don’t know

• Adjusting without overcorrecting

None of this removes the difficulty.

If anything, it requires more from you - not less.

More judgment.

More self-awareness.

More tolerance for ambiguity.

But it also opens something up.

Because if 74% of leaders are right - and uncertainty is an opportunity - then the advantage doesn’t go to the ones who eliminate it.

It goes to the ones who can operate inside it.

A personal reflection

I’m still figuring this out.

There are days where I catch myself defaulting back to old patterns - wanting more certainty, more alignment, more time before committing.

And sometimes, that’s still the right call.

But more often than not, I’m learning that waiting for clarity is a luxury the environment doesn’t always afford.

So the question becomes less about:

“Do I have enough information to decide?”

And more about:

“Do I have enough to take the next step?”

That shift feels small. But for me, it’s changing how I lead.

Not towards being more certain - but towards being more decisive, even when certainty isn’t available.

And maybe that’s the real skill we’re being asked to build.

Not confidence in our predictions.

But confidence in our ability to navigate whatever comes next.