Why Decision-Making Is Becoming Harder for C-Suite Leaders—and How You Can Overcome It

Summary

Podcast Summary: Why Decision-Making Is Becoming Harder for C-Suite Leaders—and How You Can Overcome It

Podcast: Redefiners – Leadership Lounge (Russell Reynolds Associates)
Date: June 17, 2026
Hosts: Emma Combe
Guests: Ilana Abramovic (London), Henrik Krajowski (Toronto)

---

Episode Overview

This Leadership Lounge episode delves into why decision-making is more challenging than ever for C-suite executives. Host Emma Combe is joined by leadership advisors Ilana Abramovic and Henrik Krajowski, who unpack the pressures facing top leaders, explore modern decision-making pitfalls, and offer practical strategies for sharpening judgment and building more disciplined, values-driven decision habits. Key insights include the importance of clarity, self-awareness, dissent, and knowing when to move quickly—or when to slow down.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Modern Decision-Making Challenge

• The “Always On” Burden:
  • C-suite leaders face pressure to be constantly available, increasing cognitive load and the risk of burnout.
  • Decision fatigue and paralysis are becoming increasingly common due to information overload, high stakes, and ambiguous contexts.
  • Ilana Abramovic (04:12): “Being always on and 6am I think is generous. I think a lot of our clients are on from 4am 5am is going to cause burnout and cognitive overload. The brain is like any other muscle in the body and it needs space and time to rejuvenate, regenerate, calibrate.”
• Two Pitfalls:
  • Analysis Paralysis: Leaders try to “boil the ocean” with endless data-gathering.
  • Snap Decisions: Others prioritize speed, relying on gut instinct without stakeholder input, risking disengagement and errors.
  • Emma Combe (03:19): “You disenfranchise lots of people if you're perceived to not really care about other points of view.”
• Complexity and Uncertainty:
  • Senior leaders are routinely asked to make unprecedented decisions without a playbook or clear precedents.

---

2. Navigating Tough Calls with Values

• Values as Guardrails:
  • Personal values and aspirations help leaders stay anchored amidst ambiguity and trade-offs.
  • Henrik Krajowski (05:44): “Values matter when the decision gets messy, where the facts are incomplete and every option has a cost. That’s when a leader needs guardrails.”
  • The “Non-Negotiables Test”: Leaders should clarify what they’re never willing to compromise.
    • Henrik shares: One leader defined three non-negotiables: transparency with employees, a no-blame culture, and protecting customer trust.
  • Ilana Abramovic (06:45): “Your body often knows something's wrong well before your brain does. So when you are being forced to make a decision quickly and your stomach is clenching, you're feeling uncomfortable...Listen to that.”
• Physical Intuition:
  • Pay attention to visceral or "gut" responses—they may indicate values misalignment.

---

3. Balancing Conviction, Ego, and Objectivity

• Distinguishing Conviction from Ego:
  • Conviction is critical, but can slip into ego, leading to “sunk cost bias.”
  • Henrik Krajowski (08:07): “Once a leader sponsors an idea, it can become very personal to them...That’s when sunk cost bias takes over.”
• Predefining Success Metrics:
  • Set clear, objective milestones (“what must be true”) in advance to know when to pivot, removing ego from post-decision assessment.
  • Henrik (09:16): “Before we launch, we agree what must be true on a certain date...If those things aren't true, we stop, resize and pivot.”

---

4. Systems Thinking & Team Decision Clarity

• Adopting a “Systems Mindset”
  • Top leaders must zoom out and understand the bigger organizational ecosystem.
• Clarifying Decision Roles:
  • Use frameworks (like DICE: Decides, Informed, Consulted, Executes) to specify:
    • Who makes the decision
    • Who is informed or consulted
    • Who executes
  • Henrik (10:39): “The rule is simple. For every material issue, an executive team should name who's owning this recommendation, who needs input...who makes the final call, and who’s the team that executes.”

---

5. Encouraging Dissent and Avoiding Groupthink

• Building Dissent into the Process:
  • Real risk often goes unspoken in executive rooms; “authority bias” takes over.
  • Henrik (12:52): “CEO likes the deal...board likes the strategy, and suddenly everyone gets real polite.”
  • Emma (13:25): “Bringing outside views in—independent advisors—can be extremely valuable...”
• The Pre-Mortem Method:
  • Ask teams to assume failure in 18 months—what did we miss?
  • Henrik (14:03): “This gives people permission to name the real risks while they're still cheap to fix.”

---

6. Practicing Decision Discipline

• The “One Way/Two Way Door” Rule:
  • Two-Way Door: Decisions that are reversible can be made quickly (pilot, test, iterate).
  • One-Way Door: Irreversible decisions should be slowed down and stress-tested.
  • Henrik (16:19): “You don't need to build a cathedral around a decision that can be unwound in 30 days. But if it's irreversible...slow down and use better hygiene...Go fast where learning’s cheap. Be careful where being wrong is expensive.”

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• [04:12] Ilana Abramovic: “The brain is like any other muscle in the body and it needs space and time to rejuvenate, regenerate, calibrate...Without making intentional pauses...You are going to experience decision fatigue.”
• [05:44] Henrik Krajowski: “Values matter when the decision gets messy, where the facts are incomplete and every option has a cost. That’s when a leader needs guardrails.”
• [06:45] Ilana Abramovic: “Your body often knows something's wrong well before your brain does...Listen to that.”
• [09:16] Henrik Krajowski: “Before we launch, we agree what must be true on a certain date...If those things aren't true, we stop, resize and pivot. This takes ego out of the moment.”
• [12:52] Henrik Krajowski: “In a lot of executive rooms, the issue isn’t that no one sees the risk, it’s that people don’t say it clearly.”
• [14:03] Henrik Krajowski: “Pre mortem—assume it failed 18 months from now. What did we miss?...This gives people permission to name the real risks while they're still cheap to fix.”
• [16:19] Henrik Krajowski: “Is this a one way door or a two way door?...Go fast where learning's cheap. Be careful where being wrong is expensive.”

---

Important Timestamps for Key Segments

• [02:32] – Why decision-making is harder for senior leaders now
• [04:12] – Always-on culture and cognitive overload
• [05:44] – Using personal values as decision “guardrails”
• [08:07] – Balancing conviction and ego; sunk cost bias
• [09:41] – The DICE decision framework for teams
• [12:52] – Importance of dissent and groupthink risks
• [14:03] – The pre-mortem method for stress-testing decisions
• [16:19] – “One way/two way door” approach to decision urgency

---

Summary Takeaways

• Creating mental space is vital—leaders who are always on risk clouded judgment and poor decisions due to fatigue.
• Anchor key decisions in clearly defined personal and organizational values.
• Recognize and mitigate sunk cost bias; distinguish conviction from ego.
• Use explicit frameworks (such as DICE and pre-mortems) for team decisions, clarify accountability, and encourage healthy dissent.
• Apply the “one way/two way door” test: Move fast on reversible experiments; slow down and scrutinize big, irreversible moves.
• Leaders who combine clarity, humility, and discipline will outperform in today’s complex environment.

---

For more leadership advice or to submit questions for future episodes, email [e-mail].

Transcript

[A]

Foreign.

[B]

Welcome to the Leadership Lounge, a place to kick back and listen as our experts dissect some of the biggest questions leaders face today. I'm Emma Coombe, Leadership Advisor in our London office. Today we're talking about decision making and what it really takes to make good decisions in the C Suite when every key decision carries real weight for the business and those within it. So how do you make effective decisions when the pressure is high and the path forward isn't always clear? How do you stay focused on what really matters and avoid getting pulled into the noise? And how can you build the habits and discipline needed to make better decisions? In this episode, our experts share their perspectives on how decision making is changing at the C Suite level and what leaders can do to stay sharp, focused and effective. Before we dive in, remember to share any burning questions you want our experts to answer by emailing redefinersusslernolds.com and if you enjoy listening to our episodes, leave us a five star review on Apple or Spotify. And if you're looking for practical advice on how to navigate high stakes moments in your leadership journey, whether that's becoming a new CEO or or looking to drive more impact in your current role, search your Leadership Journey by Design where our experts share their insights. We'll share a link to it in our show notes. Let's dive in. First up, I'd like to welcome Ilana Abramovic, Leadership Advisor at Russell Reynolds Associates London office. Ilana has more than 25 years experience advising C Suite leaders and I'm really looking forward to hearing her perspectives on decision making at the top. Ilana, welcome to the Leadership Lounge.

[C]

Thanks so much for having me, Emma.

[B]

So Ilana, before we get into the details about how to improve decision making both at the individual and the top team level, I'd love to hear about some of the challenges leaders are facing when it comes to making the right calls. We know from our Global Leadership Monitor research that leaders rate decision making as one of the top skills needed to navigate today's threats to organizational health. At the same time, we're seeing more C Suite leaders experience decision fatigue or even decision paralysis. So why is decision making becoming more difficult for today's C Suite leaders?

[C]

That's a really great question, Emma. What we find with C Suite leaders, especially those stepping up to either an enterprise role or a first time regional role, the advice they get from their board or their chairs is you're going to be faced decisions that you've never seen before. You have no information, no context, no pattern Recognition, no playbook. You don't necessarily know where to get the support from to make the decisions. And that can cause a lot of stress and it can be overwhelming for leaders. They've got multiple stakeholders to appease and appeal to. So they can either go in one direction, analysis paralysis, where they are trying to boil the ocean, or they're making rapid decisions based on intuition and not giving it enough time for reflection.

[B]

I can see how it's easy to fall into one of those two extremes, either over analyzing every possible decision and taking too long, or prioritising speed and making quick fire decisions based on your gut feel without ensuring that you've considered the right stakeholders in the decision making process. And this can be really dangerous because you disenfranchise lots of people if you're perceived to not really care about other points of view. And on that second point about making really quick decisions, I wonder if the pressure to be always on as a leader is one reason why people are doing this. I know myself that in the last three to five years the pull to be always on has certainly increased. And Ilana, I'd love to hear your perspective on this. Is the always on nature of leadership where leaders are answering emails from 6am until 10pm Another factor that's making decision making harder.

[C]

Being always on and 6am I think is generous. I think a lot of our clients are on from 4am 5am is going to cause burnout and cognitive overload. The brain is like any other muscle in the body and it needs space and time to rejuvenate, regenerate, calibrate without making intentional pauses in your day or your week to reflect or have different stimuli come in so, so your brain can just recalibrate itself. You are going to experience decision fatigue.

[B]

You're absolutely right Elana. Pushing through, staying switched on, always being available will almost certainly make the big decisions harder. I'd like to now shift gear and start exploring how you can, as a leader, improve your decision making. Often the hardest decisions leaders face are the ones where every option comes with trade offs. In these instances, we often advise that staying true to your values can really help. And our research found that 95% of C Suite leaders globally agreed that having a clear sense of their personal values and aspirations was important in preparing them for their current role. To explore this more, let's bring in Henrik Krajowski, Leadership advisor at Russell Reynolds Associates Toronto office. Henrik, welcome to the leadership lounge.

[A]

Thanks Emma. Happy to be here.

[B]

So Henrik, can you talk us through why staying true to your values can help you make better decisions as a leader.

[A]

Values are hugely important in decision making. Values matter when the decision gets messy, where the facts are incomplete and every option has a cost. That's when a leader needs guardrails. So a tool I like is the non negotiables test. In fact, a C suite leader that we've recently worked with wrote down three things that she was unwilling to trade away when the heat is on. For her, it was transparency with the employee base. It was a no blame culture, and protecting customer trust at all costs, even the cost of margin in the short term. Then when the tough call came, she asked, which of these options keeps me inside these value guardrails that I've defined and even if it hurts a little bit?

[B]

Henrik, I really like that very tangible example and absolutely agree that values can act as guardrails to help guide decision making. Ilana, can you tell us a little more about the intersection of values and decision making?

[C]

I asked a C suite leader in an assessment the other day, what is a value he would die in a ditch for? And he was very quick to say it's transparency. People have to know what I stand for and and know where they stand with me. That's one example. I think when you are in a position of power and you are making a decision, it lasts for a long time and it's remembered for a long time. And the thing that we encourage leaders to do is your body often knows something's wrong well before your brain does. So when you are being forced to make a decision quickly and your stomach is clenching, you're feeling uncomfortable, it's a physical, visceral reaction. Listen to that. And then do a forensic sweep of what is causing this. Because often the body will let you know when your decisions are incongruent with your values.

[B]

I think that's something almost every listener can relate to, Alana, that feeling when something doesn't sit quite right even before you can fully articulate why. So knowing your value system and what you stand for is critical. But in today's increasingly complex environment, what other capabilities do C suite leaders need to make more effective decisions? And what can they do to develop those capabilities? Henrik, I'd love your perspective here.

[A]

Another capability is knowing the difference between conviction and ego. Leaders need conviction, no question. But once a leader sponsors an idea, it can become very personal to them. That's normal. After all, it's your reputation, your board slide, your political capital. That's when sunk cost bias takes over. That's where we get moored in our original idea and be less open to ideas that come afterwards.

[B]

That distinction between conviction and ego is such an important one. And of course, the more senior you become, the harder that can be because your identity and credibility can become closely tied to the decisions you sponsor. But I would suggest that in today's world, particularly where huge budget and time calls are having to be made around AI being able to fail fast, being really humble, being able to recognize that the right answers might be coming from several layers down your organization, that's what's going to allow businesses to survive longer than the average. What is it, 20 years that so many businesses fail within? And Henrik, how can leaders recognize when their ego may be getting in the way of sound decision making?

[A]

Before we launch, we agree what must be true on a certain date, what adoption, what retention rate, what are the integration milestones, Whatever matters. If those things aren't true, we stop, resize and pivot. This takes ego out of the moment. You're not admitting failure, you're just honoring the rules you set when everyone was still clear eyed. Good leaders know when to push and when to stop digging.

[B]

I think what's powerful there is that it creates objectivity. You are agreeing the success measures up front before allowing anything else to influence the conversation. Another capability that feels increasingly important is the ability to step back and to see the bigger picture. This is what we call today having a systems thinking mindset so that you can join the dots. You can recognize the impact across different parts of the business and the wider ecosystem. Now, of course, leaders don't just make decisions in isolation. They also need to make high impact decisions as part of an executive team. And that isn't always easy where there's multiple stakeholders and competing perspectives. So next I'd like to spend some time exploring how leaders can make better decisions when operating at the executive team level. Henrik, given your vast experience helping to improve executive team performance, what are some of the key things leaders can do to make sure they're working effectively with others when making decisions?

[A]

C suite leaders can make themselves better by cleaning up decision rights. A lot of executive teams actually do pretty well at making decisions, but it's the execution and follow up that suffers and it puts the decision into question. So let's say a meeting sounds collaborative, everyone's talking, it's all going well, but underneath, nobody knows who's actually recommending ideas, who's giving input, who owns it, who's the execution team, who's got veto power. So everyone's touching it, but six weeks later everyone's saying Well, I thought we agreed it was going to be this way, and it kind of falls apart a little bit. So the rule is simple. For every material issue, an executive team should name who's owning this recommendation, who needs input or needs to be heard, who makes the final call, and who's the team that executes. You can still get smart input, but don't need to confuse input with democracy.

[B]

Clarity is absolutely essential here, Henrik. At Russell Reynolds, we often encourage clients to think about decision making through a framework called dice. It's a really simple way of making sure everyone knows their role and just as importantly, who owns the final call. D is for decides the person with the authority to make the final decision. The goal is to push that accountability as close to the action as possible. I is for informed the stakeholders who need visibility on what's happening and how things are progressing. C is for consulted the people whose input is needed before a decision is made, helping teams avoid delays and unnecessary back and forth. And E is for executes the individual or team responsible for actually delivering the work. In large, complex organizations, a lack of clarity around these roles can quickly slow things down. When people aren't sure who's making decisions or who's accountable for what execution suffers and frustration builds across teams. We also often hear about the importance of avoiding groupthink when making decisions as an executive team. Henrik, in your experience, how can top teams overcome this risk?

[A]

One key capability for the C suite is creating real dissent before the decision. In a lot of executive rooms, the issue isn't that no one sees the risk, it's that people don't say it clearly, or if they do, they do it in the hallway after the meeting. That is how groupthink and authority bias happen. The CEO likes the deal, the founder likes the product, the board likes the strategy, and suddenly everyone gets real polite. The leader's job is to make sure disagreement becomes part of the operating system, not a personality conflict.

[B]

I think the point about creating real dissent is such an important one and actually bringing outside views in as well. People who don't have an agenda don't want to be sycophantic, but independent advisors who give an honest perspective on on the pros and the cons of pushing ahead with something can be extremely valuable and really ensure that that learning mindset, that curiosity exists. Henrik, you've spoken about the importance of creating space for productive disagreement before decisions are finalized. But how do leaders practically encourage that kind of challenge without creating friction or slowing everything down?

[A]

So we can use a tool here called the Pre mortem assume it failed 18 months from now. What did we miss? This gives people permission to name the real risks while they're still cheap to fix. We used this with a client recently who underwent a very large reduction in force. We used the pre mortem to identify what could go wrong. What would people be saying? What are things that we could miss? We generated an active list of those priorities and and actioned teams against them. What happened in the end was a much more organized approach to the risk reward of the action.

[B]

I really like that idea of the pre mortem because it normalizes challenge in a constructive way. Rather than asking people to criticize an idea or a leader directly, you're asking them to stress test the decision itself. If I think of recent history, several huge UK supermarket businesses made big bold decisions to enter the US market, for example, and it was proven in several cases not to be the right decision. And I'm curious whether the decision was stress tested enough. Did they carry out what you described as a pre mortem or can it become a vanity project that has a life of its own and becomes impossible to stop? Henrik, are there any other capabilities that teams should focus on strengthening when it comes to effective decision making?

[A]

Another capability is decision discipline. Knowing when to go fast and when to slow down. And a lot of companies get this backwards. We're working with a large global leader in financial services. They over process small decisions, reversible decisions, in fact spending 75% of their weekly time together on those decisions and then rush big irreversible ones, leaving a little bit of time at the end of the meeting to think about the biggest issues. This might seem basic, but it happens over and over.

[B]

That's such a relatable challenge for all our listeners, I imagine. Henrik, people love spending time on the smaller, more tactical decisions. It's easier, it feels comfortable. And then little time is left for the real big meaty topics that everyone should be grappling with a lot more. So Henrik, how do you actually mitigate this?

[A]

So a practical frame here. Is this a one way door or a two way door? If it's reversible, in a two way door you can move fast. Run the pilot test, the pricing, try the org change in one region. You don't need to build a cathedral around a decision that can be unwound in 30 days. But if it's irreversible, if it's a one way door, a major acquisition, a debt restructuring, whatever it may be, slow down and use better hygiene. And it looks like this. What are we deciding? What are we assuming? Who owns the call? What would change our mind and when do we review it? Go fast where learning's cheap. Be careful where being wrong is expensive.

[B]

I love the example of the one way two way door. Not every decision needs months of analysis and governance. But equally, some decisions absolutely deserve more reflection because the consequences are much harder to unwind. So we're almost at the end of our time together in the Leadership Lounge. I'd like to thank Elana and Henrik for sparking what I hope you'll agree was such a thoughtful and insightful conversation. In 30 seconds, here's what we've learned Effective decision making starts with creating the conditions to think clearly. Leaders who are always on risk decision fatigue, making it harder to exercise sound judgment when it matters most. Values act as decision making guardrails when the facts are incomplete and every option involves trade offs. Clarity on what you stand for helps you navigate difficult choices with consistency and integrity. Strong leaders know the difference between conviction and ego. The best decision makers stay open to changing course when the evidence demands it rather than becoming attached to their original idea. And decision quality improves when teams apply the right level of rigour to the right decisions. Move quickly on reversible choices, but slow down and stress test decisions that are difficult or costly to unwind. If you have any topics or burning questions you'd like us to cover in future episodes of Leadership Lounge, get in touch. Email your questions to [e-mail] until next time. Goodbye.