The Decision Gap – Why Organizations Struggle to Act on Risk—And How to Fix It

Guest writer Magda du Preez, PhD is the driving force behind SENSE. She has a passion for leadership, team development, and organizational psychology. Her academic journey, which includes her PhD from Wits Business School, reflects her commitment to continuous learning and growth. As a part-time assistant professor at Long Island University, she shares her wealth of knowledge in executive MBA courses focused on strategy implementation and organizational development. Her impact extends globally, as she works closely with Fortune 500 corporations, dynamic startups, and impactful not-for-profit organizations across diverse sectors. At the core of her work is pioneering research on how emotions shape managerial decision-making, leading to the development of practical tools that empower leaders to elevate their decision-making competence.

Two Companies, One Decision, Two Very Different Outcomes

A global firm is evaluating an acquisition. The risk data is clear: moderate downside, high potential upside.

Two companies analyze the opportunity. They have the same market intelligence, the same financial models, the same risk forecasts.

One company moves forward with strategic clarity, aligned leadership, and a defined process for balancing speed with risk.The other company hesitates—not due to lack of information, but because decision-making is slow, risk perception is not aligned, and internal debates delay execution.

By the time they reach a conclusion, the opportunity is gone.

The difference was not intelligence. It was Decision Intelligence.

Why Risk Awareness Doesn’t Always Lead to Action

Most organisations today have sophisticated risk management. They see the risks—in markets, operations, and investments—yet when it comes to taking action, something stalls.

It is not that decision-makers lack intelligence or experience. It is that organisations have not built a system for turning risk insights into real-world decisions, quickly and consistently.

Instead, teams spend too long in analysis mode, leadership debates stretch on, and by the time alignment is reached, the best opportunity has passed.

Decision Intelligence is not another framework to consider—it is a way to close the gap between knowing and doing.

The challenge? Understanding when and where decision-making processes break down before they cost the business valuable time, money, or opportunity.

Recent survey insights have shown that most decision-making failures stem from misalignment, hesitation, or inconsistent risk calibration across teams.

The Four Shifts That Build Decision Intelligence Into Daily Work

For Decision Intelligence to work, it needs to fit the natural rhythm of decision-making.

That means:

·      No unnecessary layers of process.

·      No abstract frameworks that live on a slide but never get used.

·      No added friction—only faster, clearer, better decisions.

Here is how:

1. Set Decision Criteria Before the Choice Arrives

Bad decisions are not usually caused by a lack of intelligence, but by rushed thinking under pressure.

High-performing organisations remove hesitation by pre-defining their risk appetite, triggers for action, and decision criteria—so when the moment comes, they move with confidence.

🔹 Example: Instead of debating every expansion opportunity from scratch, leadership sets clear conditions:

• What must be true before we enter a new market?

• At what threshold does a risk move from acceptable to a no-go?

  
  

➡ Small shift: Leaders do not wait until they are in the heat of a decision to decide how they’ll decide. A structured decision framework helps teams embed these principles without overcomplicating their workflow.

2. Align Risk Perception Across Leadership

One leader sees an opportunity. Another sees risk.

Neither is wrong—but misalignment slows everything down.

Survey results indicate that misalignment in risk perception is one of the most common causes of decision delays.

Instead of forcing agreement, organisations train leaders to use a common risk language—so even if perspectives differ, the decision process remains consistent.

🔹 Example: A company preparing for a major hiring push aligns leadership on:

• What level of financial risk are we willing to take to secure top talent?

• What early indicators would tell us if we need to pull back?

  
  

➡ Small shift: An internal champion helps teams apply these processes in real-world decisions—ensuring clarity, not complexity. A digital decision toolkit can reinforce consistency across teams.

3. Build Bias Checks Into the Decision Process

Most decision-makers know about cognitive bias—but that does not stop them from falling into it.

• Overconfidence bias—assuming things will go as planned.

• Loss aversion—avoiding a necessary risk because failure feels worse than inaction.

• Anchoring bias—overweighting past experiences instead of assessing what is true now.

  
  

Survey insights indicate that many teams unknowingly fall into bias traps—even when they believe they are acting rationally.

Rather than leaving it to individual judgment, smart organisations integrate bias checks into their existing decision-making process.

🔹 Example: Before approving major investments, decision-makers ask:What would make this decision fail?What assumptions are we making that might not hold?If a competitor were making this same call, what would we think they are missing?

➡ Small shift: Bias-proofing takes minutes, not hours—but prevents costly missteps. Self-paced microlearning and coaching help reinforce these techniques without taking people away from their work.

4. Measure Decision Quality, Not Just Outcomes

Most companies judge decisions based on results.

That is a mistake.

• Good decisions can lead to bad outcomes due to external factors.

• Bad decisions can look successful in the short term due to sheer luck.

  
  

Survey data highlights that organisations that only review decisions based on results struggle to improve their decision-making over time.

Instead of relying on hindsight, high-performing organisations assess how a decision was made—before they see the results.

🔹 Example: After a major strategic move, leadership runs a quick post-decision review:

·      Did we follow our own decision criteria?

·      What did we hesitate on, and why?

·      Would we make this call again based on the same data?

➡ Small shift: Measuring decision quality does not require another layer of reporting. A simple tracking system allows leaders to see improvement over time—without adding complexity.

How to Close the Decision Gap—Before It Costs the Business

For organisations that want to embed Decision Intelligence, the key is visibility into where decisions slow down, break down, or get distorted.

The ability to pinpoint decision friction—whether it is hesitation, misalignment, or process gaps—is what separates reactive companies from those that continuously refine their decision-making muscle.

By using structured decision frameworks, bias-proofing techniques, and tools that reinforce decision habits, organisations ensure that their best insights do not just sit in reports—they turn into real-world action.

The Future of Competitive Decision-Making

The organisations that will shape the next decade are not those with the most data—they are the ones that have built a frictionless system for making the right call, at the right time, with the right level of confidence.

Because in the end, it is not about knowing what could go wrong.

It is about knowing, with confidence, what to do next—without slowing the business down.