You learn from your mistakes

The long-term nature of decision-making: anticipating, choosing, evaluating

Effective decision-making requires not only models and data, but also the ability to assess impacts, risks and alignment with the organisational culture

by Alessio Borsetto*

28 October 2026

Aggiungi Il Sole 24 Ore
ai preferiti su Google

3' min read

Translated by AI

Versione italiana

3' min read

Translated by AI

Versione italiana

Every decision contains a vision of the future. However, making a choice involves three distinct steps. The first is to anticipate: gathering information, interpreting it and formulating hypotheses about what might happen. The second is to decide: to weigh up alternatives and choose a course of action. The third, less obvious, is to evaluate the choice: its consequences, the sustainability of its impacts, and its consistency with priorities, culture and values – whether organisational or personal.

We tend to focus our attention primarily on the central section. In companies, we have often worked on decision-making models and techniques to ensure that the moment of choice is effective. However, I would like to shift the focus to what comes before and after it: even the best decision-making model is fragile if it is based on an approximate representation of the future, and no decision can be considered sound unless it is tested against the outcomes it may generate.

Predicting does not mean guessing. It means formulating hypotheses methodically, making their underlying assumptions explicit, and accepting that they may be revised or disproved.

With regard to this step, I have mainly used two approaches in the past. Forecasting estimates what might happen on the basis of data, trends and observable relationships, translating assumptions into explicit and updatable probabilities. Scenario planning, on the other hand, takes a different approach: rather than seeking a single, most probable future, it constructs different, plausible futures to assess how strategies and decisions might hold up under varying conditions.

The latter is a unique tool because it broadens our perspective, challenges established beliefs and reveals possibilities that a linear forecast might fail to capture. But it was precisely through working on scenarios that I developed a further realisation: a good representation of the future does not dictate the decision, nor does it exhaust the assessment of it.

A forecast assigns probabilities to possible futures. A decision assigns a weight to their consequences.

A 20 per cent probability may seem low. It may be negligible if it relates to a limited and reversible loss; it may become unacceptable if it jeopardises business continuity, people’s safety or the organisation’s reputation. The most likely scenario therefore does not necessarily coincide with the one on which it is prudent to base one’s strategy.

Making a decision therefore requires a second level of assessment. We need to consider the cost of action and inaction, the scale and distribution of the consequences, whether the choice can be reversed, and the organisation’s ability to sustain it over time. It is not enough to ask what might happen: we must understand what the organisation can cope with, what it wishes to achieve, what its guiding values are, and what it is not prepared to compromise on.

In complex organisations, a decision may be economically rational but organisationally fragile; it may maximise a short-term outcome whilst compromising sustainability, trust or future capacity; or it may be consistent with forecasts but not with the organisation’s culture, values or responsibilities towards stakeholders.

The decision must therefore take into account economic soundness, organisational feasibility, sustainability, acceptable risk, impact on people, and consistency with the organisation’s identity and strategic priorities. These are not merely ‘soft’ considerations: they determine whether the choice will be sustainable and consistent with what the organisation aspires to be.

Recently, I have begun to ask – and to ask myself – certain questions at the end of decision-making processes that may be methodologically sound. What consequences are we prepared to accept? Which do we consider compatible with our responsibilities, our culture and our values? Which, on the other hand, whilst stemming from a methodologically and rationally sound choice, might not be compatible? These are not questions that replace the method, but ones that complement it. They shift the focus from the mere correctness of the decision-making process to the overall quality of the choice and the implications it may have over time.

When uncertainty is high, a robust decision must work across different scenarios, remain sustainable in terms of its consequences, and be adaptable when new signals emerge.

Good management is not about correctly predicting every possible future, nor is it about mechanically applying a decision-making model. It is about linking foresight and judgement, probability and consequences, opportunity and responsibility.

Anticipation paves the way for choice. The decision cuts across this, taking on the burden of what might happen. And it is precisely in this space – between what we can anticipate and what we choose to do – that the responsibility of the decision-maker is measured.

*Consultant at Newton Spa

Brand connect

I prossimi eventi

Tutti gli eventi

Notizie e approfondimenti sugli avvenimenti politici, economici e finanziari.

Management

The long-term nature of decision-making: anticipating, choosing, evaluating

Effective decision-making requires not only models and data, but also the ability to assess impacts, risks and alignment with the organisational culture

Brand connect

I prossimi eventi

Newsletter