There’s a moment in every leader’s career when the map ends and the terrain begins.

You’ve got data. You’ve got insight. 

But you still don’t have enough.

And yet decisions must be made. Mistakes may happen. Delays might cost more.

As a coach and facilitator, I hear the same theme repeatedly:

“We don’t have clarity—but we are expected to act.”
“The promise was made—but the context changed.”
“The only constant is change, but we treat decisions like certainty.”

In the public sector, this tension is intensified. The consequences of decisions ripple across communities, policy cycles, and political timelines. Traditional “command-and-control” models crack under pressure. 

As one study puts it:

“Hierarchical, command-and-control approaches simply do not work anymore” in public-sector contexts of high uncertainty and interdependence.

So how do we lead when the stakes are high, the information incomplete, and the timeframe short?

Here’s how leaders can move from paralysis to purposeful action—not by eliminating ambiguity, but by making decisions with integrity, clarity, and human presence.

The Nature of Decisions in Uncertainty

Decision-making isn’t always about choosing between A or B. Often it’s about committing to a direction when you don’t have full visibility.
In these moments you’re dealing with:

• Adaptive challenges rather than purely technical ones, where known solutions don’t fit the system.
• Ripples, not straight lines—where today’s choice becomes tomorrow’s hidden consequence.
• Multiple stakeholders, conflicting values, shifting goals—and no single person has all answers.

Take the case of Juneau, Alaska during the COVID-19 response. The city’s leadership had to make public-health decisions amid incomplete science, changing inputs, and high-public scrutiny. 

Their approach leaned heavily on adaptive leadership, transparency, and collective sense-making rather than waiting for data perfection. That kind of decision-making required courage, clarity, and trust.

Core Leadership Competencies for Leading in the Gray Zone

Self-awareness & cognitive humility
Recognising what you don’t know and being open to revision.
Behaviours: “What assumptions am I holding?” “Could I be wrong?”

1. Ethical clarity & value alignment
   When information is incomplete, your values become your compass.
   Behaviours: Articulate what you stand for, what you won’t compromise, and communicate that.
2. Systems and ripple awareness
   Seeing the decision’s pathways—intended and unintended.
   Behaviours: Map who will benefit, who will bear cost, what might emerge in 6-12 months.
3. Courageous communication & accountability
   Making the decision visible, owning the process, staying open to feedback.
   Behaviours: “Here’s why we decided, here’s what we will monitor, here’s what we’ll revisit.”
4. Learning orientation
   Recognising that decisions aren’t final—they evolve.
   Behaviours: Build feedback loops, iterate, adjust—and say so publicly.

Framework: The “DECIDE” Model

Here’s a practical decision-making tool you can apply—and bring into your facilitation or coaching practice.

• Define the decision: What needs to be decided? What’s the question?
• Explore context: Facts, assumptions, stakeholders, system dynamics.
• Clarify values & criteria: What are the non-negotiables? What trade-offs are acceptable?
• Involve voices: Who needs to be part of this? What perspectives are missing?
• Decide and commit: Choose a direction, make it visible, document the “why.”
• Evaluate & evolve: Monitor outcomes, surface hidden consequences, adjust and communicate.

When leaders apply DECIDE, they move from implicit “gut” decisions to structured yet flexible commitments that hold themselves and the system accountable.

Public Sector Example: Adaptive Decision-Making in Government

In research on adaptive leadership in the public sector, it was observed that public organisations under pressure (budget, technology, political cycles) must adopt new modes of decision-making—ones that emphasise influence over formal authority, collaboration over command, and reflection over reaction.

For instance, a study on public-sector leadership during the COVID-19 crisis in Ghana showed how city and national leaders made rapid, ambiguous decisions—deploying resources, communicating uncertainty, and creating new channels for learning—rather than waiting for full certainty.

What stands out: the most effective decisions weren’t those made perfectly—they were those made with integrity, transparency, and ongoing learning.

Practice for Leaders & Facilitators

Here’s a short exercise you can guide a leadership group through:

“What’s the toughest decision you’re facing that feels undefined or ‘fuzzy’?”

• Break into triads: Person A describes the decision, Person B asks “What trade-offs are you wrestling with?”, Person C asks “What might you regret not deciding within 6 months?”
• Then regroup and apply the DECIDE model: define, explore, clarify values, involve voices, commit, and set a follow-up date to evaluate.
• Each leader writes a “decision promise”: one public commitment they will revisit in 90 days and share progress.

Why This Matters

When decisions are postponed until clarity is “complete”, momentum stalls.
When decisions are made in isolation, trust fractures.
When decisions are made without acknowledging complexity and people, unintended consequences emerge.

In today’s systems—public or private—leaders need to be ready to decide without complete certainty.

They need to lead. They need to decide. They need to own.

Because clarity isn’t the absence of ambiguity—it’s the presence of commitment.
And excellence doesn’t wait for perfect conditions—it emerges when leaders move with integrity in the grey.

References (APA 7th Edition)

• Dzigbede, K. D. (2023). Public sector leadership during the COVID-19 crisis in Ghana: Critical decision-making, communication, adaptability and resilience. Journal of Public Administration and Governance, [volume if known], [pages if known].
• Reeves, M., Shanahan, M., Torres, R., & Chua, J. (2011, November 14). Adaptive leadership: A critical capability for the public sector. Boston Consulting Group.
• Smith, T. (2020). Implementing change: A case study of adaptive leadership. University of Arkansas ScholarWorks.
• Smith, D. R. (2020). Adaptive leadership strategies and project success of construction project managers in Jamaica (Doctoral dissertation). Walden University.
• Powell, J. E. (2022). Juneau, Alaska’s successful response to COVID-19: A case of adaptive leadership. PMC NCBI.
• Jonk, E., & Iren, D. (2021). Governance and communication of algorithmic decision-making: A case study on public sector. arXiv.