There is a paradox in leadership: if the function of manager is associated with vision, innovation or even strategy, it is often played in the most uncomfortable moments. These are the massive layoffs that we would prefer to repel, the ruptures with historic customers that we dare not announce, or the strategic pivots that seem to betray the past of the company.
So many decisions that most managers avoid, or delay, hoping that they will settle themselves. But recent economic history shows that leaders capable of facing these difficult, lucid and courageous ways are often those who ensure the survival and sustainability of their organization.
Natural bias: avoid discomfort at all costs
Psychologically, everything pushes us to flee these decisions. Dr. Daniel Kahneman, Nobel Prize in economics and father of the theory of cognitive biases, has shown that we are governed by loss aversion. Losing something (a customer, part of the team, a line of products) affects us much more strongly than winning the equivalent in value. Result: we often prefer to maintain a wobbly status quo rather than decide.
Add to that the status of status quo (the tendency to remain in the current situation, even if it is mediocre) and the fear of conflict, and you get one of the great faeds of management: avoidance.
“The role of the leader is not to try to be loved, but to do what is necessary”already recalled the former CEO of General Electric, Jack Welch. This sentence alone sums up the essence of decision -making courage: agreeing to take responsibility for unpopularity.
The three major families of uncomfortable decisions
1/ Locked to save the company
No leader gets up in the morning with the desire to fire. And yet, in certain situations, it is the only way to save the entire organization. In 2013, Satya Nadella, who became CEO of Microsoft, had to act the dismissal of 18,000 employees, or 14 % of the global workforce. This extremely unpopular decision made it possible to redirect the company to the cloud and give it a new dynamic. Ten years later, Microsoft has once again become one of the undisputed leaders in the sector.
Conversely, Kodak, unable to reduce its workforce and reallocate its resources in time, has artificially maintained its silver divisions to implosion, missing the digital turn.
2/ Break with a historic client
In many B2B companies, dependence on a large customer is a dangerous comfort zone. The temptation is to give in everything, even when the relationship becomes toxic. However, some leaders choose to cut the cord.
This is what Hubert Joly, the former CEO of Best Buy did when he took over the American brand in difficulty. Rather than staying dependent on suppliers imposing their conditions, he has redesigned partnerships, even if it means renouncing certain historical agreements. This bet made it possible to restore power to the company and to put it back on a growth trajectory.
3/ Operate a radical strategic pivot
Changing economic model is recognizing that the past no longer guarantees the future. Netflix faced this choice in 2007, deciding to switch from DVD by correspondence to video on demand. A risky decision, which is very contested at the time, which caused part of the historical subscribers to lose. But this pivot also allowed Netflix to become a global streaming giant.
Many companies do not dare to take this step, for fear of offending their shareholders, employees or customers. The successful leaders are those who know how to face this moment of truth.
Decisional courage: a rare competence
Facing these choices is not only of economic rationality, but also a psychological muscle: decision -making courage.
This courage is not innate, but is built around three pillars:
- Vision clarity: knowing why the decision is made, at the service of a project greater than immediate emotion.
- Emotional regulation: Accept the emotional load without being paralyzed.
- Communication capacity: explain, embody and publicly assume the decision.
Neuroscience and discomfort: why our brain is reluctant
Neuroscience also shed light on this subject. When we face a difficult decision, the amygdal (center of emotions) is highly activated, triggering a stress response. This biological mechanism encourages to avoid the situation.
But research also shows that leaders trained to face discomfort further activate their prefrontal cortex, seat of reasoning and planning. In other words, there is a “neurological competence” of courage: the more voluntarily exposes to difficult situations, the more you train your brain to manage them.
This is the reason why certain leadership training programs now include crisis or difficult negotiation simulations: it is a question of building tolerance to discomfort.
Practical cases: when deciding in pain saves the future
Airbnb: Hang the hosts during the pandemic
In 2020, Brian Chesky, CEO of Airbnb, had to decide in the heart: facing the pandemic, he dismissed 25 % of the workforce and reimbursed millions of reservations canceled, to the detriment of short -term finances. This painful but assumed gesture made it possible to preserve the confidence of customers and investors. Two years later, Airbnb entered successfully.
Apple: Cut the dead branches
Upon his return to Apple in 1997, Steve Jobs made a radical decision: removing 70 % of the product range to refocus the company on some flagship models. This decision shocked the teams, but she saved Apple from bankruptcy. The iMac, then the iPod, were going to relaunch the business.
Danone: the rupture assumed with certain markets
Emmanuel Faber, when he directed Danone, has initiated a deep transformation to a more sustainable model, even if it means withdrawing from certain areas and profitable short -term products. If her strategy has aroused strong criticism, she also positioned Danone as a pioneer on questions of social and environmental responsibility.
How managers can tame discomfort
First, we must accept the loneliness inherent in the decision. Even surrounded by advisers, the leader must assume the last word alone.
Then, a solid ethical framework must be built: referring to values makes it possible to decide even in the vagueness.
Also, transparency is necessary. Employees better accept a painful decision if explained and embodied.
Finally, it is better to mentally prepare for difficult scenarios: anticipation reduces emotional shock.
A French leader recently confided: “It is not the dismissal itself that destroys a business, it is the lack of explanation and the brutality of the process. »»
The price of inaction
Faced with the difficulty, many leaders choose to delay. But inaction has a cost. It feeds rumor, doubt, uncertainty. In some cases, it even rushes the fall.
Nokia’s case is emblematic. Faced with the emergence of the iPhone and Android, management has long hesitated to rotate, for fear of abandoning its historic model. Result: a slow erosion to the almost complete disappearance of the brand.
Conversely, a leader who contrasts early, even painfully, sends a strong signal: that of a lucid company capable of facing its challenges.
Towards a new culture of courage in business
The pandemic, economic and climatic crises highlighted the importance of decision -making courage. More and more management schools are teaching today the psychology of uncomfortable decision, recalling that leadership is not a quest for popularity but a test of responsibility.
American psychologist Brené Brown, specialist in leadership vulnerability, sums it as follows: “Clarity is a form of benevolence. Pushing a difficult decision is leaving others in the fog. Having the courage to decide is to offer them a course. »»
