Why Confident Leaders Treat Every Decision as a Hypothesis (And How You Can Too)

We hired two engineers the same year. Both bets. Only one paid off.

The first was passionate about games. Knew all the techniques and theories. Could talk for hours about game design. But when it came to writing code, he struggled. He knew the basics but couldn't apply the concepts.

A bet that passion would translate to skill. That on-the-job training would close the gap faster than it did.

After a year, he was barely adequate. We had to let him go.

The second hire was technically capable. No social skills. No apparent passion for games. A bet that technical ability mattered more than enthusiasm.

That person became one of the team's favorites.

Both were leadership decisions based on incomplete information. Both were educated guesses about what would happen. Only one hypothesis held up.

That's how leadership decision-making actually works. You're not making certainties. You're making testable bets and watching what happens.

The Leadership Uncertainty Paradox: Why Confidence Doesn't Mean Certainty

Here's what breaks leadership decision-making for most people. They think showing up confident means being sure about their choices.

So when a hire doesn't work out, they get defensive. When a strategy fails, they blame external factors. When a promotion backfires, they say the person "wasn't ready" instead of admitting their hypothesis was wrong.

The problem isn't that you made a bad decision. The problem is you pretended it wasn't a hypothesis in the first place.

Confident leadership doesn't require certainty.

It requires being ready to make the call with incomplete information and handle what comes next.

Executive presence isn't about never being wrong. It's about owning your decisions, testing them honestly, and adjusting based on results.

What Confident Leaders Do Differently With Leadership Decision Making

Leaders who handle uncertainty well don't have better crystal balls. They treat decisions like scientists treat experiments.

They say "I'm making a bet" instead of "I'm making the right call."

They write down what they're actually betting on instead of keeping it vague.

They set checkpoints to measure if the hypothesis is working instead of hoping for the best.

When the bet doesn't pay off, they adjust. They don't double down because admitting failure feels like weakness.

The scientific method isn't just for labs. It's the best framework for leadership decision-making when you don't have all the answers.

This is the opposite of micromanagement, where leaders pretend they need certainty about every detail before allowing teams to move forward.

The Scientific Method Applied to Leadership Decisions

Science works because it tests ideas against reality. Leadership should work the same way.

Here's how scientists approach uncertainty:

They observe a problem. They form a hypothesis about what might solve it. They test the hypothesis. They measure results. They conclude whether it worked. They adjust and try again.

Leaders do this whether they realize it or not. The difference is whether you do it intentionally or pretend you're making sure things.

Control Variables: What Are You Actually Testing?

When scientists run experiments, they isolate variables. They change one thing and keep everything else the same. That's how they know what actually caused the result.

Leaders rarely do this. They hire someone AND change the team structure AND launch a new project. Then when it works or fails, they don't know why.

With the passionate engineer, I was testing whether passion could overcome skill gaps. But I didn't control for other variables. Was the team structure set up to support someone learning on the job? Did I give clear enough direction? Did I check in frequently enough?

I treated it like a sure thing instead of an experiment. That made it harder to know what actually went wrong.

With the technical hire, I isolated the variable better. I knew technical ability was there. I was specifically testing whether lack of social skills and passion would be a problem. Turns out, for that role on that team, it wasn't.

Before your next leadership decision, ask: What am I actually testing here?

Be specific. Write it down.

The Null Hypothesis: What If You're Wrong?

Scientists always ask "what if my hypothesis is wrong?" They design experiments to test whether they're wrong, not just to prove they're right.

Leaders do the opposite. They look for evidence that confirms their decision was good. They ignore early warning signs. They explain away problems instead of treating them as data.

The null hypothesis for my passionate engineer hire would have been: "Passion will NOT overcome significant skill gaps in a reasonable timeframe."

If I'd framed it that way, I would have set clearer benchmarks. I would have adjusted faster when he wasn't progressing. Instead, I kept hoping more time would fix it.

Ask yourself: What would prove this bet wrong?

Then watch for those signs instead of ignoring them.

Common Mistakes Leaders Make When Avoiding Uncertainty

Most leadership decision-making problems come from pretending you have more certainty than you do. Here's what that looks like in practice.

Mistake 1: Waiting for Perfect Information

You keep gathering data. You run one more interview. You ask for another report. You tell yourself you need to be thorough.

Really, you're afraid to make the bet.

Perfect information doesn't exist. At some point, you have more questions than answers and you still need to move. That's leadership uncertainty. Get comfortable with it.

The fix: Set a decision deadline. When you hit it, make the call with whatever information you have.

Mistake 2: Consensus Building Before Moving

You think good leaders get everyone on board before making decisions. You spend weeks getting buy-in. You revise the plan until everyone agrees.

This isn't leadership. It's risk avoidance. You're spreading the blame so if it fails, it's not just on you.

Confident leaders make bets even when not everyone agrees. They explain their reasoning. They listen to concerns. But they don't wait for unanimous support before testing a hypothesis.

The fix: Explain the bet you're making and why. Ask for feedback. Then make the call and own it.

Mistake 3: Sunk Cost Fallacy (Doubling Down on Bad Bets)

You invested time training someone. You spent money on a strategy. You publicly committed to an approach.

So when the data shows it's not working, you invest more. You give it another quarter. You tell yourself it just needs more time.

This is the sunk cost fallacy. You're throwing good money after bad because admitting the bet was wrong feels like admitting you were wrong.

Scientists don't do this. When an experiment fails, they conclude it failed and move on. They don't keep running the same experiment hoping for different results.

The fix: Decide in advance what results would prove the bet isn't working. When you see those results, adjust. The money and time are already gone. Don't waste more.

The Anatomy of a Good Leadership Bet: A Science-Based Framework

Here's how to structure your next leadership decision like a hypothesis instead of a hope.

Step 1: Observe the Gap

What problem are you solving? What opportunity are you seeing? Be specific.

Not "we need more senior people."

Try "we have three projects stuck because no one can make architectural decisions without me."

Step 2: Form Your Hypothesis

State what you're betting and why.

"I'm betting that promoting Sarah to Senior Engineer will unblock these projects because she's already making good technical decisions informally."

Write this down. Include:

What you're betting on (the person, strategy, approach)
What you expect to happen (specific outcomes)
Why you think this will work (your reasoning)

Step 3: Define Success Metrics

How will you know if the hypothesis is working?

For a hire: "In 90 days, they're independently completing tasks similar to what the team does."

For a promotion: "In 60 days, two of the three blocked projects are moving forward without my input."

For a strategy: "In 30 days, we see a 15% improvement in the metric we're targeting."

Be specific. Set the timeline. Write it down.

Step 4: Set Checkpoints

Don't wait until the end to measure. Set interim checkpoints.

30 days: Early indicators. Is anything clearly not working?

60 days: Progress check. Are we moving toward the outcome?

90 days: Evaluation. Did the hypothesis hold?

At each checkpoint, review the data honestly. Look for evidence you're wrong, not just evidence you're right.

This checkpoint approach also works for one-on-one conversations with your team, where regular check-ins help you understand if team members are progressing as expected.

Step 5: Adjust Based on Results

If the bet is paying off, great. Keep going.

If it's not, you have options:

Adjust the approach (hypothesis was right, execution was wrong)
Pivot the bet (hypothesis was partially right, needs modification)
Cut losses (hypothesis was wrong, try something else)

The key is making this decision based on data from your checkpoints, not hope or sunk costs.

When you need to adjust, remember that your job isn't to solve the problem for your team. Your job is to clarify what needs to happen and let them figure out how.

How to Evaluate If Your Hypothesis Is Working

Measuring results isn't about waiting to see if things feel better. It's about having clear criteria you decided before you made the bet.

At each checkpoint, ask three questions:

1. Is the specific outcome I predicted happening?

Not "is this person doing okay?" That's too vague.

Try "are they completing tickets at the rate I expected?" or "have they reduced my decision-making load?"

2. What evidence would prove I'm wrong?

Look for that evidence specifically. Don't just look for signs you're right.

3. What have I learned that changes my hypothesis?

Maybe the bet is working but for different reasons than you thought. That's useful data for your next bet.

Building Executive Presence Through Honest Decision Making

Executive presence isn't about projecting certainty you don't have. It's about being honest about leadership uncertainty while still moving forward.

When you say "I'm making a bet on this" out loud, two things happen.

First, it builds trust. People respect leaders who are honest about risk. They don't respect leaders who pretend every decision is guaranteed to work.

Second, it makes course correction easier. When you frame something as a hypothesis from the start, changing direction isn't failure. It's learning.

The best leaders I've worked with all do this. They make bets. They own them. They watch what happens. They adjust.

They're not right more often than other leaders. They're just honest about the process.

What to Do Monday

Before your next hire, promotion, or strategic decision, try this:

Write down: "I'm betting that [X] will lead to [Y] because [Z]."

Be specific. Not "this person will be great." That's not a hypothesis.

Try "I'm betting that her experience leading remote teams will help her manage our distributed engineering group because the challenges are similar."

Then write: "I'll know this is working if [specific outcome] happens by [specific date]."

Not "things get better." That's not measurable.

Try "Three team members report feeling more supported in our next engagement survey" or "Project velocity increases 20% in the next quarter."

Set your checkpoints: 30, 60, 90 days.

At each one, look at the data. Ask what would prove you wrong. Be honest about what you're seeing.

If it's working, keep going. If it's not, adjust. You're not wrong. The bet just didn't pay off.

That's leadership decision-making. You make educated guesses based on incomplete information. You test them honestly. You adjust based on results.

The leaders with the best executive presence aren't the ones who are always right. They're the ones who treat every decision as a hypothesis and get comfortable with leadership uncertainty.

Start calling your decisions what they are: bets. You'll make better ones.

What's a leadership decision you're facing right now? What's your hypothesis? Share in the comments.

You're great at the work. Let's make it visible.

Leadership decision-making gets easier when you have someone to help you test your hypotheses and build your executive presence. If you're navigating a tough call or want to get better at handling leadership uncertainty, let's talk.

jessestaffordcoaching.com

Related posts:

Search This Blog