The ability to make decisions swiftly and effectively is more critical than ever. However, decision paralysis – the inability to decide due to fear of making a wrong choice or an overload of information – has become a growing concern among business and HR leaders.

According to HSBC’s latest global research Seizing Uncertainty, 53% of people feel poorly equipped to make decisions, 42% delay decision-making, and 50% experience regret over missed opportunities. As businesses navigate an increasingly complex environment, overcoming decision paralysis is not just an individual challenge but an organisational imperative.

Darren Thayre, Director of Innovation & AI Partnership Lead, Global Strategic Initiatives, Google in a conversation with Pushkar Bidwai, CEO of People Matters, at People Matters TechHR Singapore 2025, on Navigating Decision Paralysis: Overcoming Uncertainty In Organisational Pivoting For The Future, shared insights into why leaders struggle with decision-making and how they can break free from the cycle of hesitation.

Understanding decision paralysis in organisations

Darren highlighted that a low-risk appetite at the top, hierarchical delays, and the illusion of uncertainty are three key factors that contribute to decision paralysis at the leadership level.

“Many senior executives demand near-certainty before making decisions. However, innovation requires bold moves, and companies cannot transform industries without taking calculated risks,” said Darren.

He also highlighted that in large enterprises, decisions often get stuck at multiple levels, as mid-level leaders hesitate to escalate them without absolute clarity. This slows down decision-making, affecting agility and responsiveness.

The third factor that leads to decision paralysis is that many leaders crave certainty before making a move. But as Darren pointed out, if a decision is 100% certain, it’s not innovation—it’s execution. “Leaders need to embrace uncertainty rather than waiting for complete clarity,” he said.

Also Read: TechHR Singapore 2025: People Matters CEO Pushkar Bidwai on HR's next power move

 When is the right time to decide?

The 40-70 principle is a concept suggesting that if you decide with less than 40% of the information, you risk being reckless. However, waiting until 70% or more of the information is available makes you too slow. “Striking a balance at around 50%—as practiced by companies like Google—allows for agile yet informed decision-making,” said Darren.

The One-Way vs. Two-Way Door Framework

Darren further spoke about the Amazon’s "one-way vs. two-way door" decision framework, which helps leaders gauge the reversibility of their choices. “The two-way doors (reversible decisions) can be adjusted with minimal consequences. These should be made quickly without excessive deliberation.”

The one-way doors or irreversible decisions require deeper analysis, as reversing them is costly. These warrant greater deliberation.

Recognising which decisions are reversible and which are not helps businesses move faster while minimizing risk.

Embedding psychological safety in decision-making

One of the biggest obstacles to faster decision-making is the fear of failure, as mentioned by Darren. According to him, organisations that penalise mistakes create a culture where employees hesitate to take risks.

“Innovation thrives in environments with psychological safety,” Darren explained. “If employees fear retribution for a wrong decision, they won’t take any risks at all.”

Companies like Google have addressed this by compressing decision layers, ensuring that the right people are in the room to make decisions instantly. At Amazon, decision-making is often driven by well-structured six-page narratives, ensuring clarity before execution.

Who should own the final call?

A common challenge in organisations is identifying who should make the final decision. While CEOs and business heads play key roles, effective decision-making requires empowering subject-matter experts at all levels.

Darren explained how major tech firms avoid decision gridlock. “Before starting discussions, we ask, ‘Who has deep expertise in this area?’ Surprisingly, it’s not always the most senior person. Elevating the most relevant voices ensures faster and more effective decisions.”

Managing decision regret: Learning from mistakes

Leaders frequently face regret when a decision doesn’t go as planned. But how organisations handle failures determines whether they foster agility or stagnation.

Google, for instance, conducts retrospectives on failed decisions, where teams openly discuss what went wrong without fear of blame. Darren highlighted an interesting approach, “In Google, anyone leading a retrospective gets a bonus and applause, reinforcing that failure is a learning opportunity rather than a setback.”

This method ensures that leaders don’t hesitate to take risks again, preventing a culture of risk aversion.

Who makes faster decisions: CEOs, CFOs, CHROs, or CIOs?

The discussion also explored how different C-suite executives approach decision-making. According to Darren, CFOs & CHROs are often more agile in driving transformation, focusing on innovation, risk assessment, and workforce adaptability.

He added that CIOs & CTOs tend to over-rely on data and struggle with decision speed due to legacy systems and complex policies.

The other observation, Darren shared was that chief digital officers (CDOs) move quickly but often lack decision-making authority over budget and customer strategies.

Overcoming decision paralysis in the digital age

In a world overflowing with information, leaders must shift from seeking certainty to embracing calculated risk. Whether through frameworks like the 40-70 rule, Amazon’s one-way/two-way doors, or fostering psychological safety, organisations must build cultures that prioritise speed, agility, and smart risk-taking.