Jill Geisler: How to make tough leadership decisions that are fair-minded and not morale busters

Leaders at all levels within organizations solve problems, plan strategy and react to threats or opportunities. When you are high on the org chart, the stakes are greater. Your actions affect the bottom line, your team members, your organizational culture — and your own reputation.

Whether you are breaking exciting new ground or choosing a path that will cause disruption and discomfort, you need a clear process approaching such decisions.

Initial decision-making premises

I suggest you begin by embracing two important preliminary considerations.

First, think at least one year ahead. Why? It helps you focus your goal and define your intended outcome. It can keep you from making a short-sighted call that doesn’t provide longer- term benefits. What will overall success look like and how will you measure it? What story will you be telling about the outcome and how it aligns with your goals? A year goes by quickly, and many would argue long-term thinking should extend beyond a mere 365 days, but this simple yardstick an protect against impulsive calls and unintended consequences.^a

Second, understand the importance of “process fairness.” When I talk with leaders about change initiatives or tough calls, I often mention research on the impact of process fairness, as described by Joel Brockner, PhD, Phillip Hettleman Professor of Business at Columbia Business School.^b Brockner says this idea can include employee input (a voice, if not a vote), accurate information guiding the decision, elimination of bias, consistency across the organization, timeliness, transparency and the behavior of those carrying out the decision.^c

When people believe the process by which a decision was made was fair, they are more willing to accept the outcome. It doesn’t mean they will love it, especially if it involves some pain. But their morale and productivity are less likely to take a big hit. The likelihood of active or passive resistance is diminished. Further, when they understand and respect the process, they are less likely to lose faith in their leaders.

For a real-world example of what problematic processes lead to, look at recent decisions by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on vaccine recommendations. Questions about the accuracy of CDC information and the qualifications of its hand-picked vaccine panel, led the American Medical Association to take action, joining with a major university vaccine project to conduct and share its own parallel research.^d Public trust in the CDC also declined.^e

How to ensure the integrity of your decisions

Don’t let your credibility and trustworthiness be called into question. Here are six steps for ensuring your decision-making process is fair.

1 Gather your data. What are you using for analysis and projections to make sure it’s based on recent and reliable information? If you’re going to green light — or halt — a new product or initiative, for instance, consider these questions to make sure you have everything you need to justify your call:

• Have you performed any surveys, made prototypes or conducted user tests?
• Have you thoroughly studied the competitive landscape?
• Do you have reliable information on demographic or market trends that could affect the success of your decision?

Or if you are changing staff assignments or schedules, consider these questions:

• Have you fully analyzed demand and capacity?
• Have you examined existing labor agreements, vendor contracts and applicable regulations?

The more important a decision, the more you need to do your homework.^f

2 Check your biases and assumptions. We’re human — and that makes us susceptible to blind spots.^g We may be protective of programs we designed, people we hired or roles we once held, leading us to favor them in decision-making. We may have “gut feelings” that aren’t fact-based. For example, your tough decision may involve selecting between good internal and external candidates for a major hire. Your gut says that fresh ideas may be more important than institutional memory. But do you have more than a hunch to go on? Some research favors internal candidates.^h The right answer depends on your organization’s current context. In such situations, it can help to discuss options with a trusted colleague.

3 Gather your trusted advisers. These are the folks who can vet your data and challenge your ideas — provided, of course, that you have chosen well. If you’ve selected people who always agree with you or are too intimidated to challenge you, you’ve created a cohort of
confirmation bias and groupthink. Lean on people who have expertise you lack and the
confidence to be contrarians. Choose folks who ask a lot of questions before they offer opinions. The final decision may rest solely with you, but you will have proof you haven’t done it in a vacuum.

4 Consider stakeholders. Process fairness is bolstered by inclusion. If your decision doesn’t require a high level of confidentiality, talk to people on the front lines. They need to know you’ve tried your best to see the world through their eyes when making decisions that affect them. You can also do a simple whiteboard exercise: List every type of role — internal and external to the organization — that will be touched by your judgment call. This very simple exercise ensures you won’t hear someone say, “You never took us into account.”

5 Hold tight to your values. While considering options, make certain you also reflect on what you stand for. If you must limit raises because of a budget squeeze, do you still consider pay equity, salary disparities and merit as you plan? If you consider cutting a successful intern program to save money, are you considering how you might pause it or re-imagine it rather than just eliminate it? If someone claims your DEI initiatives should be dropped, do you respond as Costco and its shareholders did, that inclusion is a business value?ⁱ If your decision involves new uses of AI, are you prepared to examine the ethical implications and ensure they are prominent in your decision-making?^j

6 Engage your emotional intelligence. Difficult decisions can take a toll on those who make them, because few tough calls are universally appreciated. You will have critics. That’s why you need resilience. In addition to being empathetic to others, you need to be good to yourself. Remind yourself that discernment in decision-making is your responsibility as a steward of the organization’s integrity and success. Being thoughtful about the process, as I’ve described, can help alleviate the self-doubt or internal second-guessing that even confident leaders can feel.

When sharing your decision, communication is critical

One of the keys to process fairness lies in how people receive news, especially if it is news they’re not happy about. Informing employees about painful change in a cold or callous way (even if it doesn’t affect them directly) is a sure way to elicit strong pushback from them.

Good communication won’t make unhappy people joyful, but it protects against the internal and external stories that focus not just on difficult news, but also on the insensitive way it was delivered. Just look back at the DOGE budget-cutting decisions as examples of both poor process and poor communication. They generated critical scrutiny and headlines like “How Did DOGE disrupt so much and save so little?” along with wellsprings of distrust.^k

For another worst-case example of communication, consider the recent major coverage cuts and layoffs at The Washington Post. CEO Will Lewis was obliged to relinquish his position as they unfolded. Here’s what NPR reported:^l

The coup de grâce came just a day later when Lewis was photographed in Northern California walking a red carpet at a Super Bowl event.

Lewis departed the Post under that cloud, and according to reports, so did 60,000 subscribers.^m Debate the business wisdom behind the cuts, if you wish, but let’s agree that the bad communication by the CEO was indisputably damaging.

How to communicate a tough decision effectively

I suggest you keep three things in mind: Clarity, transparency and humanity. As you do that, here are important points to consider.

Be clear about exactly what led to the decision and what the expected outcome will be. What problem or opportunity led to the action? If it’s a problem, describe the risk you are mitigating. If it’s an opportunity, explain why it matters now — and in the future. Tell people about your vision going forward. For example, if you have eliminated or added a line of business, describe the measurable goal people should see. If your words are muddy, you invite doubt about your leadership.

Once you’ve outlined the what and the why of the decision as your headline, share the how. This transparency helps demonstrate process fairness. Explain how you used data to inform you — and why it was reliable. Document how you took pains to get input, to challenge assumptions and to think about alternatives.

Talk like a caring colleague, not a detached executive. Show empathy for anyone affected negatively, and respect for the past even as you may be undoing some legacy aspects of your organization. Share optimism about the future. Talk about your values. They matter more than ever.

Even if you’re comfortable with public speaking, be sure you prepare. Run your thoughts past one of those trusted advisors.ⁿ Revisit my column on communicating during change.

Plan to stay close to your team in the days ahead. Even though you’ve been through a good deal of emotional labor in making a tough call and rolling out the information to staff, resist the temptation to close the door on the topic. Your team may need a little more time and conversation with you to effectively move forward.

Decide to be there for them. 

Footnotes

a. Wharton Work, “Long-term thinking is your best short-term strategy,” The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, August 2018.
b. Adler, J., “Success and why the process matters — Joel Brockner,”  Work/Life Integration Project, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, April 22, 2016.
c. Brockner, J., The process matters: Engaging and equipping people for success, Princeton University Press, 2016.
d. National Foundation for Infectious Disease, “Experts sound alarm after ACIP members removed,” June 10, 2025; and Sun., L., “AMA joins effort to launch vaccine science review amid CDC turmoil,” The Washington Post, Feb. 10, 2026.
e. Kearney, A., et al., “KFF tracking poll on health information and trust: Trust in the CDC and views of federal childhood vaccine schedule changes,” KFF, Feb. 6, 2026.
f. Stobierski, T., “The advantages of data-driven decision-making.” Harvard Business School online, Aug. 26, 2019.
g. Koller, T., “Biases in decision-making: A guide for CFOs,”  McKinsey & Company, March 20, 2025.
h. Beson, A., and Rissing, B.A., “Strength from within: Internal mobility and the retention of high performers,” Organization Science, November-December 2020.
i. Lichtenberg, N., “Costco defied Trump’s DEI directive as Target and Walmart scaled back. Business is booming,” Yahoo!Finance, Feb. 13, 2026.
j. Short, L., “Ethics in AI: Why it matters,” Harvard Division of Continuing Education, July 11, 2025.
k. Badger, E., et al., “How did DOGE disrupt so much and save so little?” The New York Times, Dec. 23, 2025; Geisler, J., “Why DOGE’s firing fiascos can create trickle-down distrust,” hfm, June 2, 2025.
l. Folkenflik, D., “‘Washington Post’ CEO departs after going AWOL during massive job cuts,” NPR, Feb. 7, 2026.
m. Mullin, B., Wemple, E., and Robertson, K., “How Jeff Bezos upended The Washington Post,” The New York Times, March 14, 2026.
n. Geisler. J., “Tips on how leaders should communicate during major change initiatives,” hfm, April 2020.