1. The illusion of clear impact
In companies, decisions are often made based on surprisingly simple assumptions: If we do X, Y will happen. This measure will increase revenue; that one will improve efficiency or expand the customer base.
What is often underestimated is this: the direct effect of a decision is rarely the problem. The indirect consequences are.
2. When a good idea backfires
A former croupier at a casino recently told me a story: he had quit his job. The new management, he said, had made too many poor decisions, and things had steadily worsened. I found that surprising and asked him to explain. After all, the business model of a traditional casino is relatively stable: guests come, play roulette or blackjack, win and lose, and in the end the house earns its margin reliably. How, I wondered, can management make such poor decisions in that setting that they actually “break” something?
His explanation was this: the new management was determined to grow. Their measures included abolishing the dress code, meaning no more jacket and tie, and lowering the minimum stake from five euros to two. The goal was to attract younger and new target groups. In the short term, it worked. But the new clientele did not stay. And the existing regular customers no longer felt addressed and also stopped coming.
What began as a well-intentioned revenue initiative turned into a long-term deterioration.
3. When decisions trigger chain reactions
I have seen a similar pattern in my own professional life. At one company, a decision was made to discontinue one brand line in the UK market and instead strengthen a more profitable brand group. The logic was understandable: focus on the more economically attractive product line.
What had not been sufficiently considered was this: sales ran through a multi-tier distribution system, and many dealers and specialist partners were strongly tied to precisely the brand group that was to be discontinued. The consequence was that distribution partners defected to competitors in large numbers. In one of the company’s most important markets. Revenue collapsed. And what made it worse was that the decision was hardly reversible.
4. The real problem: a lack of scenario thinking
Both examples have one thing in common: the initial decision was not necessarily wrong. What was missing was something else: systematic scenario thinking.
Questions such as:
What happens if the expected effect does not materialize, or not in the way hoped for?
What unintended side effects could the decision have?
How will relevant stakeholders react to the change?
What second- or third-order consequences might result from it?
What options do we have to adjust course or even reverse the decision?
These questions are often not asked consistently. Instead, linear thinking dominates: measure - desired effect.
5. Why organizations still do not do this
The reasons are familiar:
Scenarios seem complicated, and they slow decisions down.
They challenge assumptions.
They force people to confront uncomfortable possibilities.
And often there is no role in the organization that explicitly demands this perspective.
6. The underestimated role of the “advocatus diaboli”
That is precisely why I believe it makes sense to consciously build such perspectives into decision-making. Not as criticism, and not as the voice of permanent doubt. But as a fixed part of decision processes. Someone who systematically asks: What could go wrong? What are we overlooking? What second- and third-order effects might this create? Not to prevent or delay decisions. But to improve them.
7. My impulse
Which decision are you currently making that seems to have a clear and obvious effect?
And which consequences have you not yet fully thought through?
Who in your environment takes on the role of consistently thinking through critical scenarios?
Because good decisions are not only defined by how logical they appear. They are defined by whether they still hold up when reality unfolds differently than planned.
