• Future
  • Governance
  • Special

“Knowing the outcome is not
what confidence is about.”

Daniel Bauer in conversation with Dr Stefanie Marx-Fleck

30.10.2026
  • Future
  • Governance
  • Special

Daniel Bauer, Manag­ing Part­ner at VALDIVIA, talks to psychol­o­gist Dr Stefanie Marx-Fleck about deal­ing with uncer­tain­ty, the human side of lead­er­ship respon­si­bil­i­ty and the ques­tion of how good deci­sions can be made even with­out certainty.

Uncer­tain­ty is part and parcel of every­day busi­ness life. Yet rarely has it been as multi­fac­eted and persis­tent­ly palpa­ble as it is today. In the prop­er­ty sector in partic­u­lar, lead­ers face the chal­lenge of making far-reach­ing deci­sions, even though econom­ic, polit­i­cal and social devel­op­ments are becom­ing increas­ing­ly diffi­cult to predict. At the same time, they bear respon­si­bil­i­ty for compa­nies, invest­ments and, above all, for people.

What does it mean to lead under these condi­tions? How does uncer­tain­ty influ­ence the way we think, feel and act? And what helps lead­ers to provide guid­ance, take respon­si­bil­i­ty and remain capa­ble of acting, even in diffi­cult situations?

These are the ques­tions addressed by psychol­o­gist Dr Stefanie Marx-Fleck. She complet­ed her PhD at Goethe Univer­si­ty in Frank­furt am Main and conducts research into the psycho­log­i­cal effects of uncer­tain­ty, human deci­sion-making behav­iour, and the impor­tance of lead­er­ship and psycho­log­i­cal safe­ty with­in organisations.

Daniel Bauer, Manag­ing Part­ner at VALDIVIA, sees first-hand in his day-to-day work how the demands placed on lead­ers in the prop­er­ty sector are chang­ing. In this inter­view, he combines his prac­ti­cal perspec­tive with Dr Marx-Fleck’s acad­e­m­ic insight.

The discus­sion centres on the chal­lenges of lead­er­ship in uncer­tain times, diffi­cult deci­sions and their emotion­al conse­quences – and on what can help lead­ers deal construc­tive­ly with respon­si­bil­i­ty, doubt and uncertainty.

Daniel Bauer: Dr Marx-Fleck, your acad­e­m­ic work focus­es inten­sive­ly on how people deal with uncer­tain­ty and make deci­sions. What orig­i­nal­ly sparked your inter­est in this topic?

Dr Stefanie Marx-Fleck: I am inter­est­ed in how people can make sound and coura­geous deci­sions under real-world condi­tions. The COVID-19 pandem­ic has made this ques­tion very tangi­ble: deci­sions had to be made whilst the data situ­a­tion was chang­ing daily and their conse­quences were diffi­cult (or impos­si­ble) to predict. At the same time, it became clear just how strong­ly the desire for certain­ty can shape decision-making.

In research, we refer to this as defen­sive deci­sion-making. By this we mean deci­sions in which people do not choose the alter­na­tive that makes the most sense for the organ­i­sa­tion, the patients or even soci­ety, but rather the option that is safest for them person­al­ly. In this context, we under­stand safe­ty to mean the avoid­ance of person­al risks, such as crit­i­cism, inter­per­son­al conflicts or accu­sa­tions. Whilst the desire to avoid such person­al risks is under­stand­able, it can lead to neces­sary deci­sions not being taken. It is impor­tant to empha­sise here that defen­sive deci­sion-making is not a matter of indi­vid­ual deci­sion-making incom­pe­tence – in other words, the deci­sion-makers do not ‘know any better’ – but rather a context-depen­dent phenom­e­non: If, in their day-to-day work­ing lives, people expe­ri­ence that making a mistake or a deci­sion turn­ing out to be wrong in hind­sight can lead to nega­tive person­al conse­quences, they are like­ly to ‘play it safe’ the next time. Stud­ies have shown that between 20 per cent and 50 per cent of all deci­sions made in an organ­i­sa­tion­al context are defen­sive (Artinger et al., 2019; Artinger, Marx-Fleck et al., 2025; Gigeren­z­er, 2014).

Uncer­tain­ty seems to be increas­ing­ly becom­ing a constant feature of our econom­ic and social lives. From a psycho­log­i­cal perspec­tive, what effect does persis­tent uncer­tain­ty have on us – and, in partic­u­lar, on people in lead­er­ship positions?

Uncer­tain­ty can height­en alert­ness and tension. Over time, it becomes a burden when people no longer feel they have any control and do not know how to guide their actions. Managers expe­ri­ence this partic­u­lar­ly keen­ly because their deci­sions have conse­quences for others. This increas­es the temp­ta­tion to seek reas­sur­ance through further analy­sis or . Yet more infor­ma­tion does not auto­mat­i­cal­ly lead to better deci­sions. What matters is know­ing what one knows, what one does not know, and which rules apply to one’s own deci­sion-making. Clar­i­ty does not come from a manag­er predict­ing every­thing, but from acting in a way that is trans­par­ent and understandable.

Managers in the prop­er­ty sector are often respon­si­ble for substan­tial invest­ments, long-term projects and numer­ous jobs. How does such a high level of respon­si­bil­i­ty influ­ence the way they deal with uncer­tain­ty? And what helps them to remain capa­ble of making deci­sions, even under pressure?

A high level of respon­si­bil­i­ty can lead to making defen­sive deci­sions. Whilst this some­times protects against crit­i­cism, it does not neces­sar­i­ly improve the deci­sion itself. It is help­ful to estab­lish clear crite­ria in advance: What must not be jeop­ar­dised? What loss­es are accept­able? What infor­ma­tion would actu­al­ly change the deci­sion? A simple rule can be better than a compli­cat­ed model if it suits the situ­a­tion. Further­more, deci­sions should be made veri­fi­able: What assump­tions under­pin them, when will they be reassessed, and how can we tell that we need to change course? In this way, respon­si­bil­i­ty is not confused with certainty.

Many impor­tant deci­sions have to be made today, even though key infor­ma­tion is miss­ing and the poten­tial conse­quences are diffi­cult to assess. What does psycho­log­i­cal research tell us about how people make deci­sions under these condi­tions? Are there any insights that can help managers deal with this situ­a­tion more effectively?

In situ­a­tions of uncer­tain­ty, people resort to mental short­cuts (known as heuris­tics). A good heuris­tic can be both quick and robust, partic­u­lar­ly when data is incom­plete or dynam­ic. A well-known rule is: if a partic­u­lar char­ac­ter­is­tic is espe­cial­ly telling, exam­ine it first; if it allows for a clear deci­sion, there is no need to gath­er every further detail. Managers should there­fore not only ask: ‘Do we have all the infor­ma­tion?’, but also: ‘Which infor­ma­tion is crucial?’ and ‘Which simple rule applies to this situ­a­tion?’ It is impor­tant to make the rule trans­par­ent and to learn from the results. You cannot elim­i­nate every uncer­tain­ty, but you can struc­ture deci­sions in such a way that the reason­ing behind them is clear.

Lead­er­ship, partic­u­lar­ly in diffi­cult times, also means having to make and stand by deci­sions that have a profound impact on other people’s lives – for exam­ple, when staff have to be made redun­dant. From a psycho­log­i­cal perspec­tive, how does such respon­si­bil­i­ty affect lead­ers them­selves? And what can help them cope with this emotion­al strain?

A deci­sion that poten­tial­ly harms other people can take a heavy emotion­al toll. This burden should neither be dismissed as a weak­ness nor inter­pret­ed as proof that the deci­sion was wrong. It is help­ful to exam­ine the reasons open­ly: What alter­na­tives were there? What conse­quences were fore­see­able? Were those affect­ed treat­ed fair­ly? Managers should not hide the deci­sion behind figures or proce­dures, but should take respon­si­bil­i­ty for it and treat those affect­ed with respect. A discus­sion with other managers or even profes­sion­al busi­ness coach­es can help to exam­ine one’s own perspec­tive. It is crucial to learn from the stress rather than gloss­ing over it with retro­spec­tive justifications.

At this point, I always like to refer to the concept of self-compas­sion from the field of posi­tive psychol­o­gy. Managers should allow them­selves to acknowl­edge that diffi­cult deci­sions may also take their toll on them. Self-compas­sion does not mean down­play­ing one’s own respon­si­bil­i­ty or justi­fy­ing deci­sions uncrit­i­cal­ly. Rather, it means being aware of one’s own feel­ings and limits, treat­ing oneself with the same fair­ness and good­will as one treats others, and recog­nis­ing that even respon­si­ble action can be asso­ci­at­ed with doubt and an emotion­al toll.

Whilst managers are expect­ed to provide their staff with support and guid­ance, they them­selves are often under consid­er­able pres­sure. What signif­i­cance does psycho­log­i­cal safe­ty hold for managers person­al­ly? How impor­tant is it that they, too, have spaces where they can speak open­ly about their doubts and stresses?

Accord­ing to Amy Edmond­son (1999), psycho­log­i­cal safe­ty refers to the shared belief with­in a team that it is safe to take inter­per­son­al risks – such as asking ques­tions, admit­ting mistakes, voic­ing concerns or disagree­ing – with­out having to fear nega­tive inter­per­son­al conse­quences. Research has partic­u­lar­ly empha­sised the role of lead­ers in foster­ing psycho­log­i­cal safe­ty with­in teams. Howev­er, lead­ers them­selves must also feel psycho­log­i­cal­ly safe and need people with­in the organ­i­sa­tion with whom they can take inter­per­son­al risks. Those who ponder diffi­cult deci­sions alone often see fewer alter­na­tives and only realise their own blind spots later on. A safe space can help to chal­lenge assump­tions and assess risks more clear­ly. This does not mean that every uncer­tain­ty must be aired publicly. It means that an organ­i­sa­tion allows for dissent and honest questioning.

Managers are often expect­ed to radi­ate confi­dence and to remain composed even in diffi­cult situ­a­tions. At the same time, they them­selves expe­ri­ence uncer­tain­ty and doubt. How much of their own uncer­tain­ty can or should managers show to their teams? And how can they provide guid­ance with­out being able to promise certainty?

Managers should not feign a sense of certain­ty they do not possess. They can clear­ly state what is known, what remains unclear, and when the situ­a­tion will be reassessed. This builds more trust than a false promise of certain­ty. At the same time, a team needs action­able next steps. A manag­er can there­fore acknowl­edge uncer­tain­ty about the outcome whilst still provid­ing clar­i­ty on the process: What are the prior­i­ties right now? Who makes the deci­sions? What indi­ca­tors would trig­ger a change of course? Direc­tion is provid­ed by reli­able crite­ria and honest commu­ni­ca­tion, not by claim­ing to know the future.

Uncer­tain­ty is often perceived primar­i­ly as a burden or a threat. Your research also explores how people expe­ri­ence and assess uncer­tain­ty. Is it possi­ble to learn to deal with uncer­tain­ty in a more construc­tive way – and perhaps even devel­op the abil­i­ty to recog­nise new oppor­tu­ni­ties with­in it?

Yes. This includes the real­i­sa­tion that uncer­tain­ty does not always mean danger. It can also open up scope for new solu­tions. You can prac­tise this by explic­it­ly stat­ing your assump­tions, consid­er­ing sever­al plau­si­ble scenar­ios and trying out small, reversible steps. In this way, you gain infor­ma­tion with­out commit­ting your­self too early to a major deci­sion that is diffi­cult to reverse . The aim need not be to find uncer­tain­ty pleas­ant. It is to remain capa­ble of making judge­ments and taking action despite uncertainty.

Deal­ing with uncer­tain­ty is not just an indi­vid­ual matter; it also depends on a company’s culture. What frame­work condi­tions should organ­i­sa­tions put in place to enable managers and staff to deal with uncer­tain­ty open­ly and constructively?

Organ­i­sa­tions should specif­i­cal­ly promote the psycho­log­i­cal safe­ty discussed above: employ­ees must be able to raise risks, ask ques­tions and voice dissent with­out being exposed to ridicule. This does not mean that every deci­sion is discussed endless­ly. It means that rele­vant objec­tions are heard before a deci­sion is made. Specif­ic routines help to achieve this: managers can explic­it­ly ask for counter-argu­ments in meet­ings, open­ly address their own uncer­tain­ty and mistakes, and have their deci­sions scru­ti­nised by a ‘crit­i­cal friend’. After major projects, a brief review can clar­i­fy: What did we expect? What actu­al­ly happened? What can we learn from this? A good culture of learn­ing from mistakes distin­guish­es between unin­ten­tion­al errors, risky deci­sions based on uncer­tain grounds, and delib­er­ate breach­es of the rules. Mistakes should not be punished across the board, but analysed. At the same time, respon­si­bil­i­ties and conse­quences remain clear. This reduces the incen­tive to with­hold infor­ma­tion or make deci­sions defen­sive­ly. Psycho­log­i­cal safe­ty and respon­si­bil­i­ty go hand in hand: being able to speak open­ly about prob­lems and learn visi­bly from them.

Final­ly, look­ing ahead: if you could share one insight from your research with lead­ers in the prop­er­ty sector to help them lead respon­si­bly and confi­dent­ly even in uncer­tain times – what would it be?

Do not confuse a precise fore­cast with a good deci­sion. Long-term projects make predic­tions partic­u­lar­ly tempt­ing, but also partic­u­lar­ly prone to a false sense of secu­ri­ty. Instead, ask: What few assump­tions under­pin this deci­sion? What could disprove it? Which steps can still be reversed? And when will we reassess? A simple, trans­par­ent rule can be more reli­able under uncer­tain condi­tions than a sophis­ti­cat­ed model whose under­ly­ing assump­tions nobody ques­tions anymore. Confi­dence does not mean know­ing the outcome. It means choos­ing a respon­si­ble next step and being prepared to learn from new information.

Dr Marx-Fleck, to conclude, may I ask a person­al ques­tion: you are your­self a keen marathon runner and know how much stami­na, disci­pline and mental strength it takes to master such a chal­lenge. Do you see any paral­lels between running a marathon and the demands placed on lead­ers? And what role do you think sport can play in help­ing us cope better with complex tasks, high levels of respon­si­bil­i­ty and uncertainty?

A marathon requires work­ing towards a goal over a long peri­od of time. Things rarely go smooth­ly: train­ing doesn’t seem to yield the hoped-for results, you get injured or catch a cold just before the race. And then there’s the weath­er on race day – a major unknown. It’s only human to check the weath­er app daily, weeks before the race, in the hope of certain­ty about the condi­tions, but unfor­tu­nate­ly this is rarely success­ful. Instead, I try to stay mental­ly calm, trust in my own abil­i­ty and adapt to new condi­tions as the race unfolds. The same applies to lead­er­ship: major projects require perse­ver­ance and direc­tion, but also a will­ing­ness to adjust course when the situ­a­tion changes. Anoth­er impor­tant paral­lel is that neither a marathon nor good lead­er­ship is sole­ly a matter of indi­vid­ual abil­i­ty: a good team and the support of others are crucial. Sport can help us expe­ri­ence resilience and learn how to cope with exer­tion. Howev­er, it also makes it clear that breaks and recov­ery are part of the perfor­mance. For lead­ers, this means think­ing long-term, manag­ing their ener­gy real­is­ti­cal­ly and not view­ing support as a weakness.

About Dr Stefanie Marx-Fleck

Dr Stefanie Marx-Fleck is a psychol­o­gist and researcher special­is­ing in indus­tri­al, organ­i­sa­tion­al and busi­ness psychol­o­gy. After complet­ing her PhD in 2023 at Goethe Univer­si­ty Frank­furt am Main, she contin­ued her acad­e­m­ic work at, amongst other insti­tu­tions, the Univer­si­ty of Bonn, where she holds a profes­sor­ship in indus­tri­al, organ­i­sa­tion­al and busi­ness psychology.

Her research centres on ques­tions of human expe­ri­ence and behav­iour with­in organ­i­sa­tions: How do people cope with uncer­tain­ty? What factors influ­ence their deci­sions under diffi­cult condi­tions? And what role do lead­er­ship, psycho­log­i­cal safe­ty and organ­i­sa­tion­al frame­works play in this?

A key focus of her acad­e­m­ic work is on what is known as defen­sive deci­sion-making behav­iour. She inves­ti­gates the role played by the need for reas­sur­ance when making deci­sions under uncer­tain­ty, and the condi­tions under which people can make their deci­sions open­ly, thought­ful­ly and responsibly.

In addi­tion, she explores the percep­tion of uncer­tain­ty and the ques­tion of how people can learn to perceive uncer­tain situ­a­tions not sole­ly as a threat, but also as an opportunity.

Her research has been published in inter­na­tion­al acad­e­m­ic jour­nals and provides insights into a key ques­tion in modern corpo­rate manage­ment: ‘How can people remain capa­ble of acting and make respon­si­ble deci­sions even under high pres­sure and in the face of uncer­tain developments?’”

Links & sources and further information

https://www.psychologie.uni-frankfurt.de/159780850/Dr__Stefanie_Marx_Fleck

https://www.psychologie.uni-bonn.de/mitarbeiter-und-ansprechpersonen-am-institut-fuer-psychologie/arbeits-organisation-und-wirtschaftspsychologie/mitarbeiter/stefanie-marx-fleck

Coping with uncer­tain­ty: The inter­ac­tion of psycho­log­i­cal safe­ty and authen­tic lead­er­ship in their effects on defen­sive decision-making

“Stefanie Marx-Fleck” – Google Scholar

Artinger, F. M., Artinger, S., & Gigeren­z­er, G. (2019). CYA: frequen­cy and caus­es of defen­sive deci­sions in public admin­is­tra­tion. Busi­ness Research, 12(1), 9–25.

Artinger, F. M., Marx-Fleck, S., Junker, N. M., Gigeren­z­er, G., Artinger, S., & van Dick, R. (2025). Coping with uncer­tain­ty: The inter­ac­tion of psycho­log­i­cal safe­ty and authen­tic lead­er­ship in their effects on defen­sive deci­sion-making. Jour­nal of Busi­ness Research, 190, 115240.

Gigeren­z­er, G. (2014). Risk savvy: How to make good deci­sions (Vol. 49). New York: Viking.

Edmond­son, A. (1999). Psycho­log­i­cal Safe­ty and Learn­ing Behav­iour in Work Teams. Admin­is­tra­tive Science Quar­ter­ly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999

(Image source: private)

 

 

Cookie Settings

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.

3rd Party Cookies

This website uses Google Analytics to collect anonymous information such as the number of visitors to the site, and the most popular pages.

Keeping this cookie enabled helps us to improve our website.