Grounded, not certain: How strong leaders move forward without all the answers.

Follow-up to; You Can’t Lead from Quicksand - Why Foundational Clarity is the First Job of Every Leader

Gosh, being a leader is hard. You have to make daily decisions that affect the staff and the work, often without

certainty that the decision, once made, will be the right one. So you consider all the angles, tie yourself up in knots, then close your eyes, declare the path... and pray. Certainty is never guaranteed, but clarity gives you something solid to work from, and may be a whole lot better in the long run.

Clarity and certainty are not the same. Clarity tells you who you are, what matters, and what you will not compromise. Certainty tells you what will happen, and leaders rarely have that. Clarity is composed of your mission, your values, your organizational culture, financial realities, organizational capacity, and how they all align. Clarity allows you to make decisions based on the foundational truths your organization and your life are built upon, and those decisions are usually best for the long run. Clarity is grounding, and grounded decision-making is powerful.

A good decision can still produce a disappointing outcome.

Leaders often judge themselves afterward using information they didn’t have when they made the decision. Luck and hidden information affect outcomes, so results alone cannot tell us whether the original decision was sound. Sometimes external factors affect the outcome. Other people's behavior, equipment breakdowns, and even weather can skew the results, but that doesn't mean the decision was bad. It’s always important to assess whether the decision upholds the mission, supports the organization’s and your values, and was made with as much solid information as possible. If so, you can handle the outcome and move forward.

For example….

Years ago, the organization I was running decided to reimagine its signature fundraising gala. The local orchestra had long been the evening's centerpiece. We paid them a significant amount to perform. But we were increasingly concerned that guests were leaving with a stronger connection to the orchestra than to our organization, which the event was supposed to support. Donor clarity was at risk, a major issue for any nonprofit. We also realized that, as an inclusive organization, we weren't including the many other artists in the community.

After much deliberation with staff and board members, we decided to reimagine the event, bring in new artists, and focus fully on our organization’s mission, which had taken a backseat to the orchestra. We gave the orchestra five months’ notice that we wouldn’t be hiring them that year and explained our reasoning. When one of their board members, who also supported our organization, raised concerns, I talked through the decision with her. She said she would support it. I thought we had reached an understanding.

A month later, she published a long edition of her local gossip column that included misinformation and essentially accused my organization of throwing the orchestra under the bus. Basically, she contended that we had done them dirty. The backlash was profound. Supporters of the orchestra were angry, and conversations with them revealed something important: many believed their ticket purchases and donations benefited the orchestra. Some thought only the silent auction supported our organization. They didn’t realize we were paying the orchestra to perform. I also learned that over the years the orchestra had come to view the evening as its season kickoff. It was a mess, and the confusion we had been concerned about was deeper than we knew.

At the next gala, attendance fell. We estimated that roughly a third of our previous guests had been coming primarily for the orchestra. We lost funding, spent considerable time responding to criticism, and faced damage to relationships we valued. It was a hard, stressful period.

I’ve spent years thinking about how that decision played out. I still believe changing the event was the right direction. An organization's fundraiser needs to make clear whose work people are supporting and why it matters. The backlash made that need even more apparent, even as it made the change harder.

But I would handle parts of the process differently today. I would have asked more questions about how guests understood the event and how the orchestra viewed the partnership. Giving notice and explaining our reasoning didn't mean we shared an understanding. Knowing more might not have changed the decision, but it could have changed how we prepared, communicated, and planned for the financial consequences.

Thankfully, focusing on foundational elements meant that, while we lost attendees that first year, we gained new ones the next, and the event became more clearly focused on our mission. That didn’t erase the losses or repair every relationship. It did give us a clear foundation for building support.

Was it a bad decision because the outcome was painful? I don’t believe so. Were there things we could have done better? Yes. Both can be true. Standing behind a decision made through clarity around the organization's mission should still leave room to learn from how it was made.

Not knowing should be named, not disguised.

Before entering any major decision-making process, know as much as you can and recognize what you don’t know. We get into trouble when we present assumptions, hopes, and fears as facts. A strong leader should say, “Here is what we know, here is what we don’t, and here is what we’re doing next,” while gaining as much insight and knowledge as possible from the staff, board, and community to make a solid choice. Decisions made in a vacuum are never great, and you should never think you have to make them alone. There is always someone, even a trusted colleague, with whom you can workshop an idea before moving forward.

I also cannot emphasize enough the importance of being transparent with your team and board about what you don’t yet know. They are in it with you and should know so they can help you make the most solid decisions possible.

You rarely need to decide the entire future.

Remember, sometimes the right decision is the next responsible, reversible step, not a permanent solution. Maybe sweeping changes to your programs aren’t the way to begin. Perhaps test a new offering with a limited budget and a defined review date, then use what you learn to decide whether to expand, adjust, or stop. It’s a reversible step. You try it. Maybe you have to pull back, or maybe it gives you the energy to move forward, fueled by the knowledge of success.

Foundations create freedom.

Remember, as a leader, you don't have to make every decision. When the mission, values, financial realities, and organizational capacity are clear, people throughout the organization can respond intelligently without waiting for the leader to control every move. This removes a lot of mental load from your plate (every leader needs that) and empowers your team to help build the organization through thoughtful decision-making. They will see, through the example you set, that decisions aren't made in a vacuum and must be grounded in the organization's foundations. Remember, your job is to clear the path, not personally push every wheelbarrow down it.

Your foundations, mission, values, culture, financial realities, and capacity are your biggest assets. They give you stability in times of crisis. They anchor every decision you make to truth and clarity.  We are going to make mistakes. That’s inevitable. But clear foundations help us make thoughtful decisions, take responsibility for their consequences, and adjust without knowing the future.

Amber Parker is the Founder and Principal Consultant at RootSpark Consulting. She has 32 years of leadership experience in government and nonprofit sectors and is ready to help you level up your organization.