You’re in a meeting. An important decision is pending. You’ve gathered data, created analyses, consulted experts. But something is still missing. The market figures aren’t entirely up-to-date. The sales department’s assessment contradicts that of controlling. A key stakeholder was unreachable. So you postpone the decision. “We need more information.” Next week, we’ll know more. Next week, you have new information, but also new questions. So, another week. Another analysis. Another meeting.
Eventually, you decide, not because you have all the information, but because the deadline is pressing. Or the market decides for you. Or the opportunity is lost.
You will never have all the information. The question is not whether you decide under uncertainty. The question is how well you do it. And how quickly.
One executive I advised had every investment decision over 500,000 euros analyzed in parallel by three departments. This took an average of four months. When I asked him how often the third analysis changed the outcome of the first, he thought for a long time. “Honestly? Never.” Four months to confirm a decision that was already clear after the first month.
Waiting for complete information is not a character flaw. It’s a rational response to responsibility. When you decide, you bear the consequences. More information feels like less risk.
Three organizational dynamics reinforce this reflex. Hedging: “I considered all available data” is a better defense than “I had a good feeling.” Consensus-seeking: More analysis means more time to involve all stakeholders. This feels like diligence. Perfectionism: Especially the best want to do it right. And “right” feels like “safe.”
But each of these strategies comes with a hidden cost. While you wait for better information, the world changes. Markets move, competitors act, clients don’t wait. The analysis you’re waiting for might be outdated tomorrow. And the learning curve flattens: The first 70 percent of information provides 90 percent of the clarity. Acquiring the next 20 percent costs disproportionately more time and often doesn’t change the decision. The last 10 percent are practically priceless.
The moment you know enough to make a “perfect” decision is often the moment the decision is no longer relevant.
The idea is simple: Make decisions when you have about 70 percent of the information you desire. Not 50 percent; that would be negligent. Not 90 percent; that takes too long and provides too little additional certainty.
70 percent means: You have a solid understanding of the situation. You know the most important variables. You have identified the central risks. But there are still open questions, uncertainties, assumptions. This is not an invitation to sloppiness. It is an acknowledgment of a reality: In complex environments, complete information is an illusion.
Jeff Bezos popularized this principle, along with a distinction that is crucial for practical application.
| Decision Type | Characteristic | Is 70% enough? |
|---|---|---|
| Correctable Decision (Two-Way Door) | Can be reversed or adjusted | Yes, often even less |
| Permanent Decision (One-Way Door) | Once made, hardly reversible | More diligence needed, but 100% never exists |
| High Time Pressure | Market window closes, opportunity passes | Decide quickly, plan for correction |
| Low Time Pressure | Decision can wait without incurring costs | Take more time, but set a deadline |
Most decisions in an executive’s daily life are correctable. Introduce a new process and it doesn’t work? Adjust. Launch a pilot and it fails? Learn from it. For these decisions, the cost of a correction is almost always lower than the cost of waiting.
For permanent decisions, such as a merger, a plant closure, or a fundamental strategy change, 70 percent may be too little. But even here, 100 percent does not exist. The question is whether the additional time actually brings additional certainty or merely the illusion of it.
Adopting the 70% Principle is one thing. Implementing it is another.
First: Separate facts, opinions, and assumptions.
Often, we wait for information we cannot obtain because the future is uncertain. Separate three categories: facts (verifiable, undisputed), opinions (subjective assessments, often presented as facts), and assumptions (hypotheses about the future, not validated). We often treat opinions as facts and wait for information to resolve our assumptions, even though this is not possible. Before making a decision, explicitly list: What do we know? What do others believe? What do we assume? You will often find that the information you are waiting for would not resolve your assumptions anyway.
Second: Define the decision-relevant questions.
Not all information is equally important. Before commissioning further analysis, ask: How would our decision change if we had this information? If the answer is “probably not at all,” you don’t need the information. Define the three to five questions that truly need to be answered. Once these are answered, make your decision, regardless of any other open questions.
Third: Plan for correction from the outset.
Good decision-makers don’t just make decisions; they make them correctable. Before every decision, ask: How will we determine if the decision was correct? When will we review it? What are the signals that should prompt us to correct? When you know you can correct, the pressure to be perfect the first time decreases.
The difference between speed and negligence is not velocity. It is awareness. Negligent is he who decides without using available information, ignores risks, and never looks back. Agile under uncertainty is he who uses available information, consciously takes risks, defines clear success criteria, and plans for correction loops.
Good decision-makers are not braver than others. They are more honest about what they don’t know, and they have systems to deal with it.
The 70% Principle has consequences that extend beyond individual decisions. If you decide at 70 percent, you also allow your employees to decide at 70 percent. This accelerates the entire organization. Teams that have to wait for every little detail until the executive has all the information become slow and dependent.
An organization that accepts decisions under uncertainty develops a different error culture. If not every wrong decision is proof of incompetence, but a natural consequence of acting under uncertainty, people learn faster. They experiment more. They wait less.
Complete information is an illusion. The executives who succeed in complex environments have understood this. They don’t decide because they know everything. They decide because they know that waiting is also a decision, and usually the worse one.
The 70% Principle is not a formula. It is an attitude: agility with acceptable uncertainty. It is the difference between leading and managing.
Tomorrow, tackle the decision you’ve been postponing for weeks. Ask yourself: Do I have 70 percent? If so, decide. Today. Not next week.
Break the culture of hedging – If no one decides because everyone is waiting for complete information, the culture is the problem.
Twenty priorities are none – Making decisions also means consciously foregoing options.
Proven tools and models for self-application are available under Solutions.
If you want to take these thoughts further for your company, a no-obligation initial conversation is worthwhile.
