In 1248, someone laid the first stone of the cathedral, which was to be completed. It was not a symbolic gesture or a romantic expression of the past. It was a conscious decision, profoundly rational in its context. This is where I start the construction of the cathedral in Cologne he knew that the result did not concern him, that his efforts would be felt only in a time he would not live, and that the work would be completed by hands that did not yet exist.
For more than six hundred years, generations have continued this project without questioning its logic. I never finished it. And yet everyone knew exactly what to do because there was a common understanding that the value of a decision was not limited to its immediate impact but to its ability to project yourself more as one chooses.
Later, forests were planted in the Republic of Venice in the belief that ships would not be built soon 100-150 years later. It was not a tradition or a widespread intuition, but a sophisticated form of strategy in which it formed part of the draft decision at the time. Planting a tree was actually building future wealth. Planning meant accepting that the return would not be personal but collective and delayed. Decision making involves the inclusion of those who are notintegrate non-existent necessities and operate with a horizon that completely transcends individual experience.
This is a mental note that has been natural for the past few years now seems impossible. We live in a context where we never have more data, more models, more experts or more capacity for analysis. no embargo, The problem didn’t start in the clarity phase until much earlier. Real decisions operate in systems whose effects unfold over decades, while the brands from which we make decisions are hidden in a short space.
It informs the World Economic Forum intergenerational foresight Please note the current decision we can limit the possibilities of the future until we clearly understand it in the present. It’s not a matter of intent, but of design. The systems in which we operate are not prepared to support decision-making in broader horizons.
This is the reason. And starting from there the symptom will appear. In this context, the study of Harvard Business Review shows a revealing paradox. 72% of CEOs admit that they find it more difficult to set prioritiescount on highly qualified teams and consultancy. You never have more information, but that doesn’t translate into better decisions. What breaks is not the analysis, but the ability to transform that analysis into direction. This is not information, this is guidance.
The problem isn’t that we don’t know much until we continue to decide how the world was simpler than it really is. Our decision-making structures continue to operate on the inherited logic of a relatively stable environment in which the future can be projected from the past with some degree of confidence. We plan, validate, correct deviations and optimize processes because there is a predictable trajectory. However, the current environment is not linear, dynamic and deeply interdependent. We are sophisticated in our designs, but not a mental brand with what we decide.
This separation has consequences that are not always visible in the short square. Every seemingly rational decision can limit the decision space of the future. Technological dependencies, rigid infrastructures, economic trajectories that are difficult to reverse. Everything is done based on the logic of efficiency, but with cumulative effects that will become apparent only over time. This is where the work of Donella Meadows brings extraordinary clarity.
Complete systems do not fail immediately until they are complete delayed effects that accumulate until they become irreversible. In the same vein, Elinor Ostrom demonstrated that it is possible to manage returns over generations when design incorporates the large square as an operating principle, while Kate Raworth proposed an economic model that favors immediate growth without integrating system constraints. It’s not that we’ve stopped thinking in the open square, it’s that we’ve built systems that punish us.
None of this is entirely new. Long before we talked about completeness or perspective, there was a deep understanding of what it meant to make decisions under uncertainty. Aristotle distinguished between technical knowledge and prudence the ability to make decisions when there is no clear answer.
It wasn’t to know more about it, but about it perform better in uncertain contexts. Afterwards, Seneca observed that the problem of time was not over until we could make good use of it. And in the Chinese tradition, Confucius argued that the legitimacy of a decision depends on its ability to maintain balance over time.
What we do know is to replace this understanding with a different logic at some point. We continuously changed for optimization, speed horizon, performance accountability. We have built systems that are extremely efficient at achieving results in a short space, but deeply limited in supporting decision making in a large space. We have changed our focus on efficiency. El Mayor riego ya no es equivocarnos. El mayor riesgo es make decisions quickly in systems that evolve slowly.
Faced with this reality, there is no question of giving up on analytics or technology until we recognize their limitations. The point is that the data must be sufficient, that the model does not support the decision, and that the completeness exceeds the computational capacity. It is in this space that a distinct capacity appears, less visible but more decisive. There is no superficial intuition or emotional response. It’s the ability to find your way around when you don’t have a map. This is what we can call the inner brujula.
This compass does not replace analysis, but complements it. It doesn’t remove the uncertainty, but it allows you to navigate it with more coherence. No guarantee of perfect decisions, but decisions in line with a sense of direction. It is the contemporary translation of this form of thinking that has allowed us to establish cathedrals destined to endure siglos or plant forests for even non-existent needs. It is the ability to make decisions without certainty, but without losing the noise.
Companies have long assumed that their decisions affect people who aren’t even there. Now this evidence appears to be emerging in a much more complex and challenging context. Making a decision about you is not just about choosing between alternatives. Es, in great meditation, conditions the decision-making space of people comes later.
Because in a world where everything seems possible, the difference is no longer made or decided faster. It is much more difficult and much more expensive. Knowing how to move forward when the future is not ours.
***Paco Bree He is a professor at Deusto Business School, Advantere School of Management and an advisor at Innsomnia Business Accelerator.
Leave a Reply