Everyone Makes Them: Here’s How to Recover from a Bad Business Decision
“Failure is simply the opportunity to begin again, this time more intelligently.” (Henry Ford)
Bad decisions are a near-universal leadership experience. A 2023 study of more than 14,000 employees and business leaders across 17 countries, commissioned by Oracle, found that 85 percent of business leaders have suffered from what the researchers called “decision distress” (regretting, feeling guilty about, or actively questioning a decision made) in the past year. The same study found that 72 percent of business leaders admitted they had, at some point, given up on making a decision altogether because the available data felt overwhelming. Decision-making, in other words, is hard for everyone.
What separates leaders who recover and grow from those who stall is not the absence of bad calls. It is the quality of their response.
Own it before it owns you
The most consistent thread running through research on leadership recovery is the importance of accountability. The instinct to go quiet or minimise the impact when a decision backfires is understandable, but it can also be expensive. Once an error is noticed, credibility is far harder to restore than it would have been had the leader simply spoken plainly from the outset. The fastest route to rebuilding trust is not spin, but ownership.
Diagnose the root, not just the symptom
The second step, and one that leaders under pressure are most tempted to skip, is genuinely understanding why the decision went wrong. Surface-level post-mortems, such as “we moved too fast”, or “we didn’t have enough data” only produce surface-level corrections. Durable improvement requires tracing the failure back to its actual structural cause. Was it a flawed decision-making process? Groupthink? A blind spot about the customer? Or an incentive structure that rewarded the wrong behaviour?
Denis Liam Murphy, leadership consultant and author of The Blame Game, argues that leaders need to develop what he calls “real-time hindsight”, the discipline of reflecting immediately and honestly on what a decision revealed, rather than waiting for a formal review cycle.
The Schultz playbook: Structural recovery at scale
When Schultz returned to Starbucks as CEO in January 2008, he inherited the consequences of decisions made during a period of aggressive over-expansion. The company’s stock had declined approximately 70 percent from its 2006 peak, and 600 stores were closed across 2008 and 2009. As a Harvard Business School case study on the turnaround later documented, Starbucks had drifted from the core identity that had made it successful: the experience, the craft, and the culture.
Schultz’s recovery was not built on a single dramatic gesture. It was built on a systematic return to first principles: closing 7,100 US stores for a single afternoon in February 2008 to retrain baristas, investing in the quality of the product, and making a deliberate, public commitment to slowing down in order to grow sustainably. The recovery that followed became a business school case study not because the error was unusual, but because the response to it was disciplined, transparent, and impactful in a way that resonated with the customer base.
Build the lesson into the system
The next step in the process is to build the mechanisms which help prevent mistakes from going too far into the system. This means creating what practitioners sometimes call a “failure loop”, a deliberate process for reviewing decisions, documenting what was learned, and feeding those lessons back into future decision-making frameworks.
The practical application for any business is straightforward: after a significant misstep, write down what happened and what should have been done differently. Share it with the team. Make the lesson available to the organisation, not just the person who made the call.
Resilience is not indifference
All this advice comes with a warning. Once making errors becomes consigned to a system, it opens up the possibility of leaders accepting errors as common, processing them efficiently and therefore, becoming indifferent to their impacts. On the surface this can look like emotional stoicism, but that is neither realistic nor effective. Obviously, mistakes should be avoided at all costs.
Murphy’s research points to three foundations of genuine leadership resilience: psychology, self-care, and a support network. The first is the capacity to frame struggle as information rather than verdict. The second is giving yourself the actual time and space to recover. The third is having people around you who will tell you the truth.
None of that is soft advice. The studies show that a leader who burns through a failure without adequately processing it is actually more likely to repeat it. The goal is not to feel nothing, but to feel clearly, learn quickly, and move with intention.
Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact us for specific and detailed advice.
© AccountingDotNews
