Leadership in Uncertain Times: Clarity Beats Certainty

There are leadership situations where no complete plan exists.

Not because of poor preparation, but because markets, supply chains, cost structures, changes in ownership, geopolitical events, and internal transformations are all having an impact simultaneously. Leaders facing these circumstances cannot wait until every variable has been clarified. This is where the real challenge of leadership begins.

In our interview series, "Leading Through Change – People, Methods, Mindset," we speak with leaders from different organizations about how leadership evolves in times of uncertainty and shrinking markets.

Martin Tewes is currently Managing Director of OVOL Papier Deutschland GmbH, a long-established company that is now part of an international organization. Our conversation highlighted just how demanding leadership becomes when change is no longer a temporary project but a permanent condition.

Over the past few years, OVOL Papier Deutschland GmbH has experienced almost everything that can place an organization under pressure: a merger, the pandemic, an ERP system migration, the energy crisis, sharply rising paper prices, restructuring, insolvency, and ultimately the company's acquisition by a Japanese corporation.

This is not a textbook case study in change management. It is business reality.

And that is precisely why it offers valuable insights for managing directors, HR professionals, and leaders.

One of the most powerful messages from our conversation can be summarized as follows: "I don't know – but I still have to make a decision." This statement captures a leadership dilemma that many decision-makers recognize but few openly acknowledge.

Leaders are expected to inspire confidence even when they themselves are navigating uncertainty. They are expected to provide direction even as circumstances continuously change. And they are expected to make decisions even when not all the information is available.

The challenge is not to conceal uncertainty. It is to tolerate uncertainty while remaining capable of taking action.

Martin Tewes describes leadership as a balancing act: on the one hand, projecting confidence and trust; on the other, working hard to develop viable plans, even if those plans are only valid for a limited period.

This is an important distinction.

In volatile times, what matters is not having the perfect master plan but being able to continuously realign an organization.

People do not necessarily need a guarantee that everything is secure. They need to feel that leadership takes the situation seriously, understands the direction ahead, and does not avoid difficult decisions.

Direction does not come from absolute certainty. It comes from clarity about the next step. Trust Requires Honesty, Not False Reassurance Leadership becomes particularly challenging in shrinking markets.

Growth can compensate for many mistakes. Decline cannot.

When a market is structurally contracting, the principles of leadership change. The focus is no longer exclusively on opportunities, expansion, and additional growth potential. It also shifts toward cost leadership, lean organizational structures, clear priorities, and often workforce reductions.

Martin Tewes describes this responsibility in a pragmatic but not detached way. That is precisely what makes his perspective credible.

He emphasizes that when an organization needs to become smaller, leaders must not mislead their employees.

Trust is not built by softening uncomfortable truths. Trust is built through honesty.

This also means being able to say: "We don't know what the future will look like for every location several years from now. But we do know which direction we need to take today." That is not an easy statement to make. But it is an honest one.

Many organizations do not lose trust because they make difficult decisions. They lose trust because they remain unclear for too long, communicate too late, or attempt to conceal uncomfortable realities.

Honest leadership does not mean eliminating every uncertainty. It means remaining reliable and consistent, even when circumstances are difficult.

One particularly thought-provoking aspect of our conversation concerns how well leaders are actually prepared for restructuring.

Martin Tewes puts it clearly: "Many managers have learned how to manage growth. They understand lean management, efficiency programs, opportunity analysis, and traditional management tools. But many have not sufficiently mastered the discipline of disruption and restructuring." This is an uncomfortable observation.

In many industries, restructuring will not remain an exception.

Demographic change, digitalization, evolving customer structures, geopolitical uncertainty, and cost pressures will continue to reshape business models.

Leaders therefore need to understand not only how to manage growth but also how to responsibly navigate downsizing, strategic realignment, and difficult decisions.

One of the most striking statements from the conversation was: "Hope is the principle of a poor businessman." It is a harsh statement, but it captures an essential truth.

Hope is human. In leadership, however, it must not become the foundation of business planning.

Those who downplay difficult developments for too long often merely postpone necessary decisions, making them even harder in the future.

This applies to entire organizations as much as it does to individual teams.

Good leadership does not plan against hope. It plans in a way that allows the company to remain capable of taking action even when expectations are not fulfilled.

Another central theme is the changing understanding of leadership.

Hierarchical leadership, according to the observations shared in our conversation, is becoming less effective.

The traditional top-down approach is increasingly unsuitable for complex organizations. Particularly in decentralized structures, employee involvement is essential.

Not as a symbolic gesture, but as a genuine way of utilizing the expertise that already exists within the organization.

Martin Tewes summarizes this idea as follows: "If you don't make use of the intellectual capabilities of everyone involved in the company, you're effectively operating with only half an organization." This is a powerful observation.

Transformation cannot succeed when only a few people think strategically while everyone else simply executes instructions.

It requires the perspectives of those who work closely with customers, processes, locations, and teams.

At the same time, the conversation makes one thing clear: participation does not replace decision-making.

When difficult situations arise, leaders must make decisions. And that is exactly what is expected of them.

Modern leadership therefore does not mean distributing responsibility entirely. It means clearly defining decision-making authority, building trust, and retaining ultimate accountability.

In practice, this requires clearly defined areas of responsibility and authority.

Leadership teams need to understand which decisions they can make independently and which need to be escalated.

Trust requires autonomy, but it also requires clear boundaries.

Without clearly defined decision-making authority, personal responsibility can quickly become overwhelming. With it, autonomy can increase speed and effectiveness.

One distinction that is particularly relevant for HR and leadership development is the difference between a managerial and an entrepreneurial mindset.

During the conversation, this tension becomes apparent through a simple example: customers who are unprofitable when assessed using full-cost accounting.

From a sales perspective, the instinct may be to retain these customers regardless.

From an entrepreneurial perspective, a different question arises: Why should we continue doing business that demonstrably destroys value?

That may sound obvious. But it is not.

This is precisely where it becomes clear whether leaders are merely optimizing their own departments or considering the organization as a whole.

In growing markets, this distinction is less noticeable. In shrinking markets, it becomes critical.

Entrepreneurial thinking means more than defending revenue, sales volumes, or departmental interests. It means evaluating the consequences of decisions for the entire business.

For HR, this creates an important responsibility: leadership development must go beyond teaching management methods.

It must encourage leaders to adopt different perspectives.

Those who lead need to understand how their decisions affect the organization as a whole.

The same applies to recruitment.

Professional qualifications are the entry ticket. But what also matters is whether an individual is suited to the dynamics of the organization.

In an environment that requires discipline, adaptability, resilience, and a strong focus on results, personal chemistry alone is not enough.

The so-called gut-feeling factor becomes less relevant.

A better question is:

Will this individual be effective in this particular organization, at this particular stage, and under these specific circumstances?

That represents a fundamentally different standard of candidate selection.

One particularly realistic observation concerns individual resilience during periods of continuous change.

Not everyone is equally capable of dealing with permanent transformation.

Some people thrive in these circumstances. Others lose their sense of direction, energy, or trust.

That is why changing systems alone is not enough.

Organizational charts can be redrawn quickly. New processes can be approved. Structures can be redesigned.

Bringing people along takes longer.

This becomes particularly evident in decentralized organizations.

Leaders cannot be present everywhere at once. They need people throughout the organization who can act as multipliers, recognize where individual employees stand, identify unanswered questions, and understand where resistance, fatigue, or excessive pressure is emerging.

Transformation is therefore never just a strategic project.

It is always also about relationships.

Particularly after restructuring, organizations need credible stabilization.

Not through empty reassurance, but through clarity:

What has now been decided? What remains uncertain? And what does this mean in practical terms for the next stage?

People can tolerate a considerable amount of uncertainty when leadership remains honest, transparent, and consistent.

What they find much harder to tolerate is uncertainty without direction.

Our conversation reveals a leadership style that is neither heroic nor overly polished.

And that is precisely what makes it credible.

It is not about having perfect answers. It is about attitude, the willingness to learn, and the determination not to avoid difficult decisions. "Those who believe they have already become something have stopped becoming anything more." This statement captures much of what leadership requires during periods of transformation: humility, a willingness to learn, and the ability to draw lessons even from poor role models.

For decision-makers in medium-sized companies, HR leaders, and executives navigating change, there is one central insight:

Leadership in uncertain times does not mean always having certainty.

It means taking responsibility before certainty is fully available.

It means involving people without losing the ability to make decisions.

It means communicating honestly without paralyzing the organization.

And it means allowing room for hope – without making it the basis of strategic planning.

Perhaps the most important question leaders should ask themselves is therefore not:

Do we already have the perfect plan?

But rather:

Are we prepared to lead with enough honesty, make decisions with enough clarity, and act with enough determination before the market forces us to do so?