When Better Data Doesn’t Lead to Better Decisions

There’s a quiet frustration I hear from senior leaders more often than they admit.

They have more data than ever.

• More dashboards.

• More analysis.

• More AI-generated insight.

And yet, decisions feel harder — not easier.

This isn’t because leaders have suddenly lost their judgment. And it’s not because organizations lack know-how or effort.

It’s because the conditions under which judgment is exercised have changed — faster than most execution systems were designed to absorb.

Modern execution looks less like a linear process — and more like an interchange, where timing, judgment, and coordination matter as much as precision.

The subtle shift most organizations are living inside

For years, judgment sat in predictable places.

• Senior leaders made the hardest calls.

• Managers translated direction into action.

• Systems supported work, but rarely decided.

Important decisions moved through multiple layers, allowing time for deliberation, validation, and alignment.

That structure didn’t eliminate urgency, but it created space for alignment — time for different parts of the organization to reconcile their slices of the picture. That space no longer reliably exists.

AI changes that balance.

Work is now partially automated, partially augmented, partially delegated to systems, and constantly recombined as conditions shift.

Decisions move faster, appear earlier, and surface in places that weren’t previously designed to carry that weight.

What hasn’t changed nearly as fast is how organizations decide who decides what — and how those decisions are supported, reviewed, and owned.

That gap is where execution starts to wobble.

Why this shows up as an execution problem

When judgment isn’t designed for the environment it’s operating in, leaders experience very specific symptoms:

• Decisions get escalated “just to be safe”.

• Accountability blurs as systems and people share responsibility.

• Confidence erodes, even when outcomes aren’t obviously wrong.

• Leaders second-guess themselves more often than they used to.

On the surface, this looks like slower execution and inconsistent results. Underneath, it’s two sides of the same coin: judgment design and judgment capability.

AI doesn’t remove judgment — it redistributes it

One of the most persistent misconceptions about AI is that it replaces judgment.

In reality, judgment has always been contextual.

Leaders celebrated for strong judgment in one era often succeed because they deeply understand the conditions they’re operating in — the signals that matter, the constraints that apply, and the tradeoffs that are real.

Change the context, and the judgment required changes with it.

The challenge now is that context itself is shifting — faster, more frequently, and closer to the work than traditional leadership structures were built to handle.

As AI reshapes workflows, judgment moves closer to where conditions are emerging in real time.

That shift creates risk if organizations don’t redesign decision rights, escalation paths, validation mechanisms, and feedback loops between humans and systems.

When judgment is left implicit, execution depends on heroics.

When judgment is designed, decisions remain sound, even as time compresses.

The strongest teams establish shared signals ahead of time, so judgment can be applied in the moment without re-negotiating what matters.

Often, design isn’t enough — judgment has to be built in context

Clarifying decision rights and escalation paths is necessary. It isn’t always sufficient.

Judgment doesn’t improve simply because authority is clearer. It improves because leaders and teams are repeatedly placed in situations where signals matter more than certainty, tradeoffs are explicit, consequences are visible, and feedback closes the loop between decision and outcome.

Judgment is a capability that has to be exercised — not assumed.

Without that capability, even well-designed decision systems degrade.

• Escalation creeps back in.

• Confidence erodes.

• Decisions slow, even when the data is sound.

Why more data doesn’t solve this

Most organizations don’t suffer from a lack of data. They suffer from an inability to interpret it — and act on it.

Data rarely arrives with instructions. It arrives incomplete, contextual, and time-bound.

Without the capability to interpret, weigh, and apply data under real constraints, more information doesn’t improve decisions. It increases hesitation.

The leaders who adapt best redesign how decisions get made

They don’t rely on sharper instincts or faster reactions.

In fact, some of the strongest discernment shows up in knowing when to slow decisions down — even as everything else accelerates.

They make judgment explicit instead of personal.

They design decision systems instead of relying on hierarchy.

They build judgment capability instead of assuming experience will carry it.

They treat execution as something that must work repeatedly — not just once.

Judgment is a muscle built through repeated use in context — and AI is simply the newest context in which that muscle is being tested.

A closing thought

Better data doesn’t automatically lead to better decisions. And better tools don’t automatically produce better execution.

In environments changing this fast, judgment becomes infrastructure.

When it’s designed and built intentionally, organizations can reinvent and perform at the same time. When it isn’t, execution quietly becomes the risk.

Lisa Gatti

Founder, Gatti Growth Group

Explore Executive Judgment