posted 12th June 2026
There is a distinction that does not receive enough attention in how we think about leadership: the difference between making a good decision and making a decision that holds.
A good decision, in the conventional sense, is one that produces the right outcome — or at least the best available outcome given the information and constraints at the time. It is assessed against results. It is evaluated by whether things turned out well.
A decision that holds is something different. It is a decision that remains clear, owned, and defensible when examined — whether that examination comes six weeks or six years later, whether it comes from a board, a regulator, an inquiry, or a successor trying to understand what happened and why.
These two things are related, but they are not the same. And the gap between them is where accountability most often fails.
Why outcomes are not enough
The instinct to judge decisions by their outcomes is understandable. Outcomes are visible, measurable, and often unambiguous. They provide a clear basis for evaluation, praise, and accountability.
But outcomes are a poor measure of decision quality for a straightforward reason: they depend on factors that were not within the decision-maker's control. A well-made decision can produce a poor outcome because circumstances changed, because information that was unavailable at the time later became relevant, or because the consequences of adjacent decisions — made by others — altered the landscape in ways that could not have been anticipated.
Conversely, a poorly-made decision can produce a good outcome through good fortune, favourable timing, or the compensating effects of others' actions.
What this means in practice is that a leader who judges the quality of their decisions by their outcomes will draw the wrong conclusions from both. They will learn too little from decisions that turned out well but were made badly. They will be unfairly held accountable — or hold themselves accountable — for decisions that were sound but produced difficult results.
More importantly, they will be poorly prepared when those decisions are later examined. Because the people conducting that examination are not, in the end, asking whether things turned out well. They are asking whether the process was sound.
What scrutiny actually examines
When a decision is subjected to formal or informal scrutiny — by a board, a regulator, an inquiry, or institutional challenge — the examination typically focuses on a consistent set of questions.
Was the decision made with appropriate authority? Was the decision-maker acting within the boundaries of their role and mandate, or had they exceeded them — even inadvertently, even with good intent?
Were the assumptions underlying the decision tested? Were the risks identified, considered, and either accepted or mitigated? Was there evidence of genuine deliberation, or does the record suggest that the conclusion was reached first and the reasoning constructed afterwards?
Was accountability clear? Is it possible to identify, without ambiguity, who made this decision, what they decided, and on what basis? Or has accountability become distributed across a group in a way that makes it impossible to locate — which is to say, a way that makes it possible for everyone involved to avoid it?
Was the decision coherent with the role? Did the decision align with what the leader was mandated to do, or does it reflect personal preference, external pressure, or the influence of interests that should not have been determinative?
A decision that can answer these questions clearly — regardless of its outcome — is a decision that holds. A decision that cannot answer them — regardless of how things turned out — is a decision that is exposed.
The accountability gap
The gap between a decision that is good and one that holds is, in essence, an accountability gap. It is the space between what a leader believes they decided and what they can demonstrate they decided — between the quality of their thinking and the quality of the record of their thinking.
This gap is surprisingly common, and it opens for predictable reasons.
Under time pressure, the discipline of documentation loosens. Under political pressure, the clarity of ownership blurs. When decisions are made collectively — in committees, in boards, across organisations — individual accountability becomes diffused. When decisions evolve over time rather than being made at a single point, the moment of commitment becomes impossible to locate precisely.
None of these are signs of dishonesty or incompetence. They are the normal conditions of leadership in complex organisations. But they have consistent consequences when decisions are later examined: the process looks less deliberate than it was, the ownership looks less clear than it felt, and the leader finds themselves unable to account for decisions they are confident were sound.
The role of independent accountability
The purpose of independent accountability in this context is not to produce better outcomes, though it often does. It is to close the accountability gap — to ensure that the process of decision-making is as sound as the decision itself, and that this soundness is visible and demonstrable.
This means testing assumptions before they become fixed, not after. It means clarifying ownership at the point of decision, not reconstructing it under pressure. It means surfacing the ethical and governance dimensions of a decision while it is still being formed, not when it is already committed.
It also means building a pattern of deliberation that will withstand examination — not as a defensive exercise, but as a natural consequence of a leader who takes their accountability seriously and has a disciplined structure in which to exercise it.
A new legal dimension
The Public Office (Accountability) Bill introduces a statutory duty of candour for public officials — a requirement not merely to act correctly, but to act transparently and to be able to demonstrate that transparency when examined. Alongside this, it introduces new criminal offences for misleading the public and for failing to uphold the duty of candour in dealings with inquiries and investigations.
This shifts the stakes materially. A decision that is good but cannot be shown to have been made with candour — openly, with tested assumptions and clear ownership — will not satisfy the standard the Bill requires. The gap between a good decision and one that holds is no longer simply a matter of reputational exposure. For those in public office, it is potentially a matter of criminal liability.
The time to close that gap is not when an inquiry is announced. It is before the decision is made.
Fahm & Co. provides independent accountability partnerships to senior leaders in complex, high-trust environments. Enquiries are confidential and can be made at www.fahm.com/contact
