Leadership’s Most Dangerous Words: “We’ll Figure It Out Later”

By Dr. Alan Bostakian, MCMP, FIoL

Almost every major government transition has a moment when someone says it: “We’ll figure it out later.” The transition might be a new administration, a merger of major agencies, constitutional reform, or recovery after a major disaster.

The phrase sounds reasonable. Leaders are busy, the future is uncertain, and some questions really can wait. But major transitions never give leaders the luxury of working everything out after they begin. Drawing on change leadership and crisis-response principles, the first 180 days often determine whether a new government or major reform builds stability and public confidence or gets bogged down in avoidable problems. Those days are shaped mostly by what was prepared before them.

Postponed decisions don’t disappear. They move.

Delaying a decision doesn’t remove its consequences. It moves the risk into the most fragile period of the transition. That is exactly when leaders have the least time, the least settled authority, the fewest free resources, and the most stretched staff.

The costs are measurable. The UK’s Institute for Government estimated (opens in a new tab) that the direct cost of creating a new department starts at £15 million. Once lost productivity while staff adjust is included, the total can reach £34 million. The Institute also found that such changes are often made quickly, resulting in confusion and distracting from the problem the change was meant to solve.

Every unanswered question about who is responsible or who coordinates becomes a high cost on day one. It costs time, money, and, above all, public trust.

The first 180 days are for execution and adaptation, not for starting to plan.

The disaster recovery field learned this the hard way. In 2025, the UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction published Priority Actions to Enhance Readiness for Resilient Recovery (opens in a new tab). Its priorities are assessing recovery readiness, strengthening governance arrangements and building institutional and human capacity, all before recovery is needed. The same logic applies to any planned transition. Some critical arrangements should be assessed, prepared and, where appropriate, tested in advance:

• Institutional responsibilities. Who decides what, and under which authority? Map delegations, escalation routes, and decisions that need several agencies to agree. Gaps in authority are where transitions stall.
• Continuity of public services. Payments, healthcare, public safety, and critical regulation cannot pause while structures change. Each critical service needs a minimum service level and a named owner.
• Resources. Know which funding, staff, and systems will be available on day one, and which will be tied up keeping current operations running.
• Interagency coordination. Reforms in finance, health, digital systems, and administration are often planned separately but depend on one another. Map those links before they turn into conflicts.
• Risk. Set out scenarios and decision triggers in advance (“if X happens, we activate plan B”) so mid-level leaders aren’t starting from zero.

Capacity should be assessed institution by institution. World Bank researchers note (opens in a new tab) that “institutional capacity varies both across and within countries.” Some agencies can absorb major change; others are already at their limit. A plan built on a national average will fail where capacity is weakest.

What should not be decided in advance?

Preparation is not the same as deciding every detail early. Some decisions belong inside the transition itself:

• long-impact choices that need democratic legitimacy,
• policies that should respond to new evidence,
• major reforms that require genuine public consultation.

Settling these too early would undermine the very legitimacy a transition needs. Preparation aims to ensure these decisions can be made properly when the time comes, and that everything else is ready so leaders can focus on them.

Readiness is a leadership responsibility.

It’s tempting to treat transition planning as an administrative task to hand off once the big decisions are made. That’s a mistake. The World Bank’s Global Initiative for Public Administration Reform (opens in a new tab) frames effective government around “stronger coordination across organizations and the development of a whole-of-government approach,” alongside “improving leadership and personnel management practices.” None of that can be unplanned in the middle of transition. It must be built beforehand, and leaders must own it.

Effective public leadership requires foresight, coordinated preparation, consideration of institutional capacity, and the ability to adapt when reality differs from expectations. Plans will always need adjusting. Prepared leaders can adapt; unprepared leaders can only react.

Readiness also builds trust. When the public, staff, and partners see that a change has been thought through, that important services will continue, and that someone is accountable, they are more willing to support it. When a transition looks unplanned, even good changes may face some resistance.

A simple test

Whenever you hear “we’ll figure it out later” about a major change, ask:

• If the change started tomorrow, who would have the authority to decide?
• Is this decision being postponed because waiting will improve it, or because it’s difficult or scary?

If those questions are hard to answer today, they will be much harder on day one. The first 180 days of any major transition begin long before day one.

“Later” is not a plan.