Navigating Uncertainty: Why Analysis Beats Avoidance

A couple of weeks ago I wrote an article outlining how we can better adapt to uncertainty, using Trump's tariffs as a prime example of economic disruption. My central argument was simple: rather than handwringing about uncertainty, take charge of it — analyze precisely where tariffs will impact your business and supply chains, how they alter your existing estimates, and then develop specific adaptation strategies.

Uncertainty means we don't know exactly what impact an action will have or which factors will mitigate or amplify those effects. Ambiguity, though often conflated with uncertainty, is fundamentally different—it's when we don't know why something is happening and cannot determine which of many possible explanations is correct. Today we're focusing squarely on uncertainty

Though I talk about this often, I also often feel it so obvious that I’m unclear why I’m talking about it. After I published the article, however, I started seeing companies withdrawing their earnings estimates, e.g. Delta Airlines, American Airlines, PepsiCo, Proctor & Gamble, and Sketchers.

I am genuinely baffled. These premier global companies, regardless of their industry complexities, command vast resources and sophisticated analytical capabilities, yet they claim they cannot provide even conservative estimates of tariff impacts on their own businesses.

Then yesterday, Kimberly-Clark (a manufacturer of primarily paper-based products) stepped up and presented their analysis during their earnings call. This straightforward act was significant enough to make headlines. Rather than retreating into the nebulous excuse of "uncertainty," they methodically assessed the situation and delivered a concrete estimate.

Specifically, they said their would be a $300 million tariff impact and the outlined a plan to offset one-third in 2025 with full mitigation by 2026.

Why does this matter?

First, they have established a baseline from which they can now measure change and the impact of that change, positive or negative. If your answer to the uncertainty is “we don’t know” you don’t have a clear understanding of how change is impacting you.

As part of good analysis, we identify key indicators to monitor. These metrics signal whether conditions are trending toward best-case or worst-case scenarios and reveal which underlying factors are driving these movements.

When we have identified key indicators and we are monitoring them, and monitoring the associated factors, we can more rapidly adapt to the changes, again, be they positive or negative.

This allows for adaptive planning. Kimberly-Clark put forth a timeline for adapting to the changes, and now as they monitor the situation they have a clear starting point for adapting as the situation evolves.

Companies that withdrew their earnings statements now find themselves adrift—without baseline measurements, adaptive reference points, key monitoring indicators, or a coherent understanding of evolving conditions. In short: no strategic plan whatsoever (or at least not a visible one).

Consider the implications of this. Kimberly-Clark has a clear idea of the situation and now a clear idea of how to proactively adapt to the situation and likely a clear idea how to adapt to it in an economically advantageous way. Compare this to the companies that are stuck in the mud. You can’t adapt when you have no idea what is going on; best you can do is try to react and deflect.

Every company I've mentioned, and hundreds more like them, possess a solid cadre of analysts entirely capable of performing this essential analysis. This makes their retreat into vagueness all the more baffling. After all, it is exactly this kind of analytical clarity that pulls you through periods of genuine uncertainty.