“Failure is simply the opportunity to begin again, this time more intelligently.” (Henry Ford)
Bad decisions are a near-universal leadership experience. A 2023 study of more than 14,000 employees and business leaders across 17 countries, commissioned by Oracle, found that 85 percent of business leaders have suffered from what the researchers called “decision distress” (regretting, feeling guilty about, or actively questioning a decision made) in the past year. The same study found that 72 percent of business leaders admitted they had, at some point, given up on making a decision altogether because the available data felt overwhelming. Decision-making, in other words, is hard for everyone.
What separates leaders who recover and grow from those who stall is not the absence of bad calls. It is the quality of their response.
The most consistent thread running through research on leadership recovery is the importance of accountability. The instinct to go quiet or minimise the impact when a decision backfires is understandable, but it can also be expensive. Once an error is noticed, credibility is far harder to restore than it would have been had the leader simply spoken plainly from the outset. The fastest route to rebuilding trust is not spin, but ownership.
The second step, and one that leaders under pressure are most tempted to skip, is genuinely understanding why the decision went wrong. Surface-level post-mortems, such as “we moved too fast”, or “we didn’t have enough data” only produce surface-level corrections. Durable improvement requires tracing the failure back to its actual structural cause. Was it a flawed decision-making process? Groupthink? A blind spot about the customer? Or an incentive structure that rewarded the wrong behaviour?
Denis Liam Murphy, leadership consultant and author of The Blame Game, argues that leaders need to develop what he calls “real-time hindsight”, the discipline of reflecting immediately and honestly on what a decision revealed, rather than waiting for a formal review cycle.
When Schultz returned to Starbucks as CEO in January 2008, he inherited the consequences of decisions made during a period of aggressive over-expansion. The company’s stock had declined approximately 70 percent from its 2006 peak, and 600 stores were closed across 2008 and 2009. As a Harvard Business School case study on the turnaround later documented, Starbucks had drifted from the core identity that had made it successful: the experience, the craft, and the culture.
Schultz’s recovery was not built on a single dramatic gesture. It was built on a systematic return to first principles: closing 7,100 US stores for a single afternoon in February 2008 to retrain baristas, investing in the quality of the product, and making a deliberate, public commitment to slowing down in order to grow sustainably. The recovery that followed became a business school case study not because the error was unusual, but because the response to it was disciplined, transparent, and impactful in a way that resonated with the customer base.
The next step in the process is to build the mechanisms which help prevent mistakes from going too far into the system. This means creating what practitioners sometimes call a “failure loop”, a deliberate process for reviewing decisions, documenting what was learned, and feeding those lessons back into future decision-making frameworks.
The practical application for any business is straightforward: after a significant misstep, write down what happened and what should have been done differently. Share it with the team. Make the lesson available to the organisation, not just the person who made the call.
All this advice comes with a warning. Once making errors becomes consigned to a system, it opens up the possibility of leaders accepting errors as common, processing them efficiently and therefore, becoming indifferent to their impacts. On the surface this can look like emotional stoicism, but that is neither realistic nor effective. Obviously, mistakes should be avoided at all costs.
Murphy’s research points to three foundations of genuine leadership resilience: psychology, self-care, and a support network. The first is the capacity to frame struggle as information rather than verdict. The second is giving yourself the actual time and space to recover. The third is having people around you who will tell you the truth.
None of that is soft advice. The studies show that a leader who burns through a failure without adequately processing it is actually more likely to repeat it. The goal is not to feel nothing, but to feel clearly, learn quickly, and move with intention
“SaaS spend increases without founders noticing because subscriptions renew automatically, ownership is unclear, and usage is rarely reviewed as teams change.” (Michael Pantilione)
From communication channels, to shared workspaces, AI chatbots and design services, companies are aware that they are paying more for monthly subscriptions than ever before. Research, however, suggests that most firms have no idea how deep the problem goes.
The Zylo 2026 SaaS (Software as a Service) Management Index reported that the average large organisation manages 305 separate software applications. Forty-six percent of those licences sit unused at any given time, representing approximately $19.8 million in wasted annual expenditure for the average enterprise. And it’s not just a problem affecting larger businesses. According to the report, the average British SME is estimated to waste as much as R250 000 a year on software that isn’t being actively used.
These figures reflect more than careless purchasing decisions. They are a predictable consequence of how cloud software is designed to be sold, distributed, and renewed. SaaS vendors have built their distribution models around frictionless adoption and auto-renewals. For organisations that lack formal governance over their software portfolios, this dynamic produces a cost base that grows by default, irrespective of whether the tools in question are delivering measurable business value.
The central driver of SaaS creep is decentralisation. Over the past decade, purchasing authority for software has migrated steadily away from IT and finance functions and towards individual business units. The Zylo 2026 SaaS Management Index found that business units now control 81% of total SaaS spend, while IT departments directly manage just 15%. In a small business, where procurement processes are typically informal and financial controls on software purchasing are loosely enforced, this dynamic is even more pronounced.
In short, no single department maintains visibility across the full portfolio. The Marketing team acquires its own tools, Operations purchases its own platforms, and individual team members subscribe to productivity applications on corporate expense accounts. According to Productiv, approximately 48% of enterprise applications are effectively unmanaged, meaning no one in the organisation is tracking renewal dates or monitoring active usage.
Each purchasing decision is locally rational. But collectively, they produce a software stack which is almost impossible to fully understand, manage or audit.
Automatic renewals compound the problem. SaaS vendors have no interest in identifying underutilised licences ahead of renewal as exercising the contractual right to reduce or cancel rests entirely with the buyer.
The only way of making sure you don’t become a victim of SaaS creep, is to take control of the issue and focus on visibility, ownership, and timing. Complete visibility means knowing every active subscription in the portfolio: what it costs, who authorised it, and whether it’s being used. As your accountants, we can help you conduct a full audit of subscriptions, and put together a list of just what’s being deducted and for which service. Once you know what you are subscribed to, you can decide what to keep and which to cull.
Following on from this, it’s vital to assign someone from each team to oversee subscriptions. This person needs to make the ultimate purchasing decisions, and must maintain a complete list of subscribed services. This way, subscriptions can become an element of employee onboarding and offboarding, ensuring nothing gets lost in the system and invisible renewal costs don’t pile up in the background.
SaaS creep is, at its root, an organisational design problem. It emerges predictably wherever purchases are not carefully monitored, and where auto-renewal clauses allow costs to persist beyond the point of value. For you as a business leader, the takeaway is simple: software spend requires the same disciplined oversight as any other cost.
“Provisional tax is merely an advance payment of a taxpayer’s normal tax liability.” (SARS)
For many taxpayers, it feels as if you’re making income tax payments all the time.
It’s not far from the truth because, in South Africa, provisional taxpayers make two compulsory payments (and possibly a third voluntary payment) each year. And that’s even before the annual income tax deadline in January of the following year, when any further tax liability will become due.
As a result, there are numerous deadlines that overlap across tax years. Yes: it is confusing, as the table below illustrates. But there’s no point throwing your arms up in the air: provisional tax non-compliance is met with some of the harshest penalties imposed by SARS.
Provisional tax payments are like instalments on taxpayers’ annual income tax, paid in advance and spread over two or three payments during the year. These payments are deducted against any tax owing after the year’s final income tax return is filed – at which point any further tax liability will then become due.
The objective is to prevent taxpayers from facing large income tax liabilities that are only revealed at the end of the year of assessment.
