Leadership bias and the lies we (don’t mean to) tell ourselves

I was so frustrated with the Q&A after presenting a critical project brief to a group of very senior colleagues.

The discussion was off topic, irrelevant at times. I was frustrated and found myself wondering whether this was a reflection of my presentation skills, the quality of the project or worse, people just didn’t like me.

The context:

What I realised was that it wasn’t me, well sort of, but rather the natural way we all think and interact with each other, process information and make decisions. What I failed to do was frame the Q&A, to set it up in a way which asked the audience to provide me with the feedback and insight I wanted and circumvent and or perhaps account for the evolutionary makeup of our very natural human condition and how this affects the social context of leadership.

I'm referring to our cognitive biases or cognitive heuristics. They have been studied widely, and probably evolved to enable us to fast track how we interpret our environments and everything within it in order to act; a way of reducing the energy consumption of sensemaking.

Cognitive Biases defined (Da SIlva et al. 2022):

“unconscious and systematic errors in thinking that occur when people process and interpret information in their surroundings and influence their decisions and judgements … These biases can distort an individual's perception of reality, resulting in inaccurate information interpretation and rationally bounded decision-making”

Cognitive heuristics (Cynefin.io):

"articulated or unarticulated rules of thumb used to make decisions when the full facts are not known or knowable in the time available"

There are many cognitive biases, some we are probably more aware of than others and this article amazingly attempts to describe them all.  The reality is that given there are so many, its almost impossible to recognise and address all of them in the moment. I quickly realised after my presentation that awareness of some of these was key and having this in the back pocket is essential to enable your work to have impact. There are a few which I have noticed more than others which I wanted to share.

• Confirmation bias
• Inattentional blindness
• Anchoring bias
• Babbling bias

Confirmation bias

Conformation bias is our tendency to give more weight to information that supports what we already believe or that validates choices we have already made. Because it privileges information that aligns with our presumptions and potentially dismissing things that contradicts them, it can play an important role in how we make sense of the world in order to act and potentially lead us to make flawed decisions and conclusions.

Confirmation bias evolved because it helps us influence people and social structures so that they come to match our beliefs about them i.e., ensuring we don’t become disconnected from reality (Peters, 2022). This bias is also linked to the availability heuristic where people rely on immediate examples that come to mind when making decisions or judgements, which can lead to the incorrect perceptions of reality.

The key to overcoming this is to stay curious by actively seeking diverse opinions, questioning assumptions, more diverse sources of information and critically assess evidence from multiple perspectives before forming conclusions. By doing so, we not only avoid blind spots but also foster better decision-making and more inclusive, dynamic thinking.

Inattentional blindness

Inattentional blindness is where individuals fail to notice obvious but unexpected objects or events when attention is engaged somewhere else. Despite the object being in plain sight, people may miss it due to cognitive overload or selective attention (Fu et al. 2023).

One of the best examples of this is from a study in 2014 where 24 radiologists performed a routine lung nodule detection task and a gorilla, 48 times larger than the average nodule, was inserted in to the x-ray of the image (see Figure 1). 83% of radiologists did not see the gorilla despite eye-tracking software demonstrating that the majority of those who missed the gorilla looked directly at it! (Drew et al. 2013).

So even experts in their field, highly trained working within their specific domain of expertise, are vulnerable to inattentional blindness. To overcome this, we can try to minimise disruptions, try and shift focus, be aware and ensure diversity of thought and perspectives.

Anchoring bias

Anchoring bias is our tendency to rely too heavily on the first piece of information offered when making decisions. In a meeting, this may be the case when the most powerful / senior / vocal person speaks first and the remainder of the conversation focuses on their initial view and not what we want it to be focused upon. This has also been reported for doctors who may be less likely to test for a particular medical condition dependent on the notes they are provided about the patient beforehand which can delay diagnosis and treatment (Ly et al. 2023).

To avoid this one, be aware. In meetings, be very specific about how we want the conversation to progress, encourage diverse perspectives and ensure the most powerful and loud voices speak last. A great resource exists from Liberating structures such as 1, 2, 4, and works a treat for this.

Babbling bias / Babble hypothesis

Not so much a bias but a brilliant observation is the babbling bias or babbling hypothesis. The babble hypothesis in leadership refers to excessive or unclear communication that just really confuse things for everyone.  The amazing thing about this is that leaders who babble, that dominate the air time and have greater quantity rather than quality of talking are perceived as more effective leaders independent of cognitive ability and personality traits. Interestingly, men were perceived as leaders more than women when accounting for quantity of talking (MacLaren et al 2020). So next time you are leading, be sure to have a voice as to not have a voice may be detrimental to your perceived value, but encourage the voices of others to increase their perception of value too.

So in summary...

My experience of presenting to a group of very senior colleagues on a critical project was derailed by these biases. In my example, the first person who spoke after I concluded my presentation was the most senior voice which initially derailed and anchored the conversation in the wrong areas of focus. Subsequent members of the group then stuck to their thoughts about the area and wouldn’t shift, confirming what they already believed. Despite being presented (what I thought was) a convincing pitch of the strategy they simply couldn’t see the evidence presented in front of them, blinded to the realities of the work. Overall this created a raft of babbling and competition to say the most in the pursuit of perceived leadership competence.

In essence as leaders we must stay curious, as Michael Bugay Stanier says in his Ted Talk, delay your advice monster as long as you can, encourage diversity of thought and multiple perspectives and above all, be aware that we all behave in ways which may be ineffective but importantly, avoidable.

What I now know is that these biases and heuristics play out without us even knowing. I am more aware of these and in future will not only structure my presentation but also present a highly structured Q&A to shape the conversation, ensure I get what I want from the discussion and to acknowledge and account for the biases we naturally fall victim of.        

Some other useful resources:

• Bryce Hoffman has written a series of brilliant posts in Forbes magazine about different biases we can encounter which helped shape my thoughts above. Bryce Hoffman - Bryce Hoffman Blog (forbes.com)
• Great post from Dave Snowden on cognitive bias and heuristics. Bias or heuristic? - The Cynefin Co
• Liberating structures to counter some of these biases. Liberating Structures - Introduction