Evidence Before Opinion

This is the third essay in a series of 10.

Most leadership teams have no shortage of opinions. The harder question is whether those opinions are being tested. I've become increasingly interested in what happens when leaders deliberately separate what they believe from what they actually know—and particularly in the simple question, "What evidence would change your mind?"

This piece explores why curiosity is not the opposite of decisiveness, and why the quality of the evidence behind a decision may matter more than the confidence with which it is delivered.

"Everyone is entitled to their opinion but not every opinion is fact".

Every leadership team has opinions. The challenge is that opinions are wonderfully democratic, but everyone has them

They arrive fully formed, requiring neither evidence nor experience to justify their existence. The louder the organisation becomes, the more opinions begin to compete for attention. Eventually meetings become contests of conviction rather than exercises in understanding. Confidence is mistaken for competence because certainty is often easier to recognise than curiosity. Organisations begin rewarding those who speak first rather than those who think longest.

The best leaders I have worked alongside behave differently.

They are not necessarily quieter.

Nor are they less decisive. In fact, they often make decisions more quickly than their peers. The difference is that their confidence arrives at the end of the thinking process, not the beginning. They resist the temptation to become emotionally attached to their first conclusion. Instead, they become intellectually committed to discovering what is actually true. Evidence matters more than ego because reality has no obligation to confirm anyone's opinion.

This sounds obvious until uncertainty enters the room.

Markets shift unexpectedly.

A major customer leaves. A new competitor appears. Technology changes faster than anticipated. Suddenly the pressure to decide becomes overwhelming. It is precisely at these moments that organisations retreat towards instinct and assumption. Evidence feels too slow. Curiosity appears indulgent. Leaders begin asking, "What do we think?" when the more useful question would be, "What do we actually know?"

That distinction is far from academic.

It changes the quality of every subsequent decision.

Consider how many businesses begin product development. Someone has an idea. Colleagues agree it sounds promising. A budget is approved. A project team forms. Months later the organisation discovers something it could have learned during a handful of customer conversations. The problem was never execution. The problem was believing opinion represented evidence. The cost was measured in time, capital and opportunity.

The pattern repeats itself far beyond innovation.

Recruitment often begins with assumptions about capability rather than clarity about outcomes. Marketing campaigns are launched before customer behaviour is properly understood. Digital transformation becomes a technology project instead of a commercial one. Even strategic planning can become an elaborate exercise in defending existing beliefs rather than questioning them. The board leaves satisfied because everyone agreed. Consensus is comforting, but comfort has never been a reliable measure of good judgement.

One question has therefore become central to almost every conversation I facilitate.

What evidence would change your mind?

Silence usually follows.

Not because the question is difficult, but because it is unfamiliar. Most organisations spend surprisingly little time considering what information might disprove their current thinking. They search for confirmation instead of contradiction. Psychologists describe this as confirmation bias. Business leaders experience it simply as confidence. The outcome, however, remains remarkably similar. Organisations become increasingly certain precisely when they should become increasingly curious.

Curiosity is frequently misunderstood in leadership.

It is not hesitation.

It is not indecision.

It is certainly not weakness. Curiosity is disciplined scepticism. It is the willingness to suspend judgement long enough for reality to reveal itself. Leaders who cultivate curiosity make stronger decisions because they are prepared to discover they were wrong before the market does it for them. That is not a comfortable discipline. It is an invaluable one.

This is why I have always been wary of experts who possess answers to every question.

Experience undoubtedly matters.

So does expertise.

Neither guarantees wisdom.

In fact, expertise can become a liability when it prevents leaders seeing what has changed. Yesterday's success has a remarkable ability to disguise tomorrow's risk. The more experience someone accumulates, the more deliberate they must become about questioning the assumptions that experience has created. Good judgement depends upon learning. Great judgement depends upon unlearning.

Evidence has another advantage that receives far less attention.

It creates trust.

Within leadership teams, trust is often described as a cultural issue. I have come to believe it is primarily an evidential one. People trust decisions they understand, even when they dislike the outcome. They lose trust when decisions appear arbitrary, political or inconsistent. Evidence creates legitimacy because it demonstrates that conclusions have been earned rather than imposed. Leaders who explain their reasoning create organisations capable of thinking, not merely complying.

Perhaps this explains why I have never believed my role was to provide answers.

Answers expire.

Markets evolve.

Competitors adapt.

Technology advances.

Circumstances refuse to remain still. Teaching leaders how to think lasts considerably longer than telling them what to do. The greatest value I can create is not a recommendation. It is improving the judgement that produces every recommendation that follows. Once that capability exists, the business no longer depends upon borrowed wisdom.

It develops wisdom of its own.

"Everyone is entitled to their opinion but not every opinion is fact".

_{Please Note: I variously use GAI tools, ChatGPT, Claude and Co-Pilot to help me to brainstorm ideas, craft my theories and observations. BUT the ideas, thoughts, observations, theories, models analysis & the connections I make are all mine. I verify every piece and make sure that it is written in my voice.}