From Daniel Kahneman to Dan Ariely, and many researchers in between, there is a considerable body of evidence proving that people are fundamentally poor decision makers.  We’re irrational.  Very irrational it turns out.  Our decisions are often based on factors well beyond our conscious control.

Yet, many leaders vigorously hold on to the belief that they are objective and rational.  There’s another body of research that focuses on this.  It finds that we tend to be extremely and unjustifiably overconfident in our assessments of ourselves, especially when it comes to how we think.

In my Rethinking Data workshop, I spend the first hour and a half helping leaders experience, first hand, how data and information can unconsciously influence their decision making.  Many people are surprised and even somewhat overwhelmed when they discover just how fallible their thinking can be.  However, there are generally a few who, despite repeated examples, continue to try to explain away their irrational decisions with rational justifications.

I certainly understand why this happens.  Throughout our careers we’ve been told the importance of being objective and rational.  Admitting otherwise is perceived as a sign of weakness or failure.  However, there is a difference between making a rational, objective decision and actually being rational and objective yourself.  Leaders who confuse the two are the ones who get into the most trouble.

If I want to manipulate someone, I’d much prefer an individual who believed or even took pride in his or her rational and objective thinking.  Their overconfidence works in my favor because they actually think less critically.  Their belief that they can consciously zero-in on the “right” data makes them more susceptible to priming, anchoring, confirmation bias, and availability bias. The more data they want to see, the more opportunity I have to slip in irrelevant data that can subconsciously bias their decision.   Their desire to walk through all of the “facts” before making a decision makes it much easier to spin a story by cherry picking facts or adding red herrings.

On the other hand, people who acknowledge the limitations of their thinking are much harder to fool.  They tend to question the data and recommendations more. More importantly, they tend to question their perception and interpretation of that data. They look to others to confirm or refute the conclusions that they are drawing.  Ironically, the less confident they are in their thinking, they better thinkers they become.

Of course in most normal, civil, organizations, people aren’t out to deceive or trick one another. But that’s not the issue.  More often than not, your decisions aren’t being manipulated by others.  Rather, they are being influenced by your biases, experience, and desires.  We fool ourselves much more than others fool us.

Instead of denying or trying to hide your irrationality, embrace it.  Allow yourself to be cognitively vulnerable.  Approach your decision making with the assumption that there is something getting in the way.  The more certain you feel, the more questions you should be asking.  Here are a few that will get you started:

• Am I basing my conclusions on the right assumptions? How do I know?
• Was I exposed to other data that shouldn’t have influenced my decision but could have? Would my decision be the same or different if I took that data into account?
• What am I missing? Have I sought other people’s perspectives?
• How did my past experience influence the way I made this decision?