Experience is one of a leader’s most valuable assets. After years of decisions, difficult conversations and changing conditions, you begin to recognise patterns quickly. You know which questions to ask and which problems need your attention.
That speed can serve you well. It can also make a familiar explanation feel complete before you have tested whether it still fits.
Consider a leadership team reviewing an unexpected decline in performance. An experienced executive recognises a pattern from an earlier downturn and proposes the response that worked then. The response may be exactly right. But if the current problem has a different cause, the strength of that first interpretation can make other explanations harder to examine.
The question is not whether experience can be trusted. It is how to recognise the moments when experience needs a fresh check.
The expertise trap
In problem-solving research, the Einstellung effect describes what can happen when a familiar solution comes to mind first and makes a better alternative harder to see. Studies of expert chess players show that this effect can influence which parts of a problem receive attention, even when the players intend to look for another solution. [1]
That finding does not mean expertise is a liability. It shows why expertise works best with the freedom to question its first answer.
In an organisation, the first answer might sound like: “We’ve seen this market shift before.” “That concern comes up every year.” “I know why this person is leaving.” Any of these judgments could be correct. The risk begins when recognition is treated as verification.
Confirmation bias can add to the difficulty. We may seek or interpret information in ways that favour an existing belief. A leader can examine a report carefully and still give greater weight to the figures that support an initial conclusion. This is a normal feature of human judgment, and a reason to ask what the preferred explanation might be missing. [2]
What happens when fewer people challenge the answer?
A senior leader’s judgment is shaped by more than individual thinking. It is also shaped by what others feel able to say.
People may hesitate to raise a concern, question a familiar strategy or bring forward information that could disappoint a powerful decision-maker. Research on organisational silence describes how such conditions can restrict the information available to an organisation. It would be too simple to say this happens to every senior leader; it is a possibility worth actively guarding against. [3]
So when a conclusion feels obvious, there are two useful questions: What am I assuming? And what might people around me be reluctant to challenge?
A coherence check before you decide
Within The Shalimova Method™, I use Coherence Architecture to help leaders examine the person making the decision as well as the decision itself. Its Spirit, Soul and Body lens invites three different kinds of attention. This is my coaching framework, not a neuroscientific classification of the mind.
Spirit — purpose and values. What is this decision meant to serve? Am I responding to the present goal, or repeating a choice because it worked before?
Soul — thoughts, emotions and beliefs. Which explanation am I most attached to? What if my preferred conclusion is wrong? What evidence would change my mind? Who sees this differently — and have I made it safe for them to tell me honestly?
Body — physical state. What do I notice in my breathing, pace or tension? These signals do not tell me which decision is right. They can remind me to slow down and give the evidence, the people involved and the alternatives proper attention.
This pause need not be elaborate. Before committing to a consequential judgment, try asking:
What would I need to see to change my mind?
Research on considering an opposing possibility offers support for deliberately examining alternatives. A brief reflection is a starting point; consequential decisions may also require more evidence, dissenting views and specialist input. [4]
Experience, examined
A strong leader does not have to set experience aside. Experience helps identify what matters. The further skill is knowing when a familiar pattern deserves a second look.
Invite the person who sees the situation differently. Name the assumption beneath your preferred answer. Decide what evidence would cause you to revise it.
Experience helps you recognise a pattern. Coherence helps you pause long enough to ask whether it is the right pattern for this moment.
Research and Sources
- Bilalić, M., McLeod, P., & Gobet, F. (2008). “Why good thoughts block better ones: The mechanism of the pernicious Einstellung (set) effect.” Cognition.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18565505/ - Nickerson, R. S. (1998). “Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises.” Review of General Psychology.
https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175 - Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000). “Organizational Silence: A Barrier to Change and Development in a Pluralistic World.” Academy of Management Review.
https://journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/AMR.2000.3707697 - Lord, C. G., Lepper, M. R., & Preston, E. (1984). “Considering the opposite: A corrective strategy for social judgment.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6527215/
Leave a Reply