Most leadership advice suffers from one of two problems: It is either too abstract to be useful, with grand principles that dissolve on contact with real decisions; or too prescriptive, offering step-by-step frameworks that assume a tidiness that complex organisations rarely provide. This series is neither. It is written in the tradition of the trusted advisor: someone who has sat in enough boardrooms, across enough industries, to know where decisions actually go wrong, and who speaks plainly about it.
The Insights for Leaders series addresses the conditions under which high-stakes decisions are made: the pressures that distort thinking, the processes that create the appearance of rigour without the substance, the governance structures that measure the wrong things, and the habits that separate leaders who decide consistently well from those who don't. The articles are short by design to leave the reader with one or two ideas that genuinely reframe how they approach a problem they are already facing.
01
The opening article sets the foundation for the series. It examines why experience and instinct, the qualities most associated with strong leadership, can become liabilities in genuinely novel high-stakes situations. It identifies the specific habits that distinguish leaders who decide well consistently: separating the decision from the pressure around it, naming assumptions explicitly, constructing the right room, and defining in advance what a bad outcome looks like. The central argument is that slowing down at the moment when speed feels like strength is not weakness, it is the job.
Full Article:
How Leaders Make High Stakes Decisions
02
This article challenges the quiet orthodoxy that more analysis leads to better decisions. It argues that data is excellent at describing the past and dangerously unreliable in situations involving genuine discontinuity or human behaviour as the critical variable. The more insidious risk is not ignoring data, but trusting it too completely, allowing quantified assumptions to create a false confidence that the hard thinking has been done. The article introduces the idea of independent perspective as the complement to analysis: someone with no stake in the outcome whose job is to ask what hasn't been examined.
Full Article:
03
This article makes a distinction that most leaders intuitively understand but rarely act on: the difference between advice and *independent* advice. It argues that most advisors, however skilled and well-intentioned, have structural incentives that make complete candour difficult. Independence is not about honesty; it is about whether the advisor has anything to lose by being straight. The article outlines what genuinely independent advice looks like, identifies the situations in which it matters most, and closes with a direct challenge: is there anyone in this process whose explicit role is to tell you that you are wrong?
Full Article:
The Role of Independent Advice
04
This article reframes the relationship between strategy and uncertainty. The goal, it argues, is not to reduce uncertainty before acting, it is to be clear about direction despite it. It examines where strategic clarity breaks down in practice: in the gap between what leadership believes the strategy says and what the people executing it actually understand, and in the tendency for strategy to become a list of equally-weighted priorities rather than a set of real choices. The practical test offered is simple and deliberately uncomfortable: ask five senior leaders separately to describe the organisation's top three strategic priorities, then compare the answers.
Full Article:
Strategic Clarity in Uncertainty
05
This article introduces a concept that most leaders will recognise immediately: decision-based evidence-making, the practice of arriving at a conclusion first and assembling supporting evidence afterwards. It argues that this inversion is extraordinarily common, almost never acknowledged, and produces the appearance of rigour without any of its substance. The article sets out what genuine evidence-based decisions actually require, a question framed before the analysis begins, serious attention to disconfirming information, and someone with the standing to name when the process has been designed to reach a conclusion rather than test one.
Full Article:
Evidence-Based Decision Making
06
This article addresses one of the most persistent and least honestly discussed problems in large organisations: the gap between what the strategy says and what the organisation actually does. It traces the gap to a failure of design rather than communication, the tendency to treat strategy as a broadcasting exercise rather than a two-way process that tests whether the strategy is executable before it is locked in. The diagnostic at the heart of the article is direct: when operational pressures conflict with strategic intent, which wins? The answer to that question, observed over time, is the real strategy.
Full Article:
Aligning Strategy and Execution
07
This article examines what pressure actually does to decision-making, how it narrows attention, accelerates pattern recognition, and shifts the social dynamics in a room in ways that systematically favour the familiar over the sound. It identifies the decisions most at risk, distinguishes between genuine deadlines and socially constructed ones, and outlines the specific habits that help leaders maintain decision quality when the clock is running. The closing section addresses the pressure that is hardest to name: the kind that comes not from external circumstances but from inside the room, from the need to be seen to act, the discomfort of visible uncertainty, and the group's investment in a particular direction.
Full Article:
Decision -Making Under Pressure
08
This article argues that most organisations are reasonably good at making decisions and poor at learning from them, not for lack of intent, but because the most common form of evaluation (the post-mortem) is both retrospective and biased by hindsight. It introduces the most underused form of evaluation: the structured conversation, held before the decision is finalised, that asks how the organisation will know if the decision was right, and what would signal that the assumptions behind it were wrong. The article closes with the idea of decisions as hypotheses, a framing that, adopted seriously, compounds over time into a decision-making capability that is genuinely difficult to replicate.
Full Article:
09
This article distinguishes between governance as compliance, the frameworks and committees that demonstrate proper oversight, and governance as the architecture that determines whether important decisions are made well. It argues that more process is not the same as better decisions, and that beyond a certain point, process actively degrades decision quality by diffusing accountability and creating the illusion of rigour. It challenges boards directly on the nature of their scrutiny: not "what did management decide?" but "how did they decide it, and are we confident that process is reliable?" The most damaging governance failures, it argues, are not the dramatic ones — they are the quiet, cumulative drift in decision quality that nobody notices until the organisation is structurally less capable than it once was.
Full Article:
Governance and Decision Quality
10
The final article brings the series to a close by addressing the conditions under which all of the previous themes converge: decisions that are genuinely complex, with multiple variables, competing interests, and consequences that are difficult to trace. It argues that structure is not a substitute for judgement, but the condition under which good judgement can operate, by slowing the rush to conclusions, surfacing dimensions of the problem that would otherwise go unexamined, and making the reasoning behind a decision visible enough to be tested. The closing section ties the thread that runs through the entire series: the decisions that go wrong most expensively are not information failures. They are process failures. And the discipline to recognise that, in the moment, is what consistently good decision-making actually requires.
Full Article:
Structured Thinking in Complex Decisions
The articles in this series draw on ideas and bodies of work that have shaped thinking about decision-making, leadership, and organisational behaviour over several decades. No single source is cited directly; the series is written in the voice of accumulated advisory experience rather than academic argument. The intellectual debts, however, are real.
The research on cognitive bias and decision-making under uncertainty, particularly the distinction between fast, pattern-based thinking and slower, more deliberate reasoning, owes much to the foundational work of Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, developed over decades and made widely accessible in Kahneman's "Thinking, Fast and Slow" (2011).
The framing of strategic clarity and the discipline of explicit trade-offs draws on a long tradition of strategy thinking, with particular resonance with the work of Roger Martin and A.G. Lafley, especially their argument in "Playing to Win" (2013) that strategy is not a plan but a set of choices about where to compete and how to win.
The treatment of evidence-based decision-making, and the inversion of it, is informed in part by the work of Phil Rosenzweig, particularly "The Halo Effect" (2007), which examines how outcome bias distorts organisational learning.
The concept of pre-mortems, defining what a bad outcome looks like before a decision is made, draws on the work of Gary Klein, who developed the technique as a counterweight to overconfidence in planning.
The discussion of governance and board oversight reflects a practitioner perspective shaped by extensive engagement with governance frameworks across multiple jurisdictions, informed by, though not confined to, the principles articulated in the UK Corporate Governance Code and the work of bodies such as the Financial Reporting Council.
The broader intellectual tradition behind the series is the practice of rigorous, independent advisory work in the manner of the leading strategy consulting firms, the discipline of asking the question the client hasn't asked, and of separating the quality of a decision from the comfort of its reception.
Insights for Leaders is intended for board members, senior executives, and teams who are responsible for decisions that matter.