by Joy Maitland | May 25, 2025 | Board Members, Board Trustees, CEO, CFO, COO, CIO, General Managers, Heads of Divisions
Why Leaders Deny Facts — And What to Do About It
The Psychology Behind Strategic Blind Spots in Senior Decision-Making
In boardrooms, strategy sessions, and executive off-sites, a familiar pattern often emerges. Leaders ask for data, assess options, and demand analysis. Yet when the facts challenge deeply held assumptions or preferred outcomes, something subtle—but powerful—can happen.
– The facts get side-lined.
– The challenge gets dismissed.
– The truth gets buried.
This is not about ignorance or bad intentions. In fact, the most seasoned professionals—those with reputations to protect and legacies to defend—are often the most susceptible to motivated reasoning. This psychological tendency leads people to unconsciously filter information in ways that protect their identity, beliefs, or past decisions.
Understanding why this happens is not just an academic exercise. It’s a leadership imperative for anyone navigating disruption, innovation, or high-stakes decisions.
What Psychology Reveals: Three Experiments Every Leader Should Know
1. Motivated Reasoning in High-Stakes Environments
Research consistently shows that people are more likely to accept information that supports what they already believe—and to reject or scrutinise data that contradicts it. This pattern intensifies when:
-
Professional reputation is on the line
-
The decision is politically sensitive or emotionally loaded
-
The new information threatens an existing narrative
In one study, participants received balanced evidence on a controversial issue. Their conclusions differed dramatically—not because of the data, but because of what they already believed.
Leadership takeaway: Even in data-driven cultures, bias can masquerade as alignment. Leaders must question whether their objectivity is as robust as it appears.
2. The Backfire Effect: When Facts Reinforce False Beliefs
Another study attempted to correct factual misconceptions with evidence-based briefings. Surprisingly, those with higher education levels didn’t change their minds—they became even more entrenched in their original views.
This is known as the backfire effect: when facts not only fail to persuade but reinforce the falsehoods they aim to correct.
Leadership takeaway: Better data doesn’t always lead to better decisions. The urge to be “right” often outweighs the willingness to rethink.
3. The “Pay-to-Avoid” Experiment
Perhaps the most revealing experiment asked participants whether they’d prefer to read an article with an opposing viewpoint—or pay a small fee to avoid it. Many chose to pay, even when the article was balanced and respectful.
Leadership takeaway: If people avoid intellectual discomfort in a lab setting, imagine the avoidance behaviours that might surface in the boardroom—where hierarchy, politics, and performance pressures come into play.
Where Fact-Denial Shows Up in the C-Suite
When leaders ignore inconvenient truths, the ripple effects extend beyond individual decisions—they shape organisational culture. Here’s how fact-denial manifests at the senior level:
- Confirmation bias in forecasting: favouring data that supports preferred projections
- Groupthink in innovation: rejecting bold or unconventional ideas prematurely
- Suppressed challenge: excluding diverse or junior voices from decision-making
- Narrative inertia: clinging to outdated success stories despite new realities
Unchecked, these behaviours create echo chambers at the top—where truth becomes optional and risk grows silently.
What Effective Leaders Do Differently
Recognising bias is not enough. Leaders must actively design teams, processes, and systems that invite facts, encourage challenge, and reward intellectual honesty.
1. Normalise Cognitive Dissonance: Encourage teams to see discomfort as a sign of growth. When people feel safe admitting uncertainty, they become more curious and less defensive.
2. Use Structured Dissent: Assign formal roles such as devil’s advocate or run pre-mortem sessions. These mechanisms depersonalise dissent and legitimise critical thinking.
3. Separate Identity from Ideas: Promote the idea that changing one’s mind is a strength, not a weakness. Leaders who model this set the tone for open, adaptive thinking.
4. Slow Down the ‘Snap Yes’: Add cognitive speed bumps to big decisions. Ask: What assumptions are we making? What might we be missing? Who gains if we’re wrong?
5. Reward Truth-Seekers: Recognise those who challenge consensus respectfully, raise red flags early, or bring forward uncomfortable insights. These individuals make your business more resilient.
Final Thought: Resilient Leaders Embrace Discomfort
Leaders aren’t just decision-makers—they’re narrative-shapers. They influence not just what organisations do, but what they believe.
When leadership teams sanitise uncomfortable truths in favour of harmony, they trade clarity for comfort. Over time, that comfort becomes dangerous.
The future belongs to leaders who seek challenge over cheerleading, clarity over certainty, and truth over tribalism. Not because it’s easy, but because the cost of denial is too high to ignore.
The best leaders don’t fear facts. They create cultures that welcome them.
The Right Conversation Can Change Everything. Let’s Talk.
by Atiya Sheikh | Mar 30, 2025 | CEO, CFO, COO, CIO, News & Articles
What makes teamwork effective—and why it fails? In the workplace, no matter the industry—from healthcare and education to finance and tech—success is rarely the result of individual brilliance alone. It’s teams that deliver the results.
But what separates high-performing teams from those that struggle? Why do some groups work like clockwork while others fall into confusion, miscommunication, and missed deadlines?
Welcome to the psychology of teamwork—a field that uncovers what really goes on beneath the surface of collaboration, and how you can build better teams that consistently deliver.
Why Teamwork Is More Complex Than It Looks
Teamwork may sound like a soft skill, but it’s a sophisticated blend of group dynamics, leadership, communication, and role clarity. Psychology first began exploring teamwork through the lens of group identity: how we define ourselves through the teams we’re part of, and how we behave differently when we’re in a group versus acting alone.
Over time, the field evolved. Researchers now examine how teams form, how they make decisions, what makes them efficient—and what makes them fall apart.
When Teamwork Fails: A Real-World Scenario
Let’s take an example from the retail banking world—though the same principles apply across industries.
A customer services advisor meets with a client applying for a mortgage. The standard process involves the advisor gathering initial details and booking a follow-up with a mortgage adviser, who then conducts affordability checks and submits the formal application.
In this case, the advisor assumes the adviser will confirm all financial documentation. Meanwhile, the adviser—new to the branch—believes those checks have already been handled. A key document is missed, the application is delayed, and the client becomes frustrated.
No one was careless. But a lack of shared understanding and clear communication led to an avoidable error.
The Three Pillars of Effective Teamwork: Collaboration, Coordination, Communication
At the heart of any effective team are three essentials:
- Collaboration
True collaboration isn’t just working side-by-side—it’s aligning on a shared goal and appreciating the value of different perspectives. For instance, in a project team, one member might spot a client risk others overlook due to their specific expertise. Strong collaboration means their voice is heard and considered.
- Coordination
Teams must be clear on roles, responsibilities, and timing. Who’s doing what—and when? Without proper coordination, even simple tasks can fall through the cracks, especially in industries with tightly sequenced workflows like healthcare, finance, or manufacturing.
- Communication
Poor communication is the most common cause of team breakdowns. It’s not just about talking more—it’s about ensuring that information is accurate, timely, and reaches the right people.
Why Every Team Needs a Leader—But Not Always the Same Kind
Leadership style can make or break a team. Broadly speaking, there are two main styles:
- Democratic leadership: values group input, ideal for building trust and motivation.
- Autocratic leadership: makes decisions quickly, useful in high-pressure or time-sensitive settings.
The best leaders adjust their approach based on the team’s needs and the task at hand. Interestingly, research shows that gaining power tends to shift people toward more independent thinking—often reducing their willingness to consult others. This is true for both men and women, though women leaders often maintain a stronger group orientation even as they rise.
What Goes Wrong in Group Decisions? Two Common Pitfalls
- Groupthink
This occurs when teams avoid conflict to maintain harmony. Members stop questioning decisions—even bad ones. It’s how warning signs get ignored and poor choices are rubber-stamped. Think of a team launching a flawed product because no one wants to speak up.
- Group Polarisation
Sometimes, groups make more extreme decisions than individuals would. A cautious team becomes overly conservative, or a confident team takes bigger risks than any one member would suggest alone. It’s a distortion of reality that comes from collective confidence—and it can backfire.
Size Matters: Why Smaller Teams Often Perform Better
The ideal team size? Around five people.
Once a team grows beyond that, accountability tends to blur. People assume someone else will take responsibility. This leads to social loafing, where effort drops because everyone believes others are picking up the slack.
In large organisations, this problem scales. When something goes wrong, individuals are quick to say, “That wasn’t my area.” The collective “we” dissolves, replaced by a flurry of self-preservation.
The Cultural Side of Teamwork
Teamwork isn’t just psychological—it’s cultural. In Western countries, the individual is often seen as the core unit. In Eastern cultures like Japan or South Korea, the group comes first.
This plays out in how accountability is assigned. In Europe or the US, a failed initiative may be traced to a single manager. In Japanese firms, the entire team may take collective responsibility.
Understanding these cultural differences is vital, especially for global teams.
How to Build a High-Performing Team
Strong teams don’t come together by chance—they’re built deliberately. Here’s how:
- Keep teams as small as possible for the task
- Define clear roles and responsibilities
- Select members for both technical ability and interpersonal skills
- Create psychological safety where people feel safe speaking up
- Encourage empathy and perspective-taking
In some industries, exercises that ask team members to “step into each other’s shoes” have shown real value. For example, asking a team leader to write from the perspective of a frontline employee can open up new insights into how decisions are experienced on the ground.
Diversity Isn’t Just a Buzzword—It’s a Necessity
Teams that are too similar in mindset, background, or personality often suffer from groupthink. In sectors like consulting or investment banking, hiring from the same profile pool can reduce the range of ideas and increase competition within teams.
The strongest teams are diverse in thought, experience, and working styles—and know how to leverage that difference rather than suppress it.
Final Thoughts: The Future of Work Is Team-Based
Whether you’re delivering financial services, leading a healthcare team, managing a creative agency, or running a non-profit, your results depend on how well your team works together.
The psychology of teamwork offers more than theory—it gives us a framework to build better collaboration, avoid common pitfalls, and unlock real performance.
What makes teamwork effective—and why it fails? Because in the end, success isn’t just about having great people.
It’s about building great teams.
The Right Conversation Can Change Everything. Let’s Talk.
See Harvards Business Review
