As we contemplate our framework for a purpose-driven 2026, it is helpful to recognize and address the mental biases that shape our decision-making. Tackling these biases has driven improved outcomes for me.
In the high-stakes environment of critical issue resolution — whether it is a dip in market share, a new product failing to sell at projected levels, or a complex reorganization — speed and deep thinking are paramount. Yet, executive teams rely on procedural steps when the real blockage is cognitive. I am sure many of us have fallen into this trap.
Solving a critical issue effectively requires leaders first to stabilize their own thinking. The two questions that have come up in my experience as a CEO or board adviser that helped bypass mental noise and diagnostic blind spots are: “What are you avoiding?” and “What assumption are you making, which, if not true, would lead you to a very different decision?”
What action or emotion are you avoiding?
In a crisis, the actual resolution involves necessary pain and learning. Asking, “What are we avoiding?” forces us to confront the emotional cost of the right solution, which often means:
- Avoiding the loss: Not shutting down a failing project (the sunk-cost fallacy).
- Avoiding the conflict: Not replacing a core team member who is part of the problem.
- Avoiding humiliation: Not admitting the strategic error that caused the crisis.
Neuroscience explains this as the brain’s Omission Bias —the tendency to favor harm caused by inaction (avoiding the decision) over damage caused by action (making a painful decision). To get past this, a leader must see the avoided action as the only essential first step. If the avoidance involves a person, ask: “If this person left tomorrow, what would we immediately put in place?”
What false assumption are you making?
When an organization is diagnosing a significant issue, the immediate tendency is to blame symptoms or external factors. This is where the second question delivers its clarifying blow, challenging our unknowingly unconscious mental models that can sometimes obscure the root cause.
In a crisis, pre-existing assumptions function as cognitive filters, directing us to safe and familiar territories. If the crisis is market-related, the assumption might be: “Our product quality is superior.” If the crisis is operational, the assumption might be: “Our established process is sound.” This leads to superficial fixes.
To use this question effectively for critical resolution, leaders must list their top three core assumptions about the crisis and then ask: “What external evidence would definitively prove this assumption false?”
- Assumption: Our B2B customer retention is based on relationship strength.
- Challenge: If our retention were purely price-driven, how would our strategy change?
This deliberate questioning form forces the team to explore the real root causes. By dismantling the assumption of certainty (confirmation bias), you dramatically increase the likelihood of discovering a non-obvious solution that would otherwise have been ignored.
A path to optimal performance
The areas you resist often unlock real progress, while unquestioned beliefs potentially conceal significant risks. This approach equips leaders and their organizations to adapt quickly for long-term competitiveness and resilience. ●
Sanjay Singh is a Board Advisor and Private Investor
