Are Those at the Top of Governments and Powerful Organisations Great Thinking Role Models?

A discussion article. Part of The Thinking Upgrade.

‍

Reaching the top of a government or a powerful organisationis a significant achievement. Staying there can demand extraordinary effort. The responsibilities can be immense, the pressures relentless and the choices deeply uncomfortable.

Those who take on these roles deserve recognition for the challenge they accept. They also deserve serious scrutiny of how well they think.

Their thinking can influence the lives of millions ofpeople. It can shape livelihoods, public services, security, communities, technologies and the natural world. It can expand opportunities for generations to come or leave others carrying the consequences of decisions they had no part in making.

‍

So, are those at the top great thinking role models? And what would we need to see to answer that question with confidence?

‍

An impressive title cannot answer it. Neither can a prestigious education, a long career, a persuasive speech or the ability to win an argument. We need to look at how people understand themselves, engage with others, examine evidence, imagine possibilities, make decisions and respond to what happens next.

We should ask these questions of leaders we admire as readily as those we disagree with. Otherwise, our own thinking becomes part of the problem.

‍

Consider self-understanding. How well do those at the top know the person doing the thinking?

Do they understand their values, motivations, emotional triggers, assumptions and blind spots? Can they recognise when fear, fatigue, pride, loyalty or a desire for approval is influencing their judgement? Do they know where their knowledge is deep, where it is shallow and where confidence may be running ahead of competence?

And how do they check?

Self-understanding deserves more than a private conviction that “I know myself”. It calls for ongoing, honest and constructive feedback from people who experience our behaviour, including those with less power than we have.

Who can tell a leader that they interrupt, intimidate, oversimplify or stop listening when challenged? Who can say that their behaviour is damaging the quality of a conversation? What happens to that person afterwards?

A particularly revealing question might be: “What have you learned about your own thinking recently, and what have you changed as a result?”

‍

Then there is ego.

Leadership requires enough confidence to act under uncertainty. It also requires the humility to recognise that our preferred answer may be wrong. Can a leader hold both?

Can they acknowledge a mistake without immediately blaming someone else? Give credit generously? Invite someone more knowledgeable to take the lead? Change their position and explain why?

When protecting a reputation becomes more important than understanding reality, everyone affected by that leader’s decisions has reason to be concerned. We should be able to expect people with great power to examine their attachment to being right, being admired and remaining in control.

We should also ask about the breadth and proficiency of their thinking.

Can they analyse a difficult problem and question whether it has been framed correctly? Distinguish an observation from an interpretation, a plausible explanation from a demonstrated cause, and a strongly held belief from a well-supported conclusion?

Can they reason logically, think critically, imagine creatively and consider a situation through other people’s experiences? Can they move between detail and the bigger picture, immediate pressures and long-term possibilities? Can they understand systems, anticipate how people may respond and recognise that improving one part can create difficulties elsewhere?

These capabilities need practice. Calling someone ‘strategic’ tells us little unless we can see how their thinking helps them identify choices, test assumptions and build a better future.

Would we expect an elite performer to rely indefinitely on yesterday’s training? Why would we accept that from someone whose thinking affects entire countries or organisations?

‍

Words and numbers deserve particular attention.

A leader should be able to use language precisely enough to make a difficult issue understandable without stripping away what matters. Can they explain their reasoning? Represent an opposing argument fairly? Say what remains uncertain? Recognise when an attractive phrase conceals an unanswered question?

Alongside this, how well can they think with numbers?

Can they interpret probabilities, distinguish absolute from relative changes, understand compounding effects and examine how averages may conceal very different experiences? Can they question a forecast, compare alternatives and recognise when a small change in an assumption transforms the result?

For complex choices, are they able to use and interrogate sophisticated mathematics, including statistical inference, optimisation, simulation and models of uncertainty, with expert support where needed?

We need leaders capable of engaging seriously with the strongest relevant analytical methods. This does not require every leader to personally develop every model. It does require enough understanding to ask searching questions, recognise limitations and take responsibility for how the analysis informs the decision.

More elaborate mathematics does not automatically mean better thinking. A highly sophisticated model can still rest on weak data, unrealistic assumptions or an objective that leaves out what people value.

Can the leader ask: “What does this model leave out? How sensitive is the answer? What would make it unreliable? Whose experience disappears inside these numbers?”

And can they recognise that something may matter profoundly even when it is difficult to quantify?

‍

Thinking at the top also happens through other people.

The atmosphere a leader creates therefore deserves as much attention as their individual intelligence.

Imagine two rooms.

In one, everyone watches the most powerful person before speaking. Bad news is softened. Questions are treated as resistance. People compete to sound certain and leave important concerns unspoken.

In the other, people can explain uncertainty, question assumptions and offer unwelcome evidence. They listen carefully, disagree respectfully and challenge ideas with rigour. The leader makes space for voices that might otherwise be missed.

Which room would we trust with decisions that shape our lives?

A great thinking role model should help others contribute their best thinking. That includes setting clear expectations for preparation, evidence and respectful challenge, while ensuring that speaking honestly does not become a career risk.

The test is what people actually experience when they disagree.

‍

Decision-making provides another test.

How thoroughly doleaders explore consequences and total costs before committing?

Take a proposed saving. Does it reduce the overall resources required, or transfer work, risk and expense to employees, families, suppliers, communities or a future administration? What happens to quality, resilience and trust? What opportunities are lost by choosing this option?

Take a major investment. Have leaders considered implementation, maintenance, training, disruption, environmental effects and eventual replacement or closure? Have they examined who benefits, who pays and who carries the downside if the assumptions prove wrong?

A cost does not disappear because it sits outside the decision-maker’s budget or arrives after their term in office.

Robust thinking should also remain agile. Leaders cannot wait for perfect information, and delay has consequences too. Can they judge when to investigate further, when to run a limited experiment and when to act decisively? Do they distinguish reversible choices from commitments that will be difficult to undo?

Before acting, have they agreed what success means, what warning signs they will monitor and what evidence would prompt a change of direction?

‍

That brings us to thinking while doing.

A decision is the beginning of a continuing responsibility. As action unfolds, people respond, practical obstacles emerge and assumptions meet reality.

Can leaders stay attentive under pressure? Listen to those implementing the decision and those experiencing its effects? Notice when a plan is producing harm? Adapt without becoming erratic, and persist without becoming stubborn?

When something goes wrong, do they become curious about what happened, including their own contribution? Do they make learning visible and improve the way subsequent decisions are made?

Ultimately, the question reaches beyond how impressive the thinking appears.

‍

What positive impact does it help create?

We should examine outcomes alongside intentions, including success, wellbeing, fairness, freedom, resilience and environmental sustainability. We should ask whose lives have improved, whose have become harder and what has been left for future generations to address.

No leader controls every outcome. A sound decision can encounter bad luck, and a weak decision can occasionally succeed. Fair scrutiny therefore considers both the quality of the reasoning and the results overtime. It also asks whether leaders respond responsibly to evidence about their impact.

None of this requires perfection. Those at the top are human. They need rest, support, development and people who can constructively challenge them. Their limitations make those provisions more necessary.

What if governments, boards and executive teams made the ongoing development of their thinking an explicit responsibility? What if they regularly examined the quality of their conversations, reasoning, decisions and actions, with independent challenge and meaningful feedback?

And what if we, as citizens, colleagues, investors, customers and members of communities, paid more attention to these qualities when deciding whom to trust and support?

We could begin by asking: “What evidence would change your mind? Who challenges you? How have you examined the wider consequences? What have you learned? How will we know whether this is working?”

We could also ask ourselves whether we reward thoughtful answers, honest uncertainty and justified changes of mind.

The greater someone’s power to shape our lives, the stronger our reasons to expect exceptional care in how they think.

Are those at the top showing us what that looks like? Are they helping others think better too? And if we cannot confidently say yes, what are we willing to do to raise the standard?

Thanks for reading.

Best,

Rob

‍