Objectivity Is a Competitive Advantage
One of the more difficult things for any leader to evaluate objectively is an idea they helped create.
The more time, effort, and credibility we invest in a decision, the harder it can become to separate what we want to be true from what the facts are telling us.
That isn't necessarily stubbornness.
It's human nature.
We become invested in strategies. We defend decisions that once made sense. We give additional time to initiatives because we have already invested so much in them. And sometimes we interpret new information in ways that support the direction we already prefer.
Experience doesn't eliminate that tendency.
If anything, experience can occasionally make it easier to justify our own thinking.
I've always liked the principle that there should be no pride in authorship.
Once an idea is on the table, it should matter less who developed it than whether it remains the best path forward. The objective should be getting to the right answer—not defending whose answer it was.
That's why objectivity requires discipline.
Are the assumptions that supported the original decision still valid?
If we were evaluating this opportunity for the first time today, would we make the same decision?
Are we continuing because the path still makes sense—or because changing direction would require acknowledging that something didn't work?
And perhaps most importantly:
What evidence would cause us to change our mind?
Good executives should have conviction.
Organizations need leaders willing to make decisions and stand behind them.
But conviction and objectivity are not opposites. The strongest leaders can believe firmly in a direction while remaining willing to reconsider it when the facts change.
Changing your mind in response to better information isn't weakness.
Sometimes it is simply good judgment.
And in an environment where circumstances are constantly changing, the ability to see things as they are—not merely as we expected them to be—can be a meaningful competitive advantage.