In this episode, Simon explores the idea that not all biases are necessarily bad. Drawing on an article by Dr Tom Stafford from the Reasonable People Substack, he reflects on how biases can sometimes exist for a reason, particularly when they help us avoid worse outcomes.

Using the concept of signal detection theory, Simon looks at how decision makers often lean toward one type of error over another when the consequences are uneven. In some situations, being biased toward a false positive can actually be safer than risking a false negative. This reframes bias not just as a flaw in thinking, but as something connected to the outcomes we are trying to avoid.

This also raises a more personal question. Many of us are familiar with the “I’m not biased” bias, the belief that while others may be biased, we are less so. But statistically, that cannot be true for everyone.

The question for reflection is this: What is the bias where you are more biased than average? And what outcome might that bias be trying to protect or create?

As always, the episode closes with five minutes of silence. Time to sit with the question, notice what comes up, and gently move a little bit forward.

Show notes:

You can find Dr Tom Stafford’s original article ⁠here⁠.

In this episode, Simon explores false deadlines, those artificial timeframes that can stop us from acting on opportunities when it matters most. Inspired by an article from Pollyanna Lenkic and a recent client conversation about a strategic decision-making program, he looks at how these deadlines can delay value, distort priorities, and even lead to missed opportunities, like holding off on cancelling unnecessary projects or missing out on hiring a standout candidate.

The question for reflection is simple but powerful: Where in your organisation are you either implementing false deadlines or being constrained by them, and what are the negative implications? How might they lead to misalignment or poor behaviors when we stick to the deadline instead of making the right decision at the right time?

As always, the episode closes with five minutes of silence. Time to sit with the question, notice what comes up, and gently move a little bit forward.

Show notes:

You can find Pollyanna’s original article here.

In this episode, Simon explores our tendency to reduce complex situations into simple yes or no decisions. Binary choices can feel efficient, especially when time and resources are tight, but they often flatten nuance and distort reality.

Drawing on examples from decision making in organisations, everyday life, and even political identity, Simon unpacks the difference between discrete choices and continuous ones. From A, B or C, to infinite shades of possibility, the episode examines how oversimplification can create unnecessary conflict and cause us to miss opportunities for common ground.

The question for reflection is simple, but not easy. Where in your work or life are you treating people, problems, or decisions as binary when they are actually far more nuanced? And what might become possible if you allowed for more range, more texture, and more “shades of purple”?

As always, the episode closes with five minutes of silence. Time to sit with the question, notice what comes up, and gently move a little bit forward.