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.

We’re back with the next episode of A Little Bit Forward, short, five-minute episodes designed to slow you down, interrupt autopilot thinking, and create space for better decisions.

In this episode, Simon Waller explores a familiar but often unspoken tension: structural problems being treated with ad hoc solutions.

From weekly stand-ups and quarterly reporting to burnout fixes and team-building exercises, Simon examines how organisations are structurally set up to think short term, even while making decisions with years or decades of impact. Drawing on examples from strategic thinking, safety systems, and even flood mitigation, this episode challenges the habit of applying quick fixes to deep, systemic issues.

Five minutes. One question.

We’re back with the next episode of A Little Bit Forward, short, five-minute episodes designed to slow you down, interrupt autopilot thinking, and create space for better decisions.

In this episode, Simon Waller introduces a deceptively simple question that sits beneath every decision we make at work. How far into the future should we actually be thinking?

Drawing on his experience in scenario planning and large-scale investment decisions, Simon explores the idea of the “half-life” of a decision. The point at which its value should begin to outweigh its cost. From billion-dollar infrastructure investments to everyday leadership choices like hiring, this episode reframes strategy as a matter of time horizons.

Not every decision needs a 20-year view. But many need more than the next quarter. When leaders mismatch the importance of a decision with the timeframe they’re considering, short-term thinking quietly shapes long-term outcomes.

This episode invites you to reflect on the decisions you’re making regularly, and the future they are really designed for. What period of time captures most of the impact you are responsible for, and are you giving it enough attention?

Five minutes. One question.A deliberate pause to recalibrate how you think about the future, and move a little bit forward.

We’re back with episode five of A Little Bit Forward — short, five-minute episodes designed to slow you down, unsettle familiar thinking, and create space for better decisions.

In this episode, Simon Waller explores a quiet but powerful habit shaping the way we work and lead: the tendency to treat tomorrow as less important than today. Drawing on the concept of “discounting,” he examines how short-term thinking becomes normalised — even rewarded — in our organisations and systems.

Through a blend of economic thinking, cultural reflection, and practical insight, this episode questions whether our obsession with immediacy, productivity, and the present moment is distorting how we value future outcomes. What happens when urgency consistently outranks longevity? And what might change if tomorrow mattered just as much, or more, than today?

This isn’t about abandoning action. It’s about noticing where short-term decisions quietly undermine long-term impact, and whether our assumptions about time are really serving the work we care about.

Five minutes. One question.A deliberate pause to think differently — and move, just a little bit forward.

We’re back with episode four of A Little Bit Forward — short, five-minute episodes designed to slow you down, challenge comfortable assumptions, and create space for better thinking.

In this episode, Simon Waller asks an uncomfortable question: can doing good work sometimes give us permission to do it badly? Drawing on the public and not-for-profit sectors, he reflects on how purposeful work can quietly lower expectations around effectiveness, accountability, and performance.

Through a personal story and a closer look at the systems and norms around “good” work, this episode challenges the idea that intent alone is enough. If the work truly matters, shouldn’t it demand more from us — not less?

This isn’t about questioning dedication. It’s about examining outcomes, noticing where standards slip, and asking whether moral purpose should drive excellence rather than excuse mediocrity.

Five minutes. One idea.
A small pause to think more deeply — and move, just a little bit forward.

We’re back with episode three of A Little Bit Forward — short, five-minute episodes designed to slow you down, challenge familiar ideas, and create space for better thinking.

In this episode, Simon Waller takes on one of the most comfortable phrases in organisational life: best practice. He asks a deceptively simple question — is best practice actually good enough?

Drawing on real-world experience, Simon explores how “best practice” is often self-proclaimed, copied without context, and applied in complex systems where it simply doesn’t belong. What works in one place, at one time, for one group of people, can quietly fail somewhere else — sometimes with serious consequences.

This episode isn’t about finding a better model to copy. It’s about questioning our reliance on shortcuts, noticing where we trade understanding for convenience, and considering what that costs us over time.

Five minutes. One idea.
A small pause to think more deeply — and move, just a little bit forward.