The Curse of Decision-Based Evidence Making

Somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago, researchers believe, humans developed the cognitive ability to collect and process information, make decisions, solve problems, and create abstract ideas, language and images to explain their world.

For those who know me, it will come as no surprise that I am a strong believer in good research and analysis: understanding an issue before making a decision, and then evaluating the actual impact of the decisions and investments we make.

Professionally, this approach has shaped my work in developing organizational and people strategies—from multi-year strategic plans to research and interventions aimed at improving individual and team performance. At the board level, it means asking good questions, seeking appropriate evidence and measuring progress over time to strengthen oversight and accountability.

Of course, we rarely have unlimited time, resources or access to perfect data. At some point, we have to make decisions based on the best information available. Finding that balance matters.

That said, some organizations, leaders and individuals seem remarkably unburdened by this responsibility. And, if we are being fair, all of us fall into that category from time to time.

The Opposite of Evidence-Based Decision Making

A colleague once summed up the challenge perfectly:

“You will enjoy it here. We strongly believe in evidence-based decision making. Although you may find a fair bit of decision-based evidence making.”

I laughed out loud. I had never heard the phrase before, but it captured something most of us have encountered: people who begin with an opinion or preferred conclusion and then search for information that supports it.

Psychologists call this confirmation bias, and none of us is immune to it.

The stakes, however, become higher when this tendency moves beyond individual judgment and begins to shape organizational or public policy. We have seen growing resistance to scientific expertise, institutional knowledge and established evidence in public discourse, particularly since the COVID-19 pandemic. Similar tensions arise when economic and social policy is driven more by ideology or preferred outcomes than by evidence.

Organizations are not immune. When decision-based evidence making becomes normalized, people can feel increasingly comfortable dismissing inconvenient information, challenging expertise without a sound basis or selecting only the data that supports what they already want to do.

Towards Better Decisions

I am not suggesting that decisions can—or should—be made on evidence alone. Politics, with both a small and large “p,” has always played a role in how people and organizations make choices.

Facts matter, but so do competing interests, relationships, incentives, timing and human behaviour. Challenging resistance therefore requires strategic and political skill, not simply better data.

History is full of examples of ideas encountering resistance before gaining acceptance. Sometimes the resistance came from institutions; sometimes it came from peers protecting established beliefs or their own interests.

A line I once heard from a BBC documentary on the Rise of Modern Science has stayed with me: “Funeral by funeral, science will advance.”

Waiting for resistance to disappear, however, is rarely much of a strategy. It can take a long time—and there is no guarantee the next person will be any more receptive.

So what can we do instead?

Here are four strategies for strengthening organizational—and personal—decision making.

1. Continually hone your analytical skills

Whether you are buying a car or considering a major strategic investment, start by asking the right questions.

What problem are you trying to solve? Who will ultimately make the decision? What factors are most likely to influence that decision? Where can you find reliable information? How will you assess it? And how much analysis is enough before the value of gathering more information begins to diminish?

The more deliberately you practice these skills, the stronger your judgment becomes. The same applies to teams: good analytical habits can be developed, reinforced and improved over time.

2. Optimize your research methods

We do not have unlimited time, resources or perfect data, so the goal is not exhaustive research. It is better research.

Artificial intelligence is one example. I use tools such as ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini much like research assistants: to explore ideas, identify questions and accelerate my thinking, but never with the assumption that everything they produce is accurate.

The productivity gains can be remarkable, but AI should be one input among many.

Talk to trusted colleagues and advisers. Look for case studies from comparable organizations. Examine credible external research and benchmarks. Read reviews and perspectives that challenge—not simply reinforce—your assumptions.

Good research should make you more curious, not simply more certain.

3. Define the desired future state—and establish a baseline

We are often told to begin with the end in mind. Yet organizations regularly launch new investments, programs and strategic initiatives based largely on the belief that they will “make things better.”

But what does better actually look like?

If you have not established a current-state baseline, defined meaningful measures and set clear targets, how will you know whether the initiative worked?

Organizations need to invest the time to establish key performance indicators and scorecards, understand their starting point, set targets informed by internal and external benchmarks, and track progress over time.

That evidence is important not only for internal learning. It also helps demonstrate to boards, executive sponsors, funders, employees and other decision-makers whether an investment is producing the results it was intended to achieve.

4. Maintain measurement over time

One of the greatest challenges is not establishing measures—it is maintaining them.

Metrics lose much of their value when they change constantly, are abandoned after an initial burst of enthusiasm or are reviewed only when the results are favourable.

Consistency allows organizations to distinguish between short-term fluctuations and meaningful trends. It also creates institutional memory: a body of evidence that can inform future decisions rather than forcing each new initiative to begin from scratch.

Building a Discipline of Evidence

These are only four approaches, but they address a fundamental problem: too often, we do not really know what is happening—or why—because we have not collected the evidence needed to understand it.

Consider the often-repeated claim that “70% of change initiatives fail.”

It is quoted by leaders, consultants and business publications as though it were an established fact. Yet the research behind the figure is far less definitive than its widespread use would suggest. Paul Millerd explores the origins and limitations of the claim in an excellent StrategyU article, Do 70% of Change Initiatives Really Fail?

The example is instructive. Repetition can make a claim sound like evidence, even when the evidence itself is weak.

Fortunately, many organizations have built a genuine discipline around evidence-based decision making. They develop rigorous business cases, conduct research, measure outcomes and learn from what works—and what does not. They participate in research studies and benchmarking groups, and share lessons through publications, professional networks and conferences.

At their best, these practices do more than improve organizational performance. They contribute to our broader understanding of what works, why it works and how we can address increasingly complex challenges.

Over the years, I have been fortunate to work with teams and boards that developed and sustained this discipline: evidence-based strategies, meaningful KPIs and scorecards reviewed regularly at the executive and board levels to measure progress over time.

That does not mean I have never fallen victim to confirmation bias or made decisions based partly on instinct when I would have preferred more information. We all do.

But whether we are parents, professionals, leaders or governors, our decisions are better when we remain curious, question our assumptions and seek evidence before reaching conclusions.

After all, humans developed that capacity tens of thousands of years ago.

It seems a shame not to use it.

References:

• The Decision Lab. Why Do We Favor Our Existing Beliefs? The Confirmation Bias Explained.

• Paul Millerd. Do 70% of Change Initiatives Really Fail? StrategyU, March 22, 2026.

Recommended Listening: Given our topic, I turn to Rush’s Freewill and the importance of making up your own mind (even if you choose not to decide).