Image of Daniel Kahnemann work by nrkbeta.no is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Norway License.What We Need to Ask of the People Making Decisions
This is part of the Behavioral Economists series. Start with The Science of Finishing Things on Humane Work.
There's a particular kind of leader who gets celebrated for being decisive. They move fast, trust their instincts, don't second-guess. And often, for a while, they're genuinely effective...because fast, confident decisions do have real uses, especially in stable territory you know well. It's also very easy to blame execution for careless strategy.
Daniel Kahneman spent fifty years documenting what happens when that careless decision-making meets reality. The results are not flattering. And they have implications for leadership that go well beyond "be more reflective."
Two Systems, One Leadership Role
Kahneman's central contribution was showing that cognition operates in two modes. The first System 1 is fast, automatic, pattern-based. It generates answers instantly, runs on heuristics, feels like intuition. The second System 2 is slow, deliberate, effortful. It's actual reasoning. The brain deploys it sparingly because it's expensive.
Neither system is superior. You couldn't function if every micro-decision required deliberate analysis. The problem is when System 1 operates in conditions that require System 2, and neither the person nor the organization catches the mismatch.
We need to invest the right amount of time in ensuring (or at least raising the likelihood) that our outcomes will be achieved.
Leadership and business are full of the conditions that require System 2 thinking. Novel situations, high-stakes choices, complex tradeoffs, information that contradicts prior assumptions. And leadership roles are also traps that systematically reward System 1 behavior...decisiveness, confidence, the appearance of knowing. This isn't incidental. It's structural...part of how people are wired.
The leader who "trusts their gut" in a genuinely new situation isn't demonstrating expertise. They're applying a heuristic that worked somewhere else and believing (hoping) it transfers.
Expertise Protects Against Some Things
One of Kahneman's more uncomfortable findings is that expertise doesn't protect against System 1 errors. It sometimes amplifies them.
The more experienced a leader becomes, the more confident their intuitive judgments...and the less likely they are to engage System 2 when it's needed. They look at a new initiative, pattern-match it to previous successes, construct an plausible but optimistic narrative, and commit. The planning fallacy operating at the organizational level.
This overconfidence makes them appear decisive and creates the system that makes this type of decision making often synonymous with leadership.
This is worth thinking about...a lot. It's not that we want people to be less decisive. But we do want to see how this creates cascading systems of failure. All people at all levels of leadership making quick decisions, uninformed and uncoordinated. You don't fix this by resolving to think more carefully. You fix it by building structures that trigger the right level of thinking at the right time. You make sure you, again, invest the right energy to ensure success.
What "Making Work Visible" Actually Means
In Personal Kanban, we want to make work visible. Why? Because leadership and participation both hinge on being informed. When we are informed about what is really happening in our work, we are more likely to professionally respond to unexpected change.
A board showing the actual state of work across a team is, in Kahneman's terms, a System 2 trigger. It interrupts the easy flow of ignorant work with observable reality. When a leader can see that three high-priority items have been sitting in progress for two weeks (hopefully you'd respond more quickly), they're confronted with information that intuition would have smoothed over. When they can see that last month's planning commitments have almost no relationship to what moved to Done, the planning fallacy loses its invisibility.
What a well-maintained shared board does: it replaces the story leaders tell themselves about how things are going with a record of how things are actually going.
Culture is not Optional, nor is it a Hope
Kahneman's research implies something that few leadership frameworks state plainly...genuine deliberation requires psychological safety and vice versa. They are symbiotic.
Fast thinking dominates in cultures where admitting uncertainty reads as weakness, where changing course reads as failure, where the most confident voice in the room consistently wins. In those environments, System 2 rarely gets deployed, not because the leader is incapable of it, but because the culture actively punishes it.
Building an environment where appropriate thinking can happen, where a team member can say "I think our estimate is wrong and here's why," where a leader can say "I was overconfident about that," is not a soft culture aspiration. It is a cognitive performance requirement.
Retrospectives are an organizational mechanism for this. Not as process theater, but as genuine inquiry...what did we predict, what actually happened, what is the change no one is seeing, and who cares? Teams that treat retrospectives as bureaucratic overhead are stuck in System 1 and those retros are very painful to attend indeed.
Calibration Wins Over Caution
The practical implication isn't that leaders should slow down every decision or stop trusting their instincts. Kahneman is clear that intuition is valuable in domains where you have genuine experience and clear feedback loops. The issue is deploying it in domains where you don't.
What Kahneman called calibration...the alignment between confidence and accuracy. This is the goal. Leaders who develop calibration over time are the ones who know which situations their gut is reliable in, and which ones require them to slow down and check. They are also the leaders who listen when someone tells them that their most recent pronouncement might require a bit of thought.
For the individual board mechanics behind these principles, see The Optimistic Brain Is a Terrible Project Manager on the Personal Kanban blog. For the team management application, see When Everyone Can See the Plan Fall Apart at Modus Institute.
Modus Cooperandi is where we write about the human side of work — leadership, culture, and the behavioral science behind how teams thrive. For courses and live events, check the Modus calendar.
Personal Kanban: Mapping Work | Navigating Life is the book that started the movement. For weekly essays, join us at Humane Work.