Leadership and mental health speaker Andrew Pain returns to the FM podcast to discuss his ENGAGE UK & Europe session, outline his five-point framework for enhanced decision-making, and share more common biases that distort critical thinking.
Pain also explains the importance of clarifying information instead of relying on gut instincts to form conclusions.
ENGAGE is 13–14 October in London. Registration is open until 9 October.
What you’ll learn from this episode:
- Why immediacy pushes us into gut-based reasoning.
- Five questions to consider before making a decision.
- Two types of distorted thinking that can make professionals irrational.
- Why psychological safety is a crucial workplace dynamic.
- The benefits and limitations of consulting AI in decision-making.
Play the episode below or read the edited transcript:
— To comment on this episode or to suggest an idea for another episode, contact Steph Brown at Stephanie.Brown@aicpa-cima.com.
Transcript
Steph Brown: Welcome back to the FM podcast. I’m Steph Brown. Today we’re looking ahead to UK and Ireland Engage and I’m pleased to have upcoming ENGAGE speaker Andrew Pain back on the podcast. Andrew is a motivational and mental health keynote speaker and coach. Back at ENGAGE in 2024, he discussed why our guts are flawed, some cognitive biases that influence our thinking, and practical ways professionals can improve decision-making.
On this episode, we’ll discuss more biases that skew critical thinking, tips for working better under stress, and key skills for making bold decisions under pressure.
Welcome back, Andrew. Thanks for coming on the podcast.
Andrew Pain: Thanks, Steph. It’s a pleasure to be here.
Brown: You mentioned back in our discussion in 2024 that we live in an immediate culture which encourages people to rely on very flawed gut feelings to make quick decisions. Are there any ways professionals can work better with stress to evade this pressure to react hastily?
Pain: Yes. I mean, I don’t know that stress is always a bad thing. I mean, for me, there’s temporary stress. I might make a decision because I’ve had some news that I’m actually pre-diabetic and I’ve never really thought about it and I feel worried about it, and that prompts me to take action. It’s a temporary feeling of stress. I worry about it a little bit. I take action. My blood sugar’s hopefully come down because it’s wise action. I feel a little less worried, although maybe mindful now of my age. That’s not a bad thing. It’s temporary stress, as I see it.
Permanent stress is where you are constantly living in that state of overwhelm, which is exhausting in itself. You’re more likely to burn out. You’re more likely to cut corners on your decision-making processes if you have any. You’re more likely to just feel fatigued and then just go with a gut-based decision, make a decision more quickly than maybe you have to. Maybe when you’re overwhelmed, you’re more likely to be bullied into making a decision more quickly than you have to.
I don’t know that stress is always a bad thing, but I do think in this immediate culture in which we live in, where we put immediate expectations on ourselves and on others because we have everything at our fingertips, even down to changing a song. We just say, “Alexa, next”, and on comes the next thing. Back in the day with cassettes, you’d have to forward wind and rewind and forward.
Everything is fast-paced. And so, because of that, we can be tempted to make very prompt decisions, gut-based decisions. And so, we need strategies, I would say, quick-fire, little strategies that help us to still make a prompt decision, but at least put us a few steps first, so we’re not just relying on our guts.
Brown: What kind of strategies can professionals use that are tasked with making bold decisions under pressure, and how can they use them?
Pain: There are three overarching things. For me, if you want to make better decisions and you’re under pressure, you need to know yourself; you need to look after yourself; and you need to arm yourself — not with weapons, but with decision-making strategies which, of course, are your weapons.
Just a bit with “know yourself” – that’s a very vague statement. But in terms of decision-making, I know where my weaknesses are in decision-making. I know that I am someone that is naturally tenacious, so I’m more likely to persevere with things. So, I find it harder to put things down that I really should put down.
I know that about myself. So, if I’m facing a decision of, “Do I persevere or do I quit?” I know that I’ve got this thing in me that would just want to persevere literally at all costs. I know that about myself, so I can factor that in, and I have little strategies that help me when I’m stuck in that dilemma. So, knowing yourself — where are your weaknesses in decision-making? How do those affect you?
The looking after yourself is the really simple stuff, but the stuff we always forget to do. Like half of UK adults only get six hours of sleep or less a night, which we know is not enough. It wouldn’t be enough anyway if we had an easier life, but for the sheer quantity of decisions we’re making today, the fast-paced life that we live today, it isn’t enough to be at our best. So, we do need hydration, sleep. Those things make a difference to our ability to make good decisions.
Then the arming yourself with decision-making strategies is obviously really important. So, there’s a strategy that I have. It’s my strategy, and I’d encourage people to think of their own as well, but if I’m facing a big decision and there’s complexity within that decision and it’s going to impact potentially other people — so there’s a lot to it, and I need to really think about that — then I have these little steps that I go through.
There’s five steps in total. How much time have I got to make this decision? That’s really important for a stopping point because it might be that I’ve actually got a week. So, in which case, in my planner I need to schedule in a few bits. Maybe I need to speak to this person. Maybe I need to schedule in 20 minutes of just looking at some stuff, looking at policies and procedures, things like that.
But then once I know how much time I’ve got, then I can start thinking about, “Well, what information do I need to look for?” And try not to always go to the same old sources.
My third step is to always be asking myself, “Well, what’s missing? Am I looking at this in the right way? Am I just going to the same old stuff? Am I just going back to AI?” I do use AI in my research, but I don’t want to just be beholden to it. “Am I going to the same people? Am I not opening my mind, due to habit, to other ways of thinking about this?”
Fourth stage I would do for a big decision is, “Well, what would a bold approach look like? What would a safe approach look like?” Understanding that my team may not have the capacity to go bold with me if that’s what I want. I might have to go safe for now because within the parameters that I’m operating, that’s what I’ve got to work with.
And then finally, a decision. Once I’ve thought about this, I’ve looked at the research, I’ve been checking in with myself to make sure nothing’s missing, I’ve considered bold and safe, sketched that out. Step five: the decision just has to be made.
For me, having a little strategy — it’s not a perfect strategy. Maybe there’ll be listeners here who think, “Well, I’ve got a strategy that’s better than that.” That’s completely fine. But do have one. Do have one that you know you could draw on. Do have one where you’re committed to it, so you wouldn’t cut corners if you’re under pressure.
So that’s what I mean by decision-making strategies and different tools for different dilemmas that you’re likely to face.
Brown: In our previous discussion, you discussed two common biases, sunk cost fallacy and confirmation bias. I’m interested to find out more about two other biases you’ll be discussing in October, optimism bias and tabloid thinking, and how they affect decision-making.
Pain: Optimism bias is where, particularly if you’re an optimist, you’ll often look at the future with ridiculously rose-tinted spectacles. There might be issues ahead that you can just about foresee that might occur. And you may say things like, well, we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it. It will work itself out in the end. As long as we keep trying, it has to work out in the end.
Of course, it doesn’t. Why does it have to work out in the end? So, optimism bias is where you will often overlook obvious red flags that other people could see because they’re inconvenient, these red flags, and it requires more thought and research. You don’t want to do that. You want to push the project forward and get on with it. “We’ve had enough time in planning now. Let’s move forward.” And yet there’s other people saying, “Red flag, red flag”, but you’re an optimist, so it’s fine. It will be fine.
That’s the kind of self-talk that an optimist might have if they have optimism bias. And there’s different ways of managing that. Being aware of it, of course, is a good starting point.
Tabloid thinking, that’s my own label. So, if you go and seek out: What are the most common human biases? You’ll find optimism bias. You won’t find tabloid thinking. That for me is where you read a tabloid headline and it feels like it’s convincing, so it just must be true.
But actually, what’s the sample size? It feels like a compelling argument, but has anyone actually gone and proven this to be correct? So, someone will say, “Yeah, I know we should do this because that happened”, but did it actually happen? Are you going to be swayed by what someone is saying because they said it would happen?
And I’ve been on panels where someone has said something about a certain group of people. “They are like this. They are more likely to do this and act in this way. So therefore, we should do this.” But who says they’re more likely to do that? On the surface, it may feel [like] gut instinct, “Yeah, they probably would act that way.” But is there any research to suggest it?
So, tabloid thinking is where we base our decisions on what we’ve picked up as truth and it kind of feels like it would stack up, but does it really stack up?
That’s my view with tabloid thinking. Does that make sense?
Brown: Yes. That’s really interesting because I think that it shows that a lot of these biases, if they remain unchecked, they can make us more susceptible to misinformation and even propaganda.
Pain: Absolutely.
For example, just to be completely clear, I was on a panel where there was a CEO there and I knew her quite well and she was putting forward an argument that was really generalising a certain group of people. And when I asked her afterwards, “It’s quite a big thing that you said there about that group of people. Where did you get that from?” And she said, “Well, there were some community workers I work with and they said that.”
But it’s like, yeah, but to come up with such a generalised comment, it’s almost like hearsay. They’ve passed on gossip. They’ve passed on their own gut instinct. Someone else has heard it, put that forward as reasoned debate, but it isn’t reasoned debate. It was just based on what a few people said.
It’s really important that we really check in with ourselves because I know sometimes I speak as I process. So, one thing that I could do for you, knowing that I do that, if we were on the same team, is to say, “Steph, I do that. So, if I’m just speaking and spouting off this and that, please do say, ‘Is this you just processing or is that definitely fact-checked?’” And probably some of it I’d say, “No, that is fact-checked.” Some of it would be saying, “I don’t know. It’s gut instinct.” And so, I can be honest and say, “Actually, this is what I feel. I think it’s based on gut, so I don’t actually know.”
There’s that kind of transparency that’s helpful. Because in leadership, if you put your opinions forward, people are more likely to believe, well, it’s cast-iron truth, you’ve done your research. But you might be someone who processes as you speak.
Brown: It’s interesting talking about, I suppose, the sharing of information, how that gets passed along and received as truth without confirmation. And I guess when we’re talking about biases, we kind of frame them individually. But I suppose if you’re working within a team or you’re working under a flawed methodology or flawed strategy imposed even by executives, how can professionals challenge the status quo at the workplace productively in that sense?
Pain: It comes back to creating this term, which has become a bit of a buzzword. But there’s some buzzwords that, for me, they’re labels that we just don’t need in society. Someone’s invented a label and they’ll do very well out of it. Whereas there are other buzzwords that I think really carry weight and they’re here to stay. And psychological safety is the dynamic, I suppose, where within your team — if you have that — you would feel OK to voice a concern because you know you’re not going to be belittled, patronised, or ignored.
You could reach out for help easily if you were struggling. If you made a mistake you could get away with, you’d still tell someone if you were psychologically safe because it’s that environment where you know you can be respectfully but transparently yourself. It’s not an excuse to be offensive to someone, but you can be transparently you. So, I think the more that we can create that — there’s some people that would say, “Oh, but it comes from the top. Leadership have to set that in place first.” And I have some sympathy to that. But I also think peer-to-peer, whatever level you’re at in your team, you can contribute to creating psychological safety.
But if we have that, if people feel safe, if they feel like their concerns will be at least listened to, maybe not always acted on because it may not be possible to, but genuinely taken seriously, then I think people are more likely to speak up, be on the lookout. Because they know that there’s a point to them being on the lookout and speaking up. Not only is there no kickback if they’re wrong, but they also know they’re going to be taken seriously.
I think a lot of how do we voice [and] how do we get on top of these biases? Some of it is having psychological safety because there is that thing, isn’t there, where the team are massively excited about an idea, everyone’s on board, you’re not. But then nobody likes to be the naysayer; nobody likes to be the voice of doom. “Oh, there’s always one. There’s always one negative voice in the room.” And so, because of some of those comments that can be made, we then don’t say anything and we really should.
But in a psychologically safe environment, that’s not how people would respond to someone waving a red flag. They wouldn’t be branded as a naysayer. And if they were waving a red flag and it caused a pause, and then we investigated that concern, actually there’s no concern to be had, people would still be thankful that person had raised a red flag in a psychologically safe environment.
For me, it’s about creating psychological safety. And we have to practically create it because it doesn’t create itself.
Brown: You mentioned that you use AI and, across sectors, there’s more drive for professionals to use AI at work. What are the benefits and disadvantages of using those tools to remove bias from decisions?
Pain: I don’t want AI to make my decisions for me. And I know that the quality of what you receive from AI will depend on the quality of the prompts that you put in. So, you could say, “Well, AI was rubbish on this.” Yeah, but what was your prompt like?
I understand that. But I still feel, for me, when I look a lot at creativity, for example, actually what I come up with is better than AI. AI might inspire a bit of thought, but then I turn AI off and I’m not beholden to it. Even down to what I was going to call my new book that’s coming out. I mean, I just got myself stuck in a rabbit hole with AI, going round and round in circles.
There’s a whole list of pros and cons on all the options. In the end, we just got rid of AI and went with our own title, which is working really well.
I think for me, it’s just a question of understanding that AI is a tool. If I’ve got a certain problem, I don’t know which way I’m going to go, I don’t know if I’m going to move house or not because these are my finances, I might run that through AI and see what it’s got to say to me. As well as obviously having a conversation with my wife and going through my own finances.
So, for me, it’s a tool.
Brown: It’s good to inspire thought and maybe lead you into considering a certain solution, but it’s something that you should be reviewing, I guess, as well.
Pain: Absolutely.
You could have a difficult conversation coming up and you don’t know how to start that conversation with a certain employee and you’re worried about it and you know that you’ve got to have a conversation. It’s a difficult conversation. You could put that problem into Claude or ChatGPT. You could put in some of the issues and concerns that you have.
How would AI suggest that you start it? But then when AI has given you an answer, whatever tool you’re going to use, for me, you then come off AI and shut it down. It’s probably given you some useful insights, but now you need to go away as a human being and then structure that conversation.
That’s how I think about AI.
Brown: That’s really helpful. You can work with those tools, but they shouldn’t be the driving force behind what the decision ultimately becomes.
But looking ahead to ENGAGE this year, in a few words, what are you looking forward to about ENGAGE in October, and what do you hope people will take away from your session?
Pain: I always look forward to delivering in-person at events because selfishly, about 80% of my speaking events are delivered online virtually, which I do love. I do. I’ve got children, so it’s quite convenient for me to be able to deliver from my front room. I’m a very lucky man. But I do also really enjoy those in-person events as well.
I had a great time. I was there a few years ago. We had maybe about 80 people in the seminar, something like that. And we had a lot of fun. So, I’m looking forward to that. I always do.
In terms of what I want people to get from the session: We’re faced with so much data and information. Our decisions are so interconnected. It almost feels like if we go this way, I’m going to upset that person. If I go that way, I’m going to upset that person.
And so, we can get stuck. It can feel overwhelming. We can get decision fatigue. So, my hope for people is that they come out of that session feeling lighter, feeling like, actually, I’ve got some stuff that I could use. Actually, I’m not the only one that struggles with this stuff. Actually, there is a way forward to make better decisions. And I hope that people feel they’ve got stuff that they could apply not just to their work life, but to the stuff that they’re stuck on at home as well.
Brown: Thank you so much, Andrew. Thank you for being back on the podcast.
Pain: Thank you for having me. Pleasure to be here.
