PALM BEACH, FLORIDA – FEBRUARY 28: (EDITOR’S NOTE: This handout image was provided by a third-party organization and may not adhere to Getty Images’ editorial policy) U.S. President Donald Trump (L) speaks to White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles as he oversees “Operation Epic Fury” at Mar-a-Lago on February 28, 2026 in Palm Beach, Florida. President Trump announced today that the United States and Israel had launched strikes on Iran targeting political and military leaders, as well as Iran’s ballistic missile and nuclear programs. (Photo by Daniel Torok/White House via Getty Images)
White House via Getty Images
There is no single leadership trait or process that guarantees effective decision-making in either government or business, but there is one characteristic that almost certainly produces failure—a leader’s refusal to consider objective analysis, especially when it runs counter to their desired outcome.
Indeed, from the most complex national security matters to major questions confronting C-suite executives, leaders who are unwilling to consider countervailing conclusions have historically run into tragic policy results.
Here are a few recent examples that I believe are worthy of close consideration.
Putin Rushes To War In Ukraine
First, consider the run-up to Putin’s invasion of Ukraine in late February 2022. During a widely televised security council meeting on the eve of Russia’s attack, Putin famously humiliated his intelligence chief, Sergey Naryshkin, for daring to suggest that Moscow might want to move more slowly in recognizing the independence of two Ukrainian regions (Luhansk and Donetsk) and give the West additional time to fully implement the Minsk peace agreements aimed at ending the conflict. After Naryshkin stammered through his prepared points, Putin berated him and only allowed him to be seated after he acquiesced and embraced Putin’s preferred policy direction. Russian troops entered eastern Ukraine shortly thereafter.
Many keen Russia watchers have speculated that Naryshkin was probably aware of the glaring lack of solid intelligence that Russia’s invasion would ever bring Kyiv back into Moscow’s orbit, but the culture in which he was operating made it clear that Putin’s mind was made up and that he desired conformity and not an objective assessment of the conditions at play, nor a measured, realistic evaluation of the potential negative downstream implications of an invasion.
Shortly after Russia’s offensive commenced, Naryshkin worked diligently to regain Putin’s favor, which he still enjoys to this day, by publicly insisting that the war in Ukraine was necessary because Russia was fighting for its place in the world. At the same time, his fellow senior leaders gilded the lily even more by abandoning objective reality completely and declaring that Moscow had to invade Ukraine to counter the West’s campaign against Russia’s spiritual and moral values, and to confront Ukraine’s “Nazi” movement.
Interestingly, a few months prior to Russia’s invasion polling showed that 83 percent of Russians held a favorable view of Ukraine—not the result you would anticipate if the public perceived Ukraine as an arch enemy.
In any event, it was crystal clear by late 2021 that Putin was already locked into his position and had created an environment in which objective truth telling was virtually impossible. Sadly, I suspect that trend has continued to this day and that Putin is likely only receiving positive wartime assessments.
And how has his decision to invade turned out? By now it’s widely accepted that Putin’s four year and counting war in Ukraine has proven to be his biggest strategic blunder, producing more than 1.3 million casualties, more than 325,000 killed in action, a devastated economy, and a Ukrainian missile and drone threat that is growing monthly and is now threatening Moscow itself.
The US Stumbles Into Another Middle East Conflict
Next, consider the Trump administration’s decision to go to war against Iran. Press reports indicate that the president’s decision to launch the war was greatly influenced by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s overly optimistic and, frankly, biased presentation about the likely speed, ease, and outcome of the potential offensive—assumptions that the US intelligence community reportedly disputed.
In this instance, Mr. Netanyahu, according to reporting by The New York Times, suggested to the White House that the Iranian regime was vulnerable and that a joint US-Israeli military operation could topple the Islamic Republic. The Israeli briefing also highlighted the potential for a transition to a secular government, the likelihood that Iran’s ballistic missile inventory could be destroyed in short order, and the “minimal” risk that Iran would be able to close the Strait of Hormuz or target its neighbors during the conflict.
It’s now clear that these predictions were wildly inaccurate and, while it is still too early to know the war’s final outcome, it has clearly been much a more complicated and costly endeavor than the White House originally believed and presented to the American public.
It’s difficult to ascertain precisely how decisive Netanyahu’s briefing was in shaping the White House’s final decision to launch the war. I believe it was likely important. But it’s certain that the president has been at odds with the US intelligence community’s analysis for some time. Keep in mind that the intelligence community’s primary mission is to present policymakers with fact-based, objective operational information and analysis.
However, that mandate has often conflicted with this White House’s preferred “go with its gut” operating style, triggering several public disputes. These have included the president’s now famous disagreement with the intelligence community over its assessment about Russian meddling in US elections, his public contradiction of the DNI’s statement last year that Iran was not actively building a bomb, and his public assertion that the US was under invasion by Venezuela’s criminal gang, Tren de Aragua, at the behest of the Maduro regime (despite a declassified intelligence community assessment that Maduro’s government was not directing the gang’s criminal activities inside the US). In the latter instance, two career intelligence officers were fired for their role in approving and ultimately releasing the Venezuela assessment, which was done in response to a FOIA request.
There is obviously nothing that requires a president to act in accordance with intelligence community views and there is always a place for elected leaders to trust their gut feeling and ideological worldview in making decisions. However, my four decades of national security experience has persuaded me that creating a climate in which objective analysis and alternative viewpoints are encouraged rather than punished and weighed carefully in the policymaking process usually leads to more effective results. In fact, this is what researchers call “psychological safety,” and it has been repeatedly found to be essential to achieving the best outcomes in a variety of industries, from hospitals to high tech firms. In my view, this sense of safety is equally important in both the Oval Office and the White House Situation Room.
Business Leaders Also Experience Serious Objectivity Challenges
While the examples above focus on ongoing national security crises, it’s worth noting that business leaders also encounter pressure in trying to remain objective.
Our newspapers are periodically filled with stories of corporate accounting departments and chief financial officers who have identified creative ways to manage earnings to downplay poor results, including by highlighting external headwinds and focusing only on overall growth while glossing over shrinking profit margins. Similarly, we have all read accounts over the past few decades across multiple industries when leaders facing pressure to show results have grossly exaggerated their individual or unit’s performance. As financial and budgetary pressures likely mount across the private sector in the next few years, I’d expect similar stories to proliferate.
How To Avoid The Bias Trap?
If objectivity is then an essential ingredient of wise decision-making and its absence a surefire step on the path to policy failure, how can leaders take their lumps and steadfastly remain objective? Here are a few suggestions:
- First, our wisest leaders from across government and the private sector recognize that the best decisions are typically reached with inputs from multiple people with varying perspectives, including deep experts, and that they should not allow one voice to dominate policy deliberations. I vividly recall, for example, President Obama during White House Situation Room meetings asking all the backbenchers (and there were usually many) for their opinions on the issue under consideration. I believe this is a best practice and a surefire way to make sure that everyone’s unique and alternative viewpoints are encouraged and fully considered.
- Second, to maintain a high standard of objectivity, wise leaders routinely insist on the highest possible analytic and information gathering tradecraft, as well as a structured decision-making process to filter out actual or unconscious biases.
- In other words, in periods of greatest stress our best leaders have typically relied on a coherent set of established decision-making norms as their safe harbor.
For many years I considered access to unique information as perhaps the single most important factor in driving effective decision-making. Over time, however, and with many years of hard-earned learning behind me, I have come to believe that objectivity is far and away the most important trait—the coin of the realm so to speak—to enable the best possible national security and corporate decisions.