The Importance of Objectivity in Decision-making
Objectivity is not a switch you flip, it is a direction you move in. Bias interrupts objectivity because it is the brain’s efficiency tool. Learn your personal SFVL algorithm, which is who and what feels Safe, Familiar, Valuable, Likeable, then install practical nudges so fairer, clearer decisions are possible.
The myth of objectivity
We like to believe we are objective. We are not. None of us. Our brains have to use shortcuts that help us move fast and feel safe. In high-stakes people decisions such as hiring, promotion, pay, performance and opportunity, those shortcuts can quietly distort what we see.
So rather than chasing “perfect objectivity” (impossible), we aim for more objectivity (essential). That starts with understanding bias as a system, not a moral failing.
What bias really is (and isn’t)
Bias is not you being a “bad person”. Bias is your brain’s cognitive efficiency tool. It sorts the world into rapid-fire buckets so you can decide quickly, usually in the service of safety.
I teach leaders to think of bias as an operating system that ranks people and ideas through four filters: Safe, Familiar, Valuable, Likeable (SFVL).
Whatever passes those filters feels automatically (more) trustworthy and gets green-lit. Whatever doesn’t… doesn’t.
Take ten seconds now:
Who feels safe to you at work?
What styles, accents, schools or backgrounds feel familiar?
What type of contributions do you instinctively see as valuable?
Who strikes you as naturally likeable?
No judgement, just data. You have just mapped your personal decision-making algorithm.
Looking for a speaker who helps teams rethink language, inclusion, and culture in powerful, real ways? Learn more about my keynotes on unconscious bias, psychological safety and more here.
Where the algorithm comes from: taught and caught
Our SFVL filters aren’t random. They’re taught (history, laws, who gets called “civilised”, “professional”, “beautiful”, “godly”) and caught (who we see in power, who the media centres, which families are framed as “whole”, which accents signal status).
Across identity dimensions of race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, nationality, class, religion, mental health status, and more, societies have historically ranked who belongs at the top of the hierarchy and who deserves to be at the bottom. Those rankings seep into our own consciousness (or subconscious) and begin to influence how we navigate the world. Who we build relationships with, who we date, who we are attracted to, who we marry, who we hire, who we start business with, who we take risks on and who we look up to. And, given that organisations are merely a collection of individuals, the historical ranking enters our institutions today.
Want to know the sad part? You can belong to a marginalised group, a group relegated to the bottom of the social hierarchy, and still hold biases against that group (and yourself). Healing helps. Awareness helps. But this inherited SFVL matrix still hums in the background unless we intervene.
Why this matters for organisations
We operate in a fast-paced, highly competitive world where it feels like every decision counts and you are ‘only as good as your last success’ (this isn’t true by the way). The fear of losing a role, a job, or a client puts us into survival mode. Survival mode pushes the brain to choose what feels safest, so the SFVL engine fires up. The cost is lower objectivity. We:
over-index on polish over potential
confuse culture fit with the same as me
rate confidence as if it were competence
discount ideas in unfamiliar packaging
This survival state also means we unconsciously favour identities that sit at the top of the social hierarchy, the people we have been taught or have caught to see as safe, familiar, valuable and likeable. In practice that often means white people, men, straight people, non-disabled people, people with higher levels of formal education and proficient English speakers. The impact is predictable. We struggle to bring in diversity because candidates “do not feel like a culture fit”. Belonging suffers, because diverse colleagues do not get the leadership roles, stretch projects or flagship clients. Equity suffers too, because workplaces fail to share access to resources and opportunities in a way that helps society build real livelihoods for all. And this, dear reader, is bad for all of us!
(Don’t forget to check out my short videos on this exact topic below)
Objectivity is a practice: how to build it
Work in two lanes: personal awareness and structural nudges.
1) Personal awareness: update your SFVL
Name it: Write your SFVL list. For each association, note whether it was taught or caught.
Collect counter-examples: For every default preference, record two counter-examples you have personally experienced. Brains update through concrete evidence.
Slow the first take: When a strong no or yes hits you within seconds, ask: “What did my SFVL just reward or punish?” Accent, school, presentation style, clothing, video quality
Swap the question: Replace “Do I like them?” with “What evidence shows they will be effective in this context?”
Don’t trust your gut
Use AI!
2) Structural nudges: redesign the decision
Define success up front: Agree measurable criteria before reviewing people or proposals. Weight them, for example Impact 40%, Evidence 30%, Collaboration 20%, Communication 10%.
Structured scoring, one criterion at a time: Evaluate each candidate against the same criterion in batches. This reduces halo and horn effects.
Evidence over adjectives: Ban vague labels such as “strong” or “not a fit”. Require a behaviour plus evidence sentence: “Demonstrated X by doing Y which led to Z.”
Red-team the favourite: Assign someone to challenge the front-runner: “What would we need to see to disconfirm our choice?” Repeat for the under-dog.
De-bias language: Replace culture fit with culture add. Ask: “What gaps in our team’s thinking, style or experience would this person add?”
Blind the irrelevant: Remove names, photos, universities and addresses in early screens where possible.
Diverse panels with distinct roles: Different perspectives reduce shared blind spots. Give panel members different primary criteria so they do not all optimise the same thing.
Decision logs: Capture the rationale briefly: criteria, evidence cited, and any dissenting view. The goal is accountability and a record for learning.
Timebox and cool off: Make two decisions: a provisional decision now and a confirm decision after a set cool-off period. Bias loves urgency.
Feedback loops: Track outcomes over time, such as who stayed, who advanced and whose projects shipped. If your chosen candidates underperform the panel’s second choices, update your process.
A 90-second self-audit for your next people decision
Criteria written and weighted? Yes or No
Assessed one criterion at a time? Yes or No
At least one counter-signal considered? Yes or No
Gut instinct is not a major reason? Yes or No
Three or more Yes answers means you have moved meaningfully toward objectivity.
Common traps and better phrasing
“I just have a gut feel.” → “My first take is X. The evidence says Y. Here is how I will reconcile that.”
“Not sure they are a culture fit.” → “Which behaviours or values do we need, and where did they not show them?”
“They are a strong communicator.” → “They translated complex ideas into clear next steps and stakeholders acted.”
“They don’t look like a leader.” → “Define what leading in this role requires. Did they demonstrate it?”
The punchline
Bias will always exist because the human brain will always optimise for speed and safety. The work is not to become perfectly unbiased. The work is to recognise your SFVL algorithm, then build systems that keep it honest.
