This moment captured something we’ve seen across hundreds of leadership contexts. Rational leaders can still get stuck trying to decode behaviour: Was it malicious? Was it just messy? Do we confront, correct, or investigate?

Enter two of the most reliable decision-making razors: Occam’s Razor and Hanlon’s Razor. These aren’t just philosophical relics. They’re working tools  -  shortcuts for leaders making sense of incomplete information under pressure.

‍

Strategic significance

Why do these razors matter so much in leadership? Because we make decisions with partial data all the time.

A study published in Harvard Business Review found that managers make over 3,000 decisions every day, many under time constraints and ambiguity. In these contexts, how we frame the problem often determines whether we act wisely or impulsively.

Occam’s Razor and Hanlon’s Razor help strip away emotional noise, forcing us to examine our assumptions and choose action over analysis paralysis.

‍

The Framework

The Razor Edge Framework
A 3-part model to decide which mental shortcut to apply  -  and when.

Part 1 – Diagnose the Complexity

Occam’s Razor suggests: The simplest explanation is usually the right one.
Hanlon’s Razor says: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity (or error, or distraction).

But neither razor should be applied blindly. The first step is to assess complexity.

• Is the context routine or novel?
  
  
• Is this a single mistake or part of a pattern?
  
  
• How many variables are in play?
  
  

Example:
When a client’s marketing team repeatedly published campaigns with unapproved messaging, the CMO initially assumed sabotage. After a short audit, it turned out their brand guideline doc hadn’t been updated in over a year. No sabotage  -  just outdated systems.

Reflection Prompt:
What’s your instinctive default: blame process or blame people? How does that show up in your culture?

Part 2 – Map the Stakes

Not all decisions are created equal. The higher the stakes, the more dangerous it is to over- or underreact.

Occam’s Razor can save time by avoiding elaborate conspiracy theories when a simple oversight is the likely cause.
Hanlon’s Razor, however, urges restraint  -  don’t burn bridges over what might be a miscommunication.

Ask:

• What’s the cost of being wrong?
  
  
• Is this a pattern or an outlier?
  
  
• What signals do I have about intent?
  
  

Example:
In a multinational we advised, the head of product was ready to fire a regional PM for bypassing protocol. A deeper look revealed timezone mismatches and unclear escalation paths. Intent? Good. Execution? Flawed.

Micro-action:
Run a “decision impact scan” before reacting. Use red/yellow/green tags: Red = pause and verify; Yellow = check context; Green = act on default razor.

Part 3 – Check Your Biases

Both razors simplify, but simplification is a double-edged sword. Leaders often lean too hard on one or the other based on their personal wiring or recent experiences.

Occam’s Razor overused? You might overlook genuine complexity.
Hanlon’s Razor overused? You risk enabling avoidable dysfunction.

Example:
A founder, tired of office politics, kept assuming the best in everyone  -  even as trust eroded. “I just thought they were stressed,” she said. Unfortunately, a senior leader was undermining decisions behind the scenes.

Reflection Prompt:
When was the last time your assumptions about someone’s intent were wrong? What did it cost?

Micro-action:
Pair with a second brain. Before concluding, check your razor of choice with a peer: “Am I seeing this too simply? Or too charitably?”

‍

Operationalising It

• Codify Razor Use in Team Norms
  Introduce both razors in leadership onboarding. Encourage leaders to ask: “Are we using the right razor for this moment?”
  
  
• Build in Razor Reviews During Post-Mortems
  After any significant miss or success, reflect: Did we assume too much? Or too little? Which razor would’ve helped us course-correct earlier?
  
  
• Run a Quarterly “Razor Audit”
  Have your exec team map major decisions and note which razor they instinctively applied. Look for over-dependence patterns.
  
  

Pro Tip:
Introduce a neutral party in conflict-prone teams. Someone who can name the razor at play often helps reset perspective.

‍

Pitfalls we’ve witnessed

• Using razors to avoid hard conversations
  Assuming it was a simple mistake (Occam) or unintentional (Hanlon) can become a dodge for direct feedback.
  
  
• Misdiagnosing intent as incompetence (or vice versa)
  Leaders misread emotional tone in email or Slack and respond with unwarranted aggression or leniency.
  
  
• Applying razors inconsistently across the org
  If senior leaders get Hanlon’s Razor and juniors get Occam’s, resentment builds. Consistency is cultural currency.
  
  
• Refusing to update the narrative
  What started as error might evolve into negligence. Keep reassessing  -  the first conclusion isn’t always the best one.
  
  

‍

Executive reflection corner

Prompt 1: Where in your team’s recent decisions did you jump to conclusions too quickly  -  or not quickly enough?

Prompt 2: Over the past 90 days, which razor did you apply more often  -  and what did it reveal about your leadership style?

‍

Value realised

When leaders embed this dual-razor discipline, they:

• Respond more proportionately to issues
  
  
• Build a culture of psychological safety and accountability
  
  
• Reduce costly misdiagnoses that waste time and trust
  
  
• Create clarity during high-stakes moments without overcomplication
  
  

Disciplined thinking beats drama. Choosing the right razor can be the difference between a productive pivot and a six-week detour.

‍

Your next strategic move

Non-negotiable this week:
Take one open issue  -  team conflict, deadline miss, performance concern  -  and apply both razors side by side. Ask: “What would Occam say? What would Hanlon say?”

Then decide: Which lens gets us to action, not assumption?

We’d love to hear what that unlocks for you.

Team SHIFT

‍