‍Why this choice matters

Leadership runs on judgement calls. The faster we can distil a situation down to its most probable cause, the faster we can act without burning trust or resources. Research on cognitive load tells us our brains crave simplification – but not oversimplification. Misapplying the wrong razor can be as damaging as no framework at all.

Two mental tools stand out for their practicality in leadership: Occam’s Razor (“Prefer the simplest explanation that fits the facts”) and Hanlon’s Razor (“Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence or error”). Both are elegant. Both can be deadly if misused.

The Two-Razor Decision Framework

We call our approach The Razor Relevance Test – a three-part filter to help decide which to apply.

1 – Define the Decision Horizon

When stakes are high and action is urgent, Occam’s Razor can stop you from analysis paralysis. A supply chain delay may simply be a vendor’s backlog, not a shadowy competitor sabotage. Ask: What is the narrowest, fact-supported explanation I can test quickly?
Reflection prompt: How often do you slow decisions chasing unlikely possibilities?

2 – Map the Human Factor

Hanlon’s Razor shines when emotions risk clouding objectivity. If a report contains errors, is it deliberate undermining or a rushed week from an overworked colleague? This principle prevents needless conflict escalation.
Micro-action: Before confronting someone, draft two narratives – one assuming ill intent, one assuming error – and see which is better supported by current evidence.

3 – Anticipate the Cost of Being Wrong

Not all errors weigh equally. Misapplying Occam’s Razor might cause you to miss a subtle threat; misusing Hanlon’s Razor might leave real sabotage unchecked. The right choice considers the downside risk if you’re wrong.
Pro Tip: For high-impact, low-frequency risks (cybersecurity breaches, compliance failures), be slower to dismiss malice.

Putting the framework to work

1. Start with the facts you can verify – not hunches, not hearsay.
   
   
2. Run the Razor Relevance Test – Decide if simplicity or non-malicious error better fits the data.
   
   
3. Set a review point – If new evidence surfaces, revisit your initial choice.
   
   
4. Communicate with transparency – Share your reasoning to build trust in your decision process.
   
   

Missteps we’ve seen in the field

• Over-relying on Occam’s Razor in complex systems – Simple explanations can’t always capture systemic risk in global operations. Remedy: Pair with data deep-dives before final calls.
  
  
• Using Hanlon’s Razor as a shield for underperformance – Tolerating repeated mistakes under the “no malice” banner can normalise mediocrity. Remedy: Escalate accountability after patterns emerge.
  
  
• Switching razors mid-decision without review – Leads to inconsistent leadership narratives. Remedy: Document your chosen frame and the trigger for changing it.
  
  

Executive decision lens

When was the last time you assumed ill intent and later discovered it was an honest mistake? What did that cost in relationships or outcomes?

Conversely, when did you chalk something up to error only to realise there was strategic opposition at play? How did you recalibrate?

The payoff for leaders

Applied with discipline, these razors help you cut decisively without cutting corners. You get faster issue resolution, reduced interpersonal friction, and a more rational decision culture. And when your team sees you apply the right lens in the right context, it builds both trust and your reputation for fairness.

Your move this week

Pick one live situation in your leadership remit. Apply the Razor Relevance Test before acting. Share your reasoning with a trusted peer or your team – not to show off your logic, but to normalise transparent, principled decision-making.

‍

Team SHIFT

‍