The Thinking Advantage: Moving from Emotion to Execution
After completing the two-hour leadership development workshop, Strategic Thinking & Smart Decision-Making, led by Jan Bray, participants emerged with tools to move beyond reactionary decisions and emotionally charged responses. Instead, they honed the ability to challenge assumptions, interpret data critically, and apply logical frameworks to improve outcomes. With these leadership practices, failures can be prevented.
Participants were reminded of the Blockbuster case study. Blockbuster’s downfall is a textbook case of what happens when leaders react emotionally or cling to legacy thinking instead of adapting strategically.
At its peak, Blockbuster had over 9,000 stores and billions in revenue. But when Netflix offered to sell itself for $50 million in 2000, Blockbuster declined—believing their dominance was unshakable. That decision, driven more by pride and short-term thinking than strategic foresight, became a turning point.
Here, we outline some additional, high-profile failures that illustrate the power of the principles expressed in the Strategic Thinking & Smart Decision-Making workshop.
Challenging Assumptions
Jan urged participants to go beyond surface-level thinking. These cases show how damaging unchecked assumptions can be, and strategic thinkers would have asked: “What if we’re wrong?”
Enron – Prioritizing Complexity Over Clarity Enron’s leadership used convoluted financial structures to hide debt and inflate profits. Instead of applying logical financial scrutiny, they relied on opaque models and unchecked assumptions. The result was one of the largest corporate bankruptcies in U.S. history and a crisis in investor trust.
Volkswagen assumed they were too innovative or untouchable to face consequences and collapsed multibillion-dollar empires. Volkswagen “We can cheat emissions tests without consequences” VW leadership assumed regulators wouldn’t catch their emissions cheating software. This assumption led to the 2015 Diesel-gate scandal, costing the company over $30 billion in fines, recalls, and reputational damage.
Nokia clung to an outdated belief about consumer preferences, illustrating what happens when you stop listening to evolving markets. “People will always prefer physical keyboards.” Nokia dominated the mobile phone market but clung to the belief that users valued hardware design over software ecosystems. They underestimated the shift toward touchscreen smartphones and app-driven platforms, allowing Apple and Android to eclipse them.
Interpreting Data Critically
Jan emphasized that data doesn’t speak for itself; it must be interpreted within ethical, emotional, and contextual frameworks. Here are some examples that reflect failures in interpreting data critically.
Target's analytics were accurate but ignored customer sensitivity, teaching that data insights without empathy can backfire. Target’s predictive analytics backlash used purchase data to predict customer pregnancies and send targeted ads. In one case, a teenage girl received maternity coupons before telling her family, causing public backlash. The data was accurate, but the failure to consider social context and ethical implications damaged the brand’s reputation.
Netflix (Qwikster) shows how overconfidence in metrics, without scenario testing, can alienate your core user base. Qwikster- Netflix split its DVD and streaming services into two brands, assuming data showed customers would adapt. They underestimated user frustration and overestimated brand loyalty. The backlash caused a stock drop of nearly 77% and forced the company to reverse the decision.
Coca-Cola learned that even "good" data can be misleading when it lacks depth, nuance, or validation. “New Coke” was launched in the 1980s, and Coca-Cola reformulated its flagship drink based on blind taste test data. What they missed was the emotional attachment customers had to the original formula. The backlash was swift and fierce, forcing a return to “Coca-Cola Classic.”
These examples echo Jan’s lesson: “Smart decision-makers ask what the data doesn’t show.”
Applying Logical Frameworks
Too often, leaders bypass structured reasoning, relying instead on instinct, internal politics, or momentum. Jan encouraged using tools like root cause analysis, scenario planning, and risk assessments. Failure to apply a framework to improve outcomes bypasses logical frameworks, like structured analysis, scenario planning, or root cause evaluation; they often fall prey to bias, groupthink, or impulsive decisions.
Blackberry ignored the shift in ecosystem value, failing to map market trends against long-term innovation frameworks. Misjudging market signals, Blackberry failed to logically assess the shift in consumer behavior toward touchscreen smartphones and app ecosystems. Their continued investment in physical keyboards and enterprise-first strategies ignored mounting data and trends, leading to a rapid loss of market share.
Uber disregarded cultural audits and internal feedback loops, showing the risk of prioritizing speed over sustainability. Ignoring cultural red flags under former CEO Travis Kalanick, Uber expanded aggressively while dismissing internal reports of toxic workplace culture. A logical framework for organizational health, like regular audits or ethical risk assessment, was absent, resulting in lawsuits, executive resignations, and reputational damage.
BP made decisions in cost silos, when a cross-disciplinary safety framework might’ve prevented catastrophe. The Deepwater Horizon Disaster resulted from BP’s cost-cutting decisions on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig, ignoring engineering risk assessments and safety protocols. A logical risk management framework would have flagged the vulnerabilities. The explosion killed 11 workers and caused one of the worst environmental disasters in history.
When leaders operate from unchecked emotion or untested instinct, they risk tumbling into decisions that can cost credibility, capital, and in some cases—lives. As the examples we've explored make clear, assumptions without scrutiny become blind spots, data without context becomes noise, and action without a framework becomes chaos masquerading as confidence. These tools from the Strategic Thinking & Smart Decision-Making workshop call to act with intent. Be the one in the room who challenges the “obvious,” who questions what the data hides, and insists on structure before strategy. The alternative: reactive thinking fueled by ego or fear, has toppled titans and scorched legacies.
Take the pause.
Map the path forward with logic, clarity, and courage.