In leadership, sustainability, and operational excellence, and anywhere, really, the quality of our decisions depends on the information we prioritize.
Over the years, I’ve observed that all information can be distilled into four fundamental types: Beliefs, Assumptions, Opinions, and Facts. Each plays a unique role in shaping our worldviews and actions – but when one dominates, distortions arise.
Understanding and balancing these types is key to driving meaningful change, whether in business, sustainability initiatives, or community leadership.
My hypothesis: there are four types of information in the world:
- Beliefs
- Assumptions
- Opinions
- Facts
Let’s explore these more closely.
Beliefs
Beliefs are core values or principles tied to identity, morality, or ethics. Beliefs often serve as guiding lights, but they can also create blind spots when confronted with new evidence.
Example:
- “Sustainability is not just a strategy; it’s a moral imperative for our future.”
- “Our company believes in supporting local businesses over national chains, even if it costs more.”
In Practice:
Beliefs are powerful motivators, especially in mission-driven fields like sustainability. However, they must be periodically tested against Facts and Assumptions to ensure they remain relevant and effective.
On the other hand, according to Cognitive Dissonance Theory (Festinger, 1957), for example, individuals experience mental discomfort when confronted with information that contradicts their beliefs. When new data challenges long-held beliefs, cognitive dissonance can create resistance. This discomfort can be addressed by framing change as an evolution of values, not a rejection of them.
Moral Foundations Theory (Haidt, 2001), in turn, identified five moral foundations (care, fairness, loyalty, authority, sanctity) that shape beliefs. Certain beliefs (e.g., sustainability as a moral duty) my resonate deeply in an organisation’s stakeholders. An organisation could communicate its commitment to local sourcing if it taps into their loyalty and sanctity foundations, which can resonate in their community.
Assumptions
Assumptions are probability-based estimates, often tied to risk management or forecasting. Assumptions help us prepare for uncertainty, but over-reliance can lead to rigidity or paranoia.
Example:
- We assume that 80% of our guests will prefer digital check-ins by 2025 (which is why they should invest in relevant digital solutions)
- Our project timeline assumes no major supply chain disruptions (but the project should definitely take it into account in its risk management plan)
In Practice:
In operational excellence, assumptions are managed through tools like scenario planning or pre-mortems. For instance, a customer of ours recently assumed their hotel guests would prioritize cost savings over sustainability, but feedback (Facts) revealed they were willing to pay more for eco-friendly amenities.
This behavior is supported by the so called Dunning-Kruger Effect (Kruger & Dunning, 1999). It explains how individuals overestimate their knowledge or competence, leading to flawed assumptions. This is critical for risk management and forecasting and can lead teams to underestimate risks. Structured assumption-testing, like pre-mortems, helps mitigate this bias.
Prospect Theory (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979) shows how people assess risks and rewards subjectively, often irrationally. It may be useful for discussing how assumptions about customer behavior or market trends are formed. For example, when forecasting demand for eco-friendly amenities, the hotel accounted for loss aversion—guests’ tendency to overvalue what they might lose (e.g., familiar brands) over what they might gain (e.g., sustainability benefits).
Opinions
Opinions are subjective judgments or preferences. Opinions are ubiquitous in media, social discourse, and team dynamics. While they reflect individual perspectives, they can overshadow facts or drown out quieter voices.
Example:
- “Our new sustainability initiative is the best in the industry.”
- “Customers will never accept a 10% price increase for local sourcing.”
In Practice:
Opinions thrive in collaborative environments, but they must be balanced with Facts and structured discussions. For example, anonymous feedback channels could be used to ensure all voices – also of the introverted ones – are heard.
Indeed, according to, for example, the Groupthink theory (Janis, 1972), desire for harmony in groups can suppress dissenting opinions, leading to poor decisions. This is highly relevant to the “Auction” distortion. To avoid groupthink, one could use anonymous feedback tools and assign ‘devil’s advocates’ in meetings to ensure all opinions—even unpopular ones—are heard.
In addition, research, such as The “Loudest Voice” Phenomenon (Schneider et al., 2013) showed how extroverted or dominant individuals disproportionately influence group decisions, often at the expense of introverted contributions. This could be managed, for example with timed rounds for speaking in meetings and digital polling to balance the influence of extroverted and introverted members.
Facts
Facts are objective, verifiable truths grounded in evidence. Paris is in France. A week has seven days. 1+1=2. But while facts are the bedrock of informed decision-making, they can be uncomfortable when they challenge our beliefs or assumptions.
Example:
- “Our carbon footprint reduced by 30% after switching to renewable energy.”
- “Customer satisfaction scores dropped by 15% after we removed complimentary breakfast.”
In Practice:
Facts should guide strategy, but they must be communicated carefully. In a recent project of ourse, presenting calculations on the long-term cost savings of sustainable practices helped a board to overcome initial resistance to upfront investments.
Indeed, Evidence-Based Management (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006) advocates for using data and scientific evidence to inform organizational decisions, rather than solely relying on intuition or tradition. For example, by adopting evidence-based management, it is possible to replace anecdotal feedback with real-time customer satisfaction dashboard, leading to more objective decisions.
Meanwhile, Confirmation Bias (Nickerson, 1998) found that humans often have the tendency to favor information that confirms preexisting beliefs, even when faced with contradictory facts. To combat this, you can conduct ‘red team’ exercises where a group deliberately challenges the belief based assumptions with opposing data.
The Risk of Imbalance: Four Information Distortions
When one type of information dominates, distortions emerge. Recognizing these patterns can help leaders and teams recalibrate.
| Distortion | Dominant type | Description | Example |
| Divine Guidance | Beliefs | Unyielding conviction, resistant to new evidence. | “We’ve always done it this way—our founders believed it was best.” |
| The Paranoid | Assumptions | Overemphasis on risk, leading to rigidity and excessive rules. | “We need to have all of these approved by top management. What if something goes wrong?” |
| The Auction | Opinions | Loudest voices dominate; introverted or data-driven perspectives are lost. | “Everyone in the meeting agreed with Jim, because he was the most charismatic speaker.” |
| The Machine | Facts | Over-reliance on data, ignoring human or ethical considerations. | “The numbers clearly say we should cut employee benefits, so let’s do it.” |
Distortions: Psychological and Organizational Underpinnings
Divine Guidance (Belief Dominance)
Sacred Values (Tetlock et al., 2000) showed that sacred values (e.g., “We will never lay off employees”) are resistant to trade-offs or compromise, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. When sacred values clash with operational realities, leaders must facilitate dialogues that honor the value while exploring adaptive solutions.
The Paranoid (Assumption Dominance)
Risk Aversion in Decision-Making (MacCrimmon & Wehrung, 1986) explains how excessive risk aversion can paralyze organizations, leading to over-engineered processes or missed opportunities. A simple example within the context of project management could be to use Pareto Principle to focus mitigation efforts on the 20% of risks that drive 80% of potential impact, avoiding paranoia-driven overcontrol.
The Auction (Opinion Dominance)
The “Common Knowledge Effect” (Gigone & Hastie, 1993) found that groups tend to discuss information everyone knows, ignoring unique or critical insights held by individuals. To counter this, meetings, for example, can be started with a ‘silent brainstorm’ where everyone writes down their ideas before discussion begins.
The Machine (Fact Dominance)
Dehumanization in Data-Driven Cultures (Bandura, 1999) discussed the phenomenon of over-reliance on data, because it can lead to ignoring human or ethical considerations, which, in turn, reduces employees or customers to “metrics. To mitigate, you can pair your data based dashboards with storytelling sessions, where staff share how their work aligns with your mission. This humanizes the data, making it “yours”.
Achieving Balance: Practical Strategies
Balancing the four types of information requires intentionality. Here’s how to integrate them effectively:
- For Beliefs:
- Action: Incorporate values into mission statements, but regularly review them against new evidence.
- Tool: Values-based workshops or ethical dilemma discussions.
- For Assumptions:
- Action: Use scenario planning or retrospectives to stress-test assumptions.
- Tool: Risk assessment matrices or rolling forecasts.
- For Opinions:
- Action: Facilitate structured debates or anonymous feedback to ensure all perspectives are considered.
- Tool: Delphi method or digital polling platforms.
- For Facts:
- Action: Invest in data literacy and real-time dashboards to make facts accessible.
- Tool: Interactive data visualization tools (e.g., Tableau, Power BI).
Cultural and Contextual Considerations
The weight given to each type of information can vary by culture:
- High-context cultures (e.g., Japan, Finland) may prioritize Beliefs and Assumptions in decision-making, valuing harmony and indirect communication.
- Low-context cultures (e.g., U.S., Germany) often emphasize Facts and explicit Opinions.
Tip: Adapt your communication style to your audience. For example, in our Finnish business center, we balance data-driven arguments (Facts) with consensus-building (Beliefs/Opinions).
Reflection Questions for Leaders
What’s one assumption you’ve made recently that could benefit from fact-checking?
Which type of information do you or your organization tend to over-rely on?
How could you create space for quieter voices (e.g., introverts, data analysts) in decision-making?