Most of us get offered an awful lot of opinions or advice. There is no lack of folks that have some idea on how you should proceed, what you should do, how you should spend your time, what your priorities should be, on and on and on. Some of this advice is excellent. Some of this advice is terrible. If you are like me, often it is very difficult to know the difference. This is especially true when we interact with the other person as even the tone of a person’s voice can affect how they are perceived. Lower voice pitch is associated with perceptions of dominance and leadership abilities. Perhaps this is one reason many modern software engineering teams use a shared document to “discuss” technical solutions. This helps mitigate the “loudest voice in the room” problem.
I’ve written before about the wisdom of crowds that you can gain by surrounding yourself with a peer group. Collective wisdom can be a powerful tool in decision-making, as it draws from diverse perspectives and experiences that can uncover blind spots and inspire innovative solutions. However, relying too heavily on consensus can lead to groupthink, where the desire for harmony or uniformity stifles dissent and critical thinking (anyone up for a trip to Abilene?). As Sir Alec Issigonis, the creator of the iconic Mini in 1959, said, “A camel is a horse designed by a committee,” which seems pretty judgmental about the camel, but the point being that great things often don’t get designed by groups of people. When too many conflicting opinions shape a single decision, the result is often an outcome that satisfies no one fully and loses its original purpose.
Effective leaders surround themselves with diverse thinkers and know how to create an environment where differing viewpoints are encouraged and thoughtfully considered without derailing the decision-making process. By fostering a culture that values diverse input while maintaining focus, teams can strike the right balance between collaboration and decisive action. However, this approach doesn’t fit when we are approached by individuals who want to provide us with advice. We don’t always have the luxury of telling someone to stop and join a diverse set of folks who can help debate a topic.
Advice from Individuals
In scenarios where we are approached by individuals, be it bosses, peers, random strangers, family, etc., who offer us advice, we should start by considering their qualifications and credibility. Someone who has navigated similar challenges successfully may provide insights grounded in real-world experience, while others may base their guidance on theory or second hand knowledge. However, even experts can fall victim to overconfidence, particularly in areas outside their expertise. Therefore, it’s helpful to ask questions that reveal the basis of their perspective, such as how they approached similar problems and what outcomes they achieved. By doing so, you can better assess whether their advice is relevant to your unique situation and filter out opinions that may sound impressive but lack meaningful substance.
Even with experts, we should recognize the potential biases behind advice. People often view situations through the lens of their own experiences, priorities, and motivations, which can subtly shape the guidance they offer. For example, a mentor who thrives on risk-taking may push you toward bold decisions, while someone who values stability may advise caution, even if that doesn’t align with your goals. Additionally, personal agendas, such as a desire for influence or validation, can color their recommendations in ways that benefit them more than you. To navigate this, it’s important to ask yourself whether the advice supports your objectives or merely reflects someone else’s preferences. By staying mindful of these dynamics, you can approach advice with a healthy level of skepticism and make choices that remain true to your own values and aspirations.
"He who trims himself to suit everyone will soon whittle himself away."
– Raymond Hull, Canadian playwright (1919-1985)
In a world overflowing with opinions, the ability to filter noise and focus on constructive feedback is a crucial skill. Not all advice is relevant or helpful, some may be well-intentioned but misguided, while other input may stem from misunderstandings or personal biases. Without a filtering process, it’s easy to become overwhelmed or distracted by conflicting viewpoints, which can stall progress. One way to manage this is by developing a framework for prioritizing feedback, such as assessing its alignment with your goals, its practicality, and whether it addresses the core issue. Additionally, distinguishing between actionable insights and general commentary helps prevent valuable time and energy from being spent on tangents. By refining this filtering process, you can ensure that you’re focusing on feedback that genuinely enhances your path forward rather than adding unnecessary complexity.
Judge-Advisor Framework
One currently in fashion framework for this type of analysis is first principle thinking, which involves breaking down complex problems into their most basic parts often by asking “why?” repeatedly. Another framework that is insightful in these situations is the Judge-Advisor System (JAS). This framework captures the dynamic by placing the "judge", the ultimate decision-maker, at the center, surrounded by "advisors" who offer input. But advice-taking isn’t just about receiving information; it’s about the subtle interplay of expertise, confidence, and context that determines whether the advice shapes the final choice or gets dismissed.
One of the key factors influencing advice utilization is whether the judge has already formed a pre-advice opinion. When decision-makers come to the table with their minds made up, even expert advice may struggle to break through the anchor of their initial stance. In contrast, a judge without a firm preconception may be more open to influence, for better or worse. The number of advisors also plays a role: a single advisor might have an outsized impact, while multiple advisors could bring diverse perspectives, or create a cacophony of conflicting voices. This is where the advisor’s expertise and delivery become crucial. Judges tend to trust advice from credible, confident sources, but overconfidence from an unqualified advisor can mislead, just as timid delivery from a true expert can weaken their impact.
Equally important is the judge’s own confidence. A leader with unwavering self-assurance may brush off valuable input, convinced of their own instincts. Conversely, someone grappling with doubt may overcorrect, putting too much weight on external opinions. The complexity of the decision further amplifies these dynamics. In high-stakes or unfamiliar territory, judges often lean on advisors to fill knowledge gaps. In simpler scenarios, they may feel capable of forging ahead alone.
Interaction between judge and advisor also matters. Two-way conversations where the advisor explains their rationale can build trust and increase the chance that their advice is incorporated. In contrast, one-way communication, especially unsolicited advice, often lands flat. Finally, there’s the question of control. When decision-makers can choose when and whom to ask for advice, they’re more likely to value it. When advice feels forced or irrelevant, it’s easy to ignore.
Ultimately, the JAS reveals that advice-taking isn’t just a rational weighing of options, it’s an intricate process shaped by interpersonal dynamics, perceived credibility, and the unique pressures of the moment. In any organization, understanding how these factors play together can mean the difference between a decision that elevates performance and one that misses the mark entirely.
Conclusion
Discerning which advice to heed is a pivotal skill that can shape both personal and professional trajectories. While diverse perspectives can illuminate blind spots and inspire innovation, they can also cloud judgment if not critically assessed. Effective decision-making lies at the intersection of active listening, contextual understanding, and alignment with core values. Whether following the Judge-Advisor System framework, first principle thinking, or practicing mindful skepticism, the key is to remain adaptive and reflective. Ultimately, by filtering noise and focusing on relevant, actionable insights, you maintain agency in your choices, steering toward outcomes that resonate with your goals and principles. Remember, constructive advice elevates you, while unfounded noise merely distracts.