Shiny Object Syndrome - The Fine Line Between Survival and Distraction
When SOS is more than an urgent leadership cry for help
Dear Fellow Substacker,
Iām Bette, and Iām excited to welcome you to my weekly articles on leadership! I focus on topics such as the workplace, employees, and leadership lessons grounded in both experience and research.
If you find value in what I share, Iād truly appreciate it if you passed it along to others who might benefit.
Thank you for joining me, and I look forward to connecting with you!
Thanks and warm regards!
Imagine you're leading your team. You're sure you're heading in the right direction. Then you realize, you're not. You're about to hit an iceberg. You know that metaphorical one that sank the Titanic. What you're really chasing isn't success at all. It's the latest shiny object. The new tech gadget. The buzzworthy initiative. The newest industry "disruption." Congratulations, you have what we call Shiny Object Syndrome (SOS).
What if the real problem isn't just the allure of something new?
What if it's deeper? What if it's biases, pressures, and hidden traps that sabotage your decisions? Take intuition, for example. The romantic belief that gut feelings will lead to great choices. We all think we have that inner superpower that never steers us wrong. Would you believe data says otherwise? A PwC survey of over 1,000 senior executives shows data-driven companies make better decisions.
Those who rely on intuition alone? Not so much.
Leadership isnāt just about spotting trends. Itās about knowing which ones to chase and which to leave behind. Itās a balance between staying focused and getting swept up by the chaos. But trends arenāt the only problem. Groupthink, decision biases, and the fear of upsetting the status quo are just as dangerous.
The cell phone wars begin
Take Nokia. I worked in the mobile phone industry when they crushed the competition. They werenāt flashy. They werenāt sleek. They looked more like bricks than smartphones. But they worked. Their reception was unmatched. They were as durable as a tank. But, like the person who refuses to let go of their flip phone because "it still makes calls," Nokia couldn't adapt.
While Apple and Android were pushing ahead with touch screens and software, Nokia stuck with hardware. They thought their superior tech would always win. Spoiler alert: it didnāt. They became complacent. They couldnāt see how the world was changing around them.
The tech industry, built on disruption, couldnāt keep up with the very disruption they helped create. Success made them comfortable. Comfort led to stagnation. The company that once dominated the market got left behind. Itās like that teenager who thinks theyāre invincibleāuntil theyāre not.
Involved leadership is about staying hungry. Keep questioning. Keep pushing. Or youāll end up like Nokia. Stuck in the past, bankrupt, and struggling.
It's ironic how a company built on disruptive technology stumbled over its own two feet. This is often the problem that arises when people become successful and surround themselves with individuals who aren't looking to continue improving, innovating, or moving forward.
The Challenger Disaster: Groupthink and the Perils of Ignoring Dissent
The defining moment for my generation was when the Challenger exploded in 1986. We all remember where we were when it happened. I saw it on TV when I got home over and over. The only person I recall from the group is Krista McAuliffe, the teacher chosen to go with them. That moment is seared in my memory.
Even though the engineers raised concerns about the faulty O-rings, their pleas were ignored because they had a schedule to stick to. It was classic groupthink. Everyone nodded along, afraid to rock the boat. The result? A tragedy that could have been avoided.
Silencing concerns often leads to catastrophic results. The best decisions come from considering different perspectives, especially when the stakes are high. Because like with the Challenger disaster, lives may depend on it.
Decision Bias: Why Data Is Ignored
So, what was really going on here? Both Nokia and NASA were victims of biases clouding their judgment. Letās be honest, leadership decisions are rarely unbiasedāeven with data at hand. According to Harvard Business Review, 36% of companies using big data and AI prioritize advanced analytics and better decision-making, with 69% of them achieving success. However, many still selectively use data that supports their narrative.
Itās like trying to find the shortest route on a map but only following the roads you already know, while ignoring the others. And when it comes to data monetization, only 27% of companies prioritize it, and even fewer succeedāshowing just how challenging it can be to make truly objective decisions.
A global survey found that 72% of business leaders say the huge amount of data and their lack of trust in it have stopped them from making decisions. What's more, 70% would rather have a robot do it for them. Let that sink in.
In my time working in education, data was often trotted out to justify initiatives when they knew they didnāt have the needed buy in. But when I tried using the same data to back up decisions I was making, suddenly it didnāt matter. It was like the data had a split personality. Leaders have to confront their biases and be open to uncomfortable truths, or else theyāll keep running on the hamster wheel of self-justification that becomes their downfall.
The Innovatorās Dilemma in Action
The tension between stability and disruption is not a problem exclusive to Nokia. Itās something all leaders face. Successful organizations often excel at small, incremental changes. But when a disruptive innovation comes along, they hesitate. Why? Because it threatens the very thing thatās worked in the past.
Blockbuster underestimated the potential of online streaming.
Sears failed to adapt to the changing retail landscape, including the rise of e-commerce.
The Boeing 737 MAX crashes highlighted serious safety concerns raising questions about the prioritization of production schedules and profit margins.
They were driven by the natural tendency to cling to whatās working. But disruption isnāt a choice. Itās coming for everyone, and you either adapt or get left behind. The question isnāt whether or not itās happening, but when and how to handle it. Leaders need to shift their mindset and treat disruption as an opportunity rather than a threat.
You donāt have to fear change, but you do need to know when to act.
Practical Lessons for Decision-Makers
The mistakes made by Nokia, NASA, and others show a common problem. But itās easier to fix than you may think: Listen to those who disagree. The individuals raising concerns and pointing out the elephants in the room aren't trying to be difficult. They're singling out problems that need to be addressed. Leaders must make space for these voices, even if they frustrate you.
Tackle decision biases head-on. The best way to do this? Use structured decision-making frameworks. A āred teamā can help expose blind spots and challenge assumptions. Itās like putting on glasses that show you all the smudges youāve been ignoring.
Know the difference between a passing trend and a real transformation. Nokia, for instance, dismissed smartphones as a fad. Big mistake. Disruption isnāt always obvious at first glance, but when itās coming, leaders have to recognize it.
Balance short-term goals with long-term vision. Kodak invented the first digital camera in 1975 but chose not to pursue it. They feared it would hurt their film sales. By the time they entered the digital market, it was too late. They went bankrupt in 2012. Blockbuster dismissed Netflix and streaming as a niche fad, sticking to in-store rentals and DVDs. They also went bankrupt in 2010.
In academia, the mantra is āpublish or perish,ā but in the corporate world, itās āinnovate or die.ā Leaders must accept innovation, even when it disrupts their current success. Resting on your laurels is not an option. It could very well be the beginning of the end if you do.
The Pitfalls of Selective Data Use
Data-driven decisions is the biggest new buzz phrase. But donāt cherry-pick numbers to back your pet projects. Data is most powerful when itās clear and consistent, not manipulated to fit a narrative.
My experience working in higher education highlights this issue like a neon flashing sign. Leadership often chose data that supported their new ideas. They used it to push initiatives onto those of us forced to make it work - generally with increased workloads and no extra pay or other incentive. Yet, when we used the same data to raise concerns, it was dismissed or downplayed.
I once submitted a report to the associate dean showing I was assigned three times the workload they themselves stated was optimal. I asked if they planned to provide more support because these new processes they were pushing added even more work. I was told it was "on their radar" and that they had "known for a while itās been a problem." But nothing was done beyond those empty words.
This selective use of data undermines trust and effective decision-making.
The Latest Shiny Object
AI is the newest shiny object that everyoneās talking about. The potential and disruption of It is immense. We canāt even fathom all the ways itās going to completely change our world as we now know it, but itās easy to get distracted by the glamour and glitz of it all. The problem: AI can be just as dangerous as it is helpful if used irresponsibly.
In healthcare, AI systems can prioritize white patients over people of color. In recruitment, algorithms often overlook candidates from underrepresented groups. This reflects how biases from those who create AI systems can influence the technologies themselves, sometimes in ways that are harmful or unfair.
A recent Deloitte Global survey of board directors and executives found that nearly 50% report that AI is still not part of the board's agenda. It's like being given a brand-new tool but using it with a dull blade or putting it on backwards. It wonāt work as intended, and it could be dangerous. Leaders need to weigh the potential of AI carefully and make sure theyāre using it ethically. Otherwise, it could do more harm than good. This needs to be an organizational priority.
Paradox of Choice in Decision-Making
Imagine a leader caught between sticking with a profitable but outdated product and adopting a disruptive innovation that could hurt their business. It's a common struggle and this is where cognitive dissonance comes in. Itās the discomfort you feel when torn between conflicting beliefs. Add the paradox of choice, Where too many options leave you paralyzed, and you end up with a nice, hot, heaping helping of indecision... and later, a dash of regret.
So, what do you do? You ignore the reality and hope itās just a fad that will pass.
Decision-makers are overwhelmed by options. With countless new tools and strategies available, it's easy to get sidetracked. But sometimes, the best move is to simplify. Focus on what aligns with your long-term vision, not every new trend that pops up. Be an involved leader, and ensure you're hiring the right people, as Jim Collins points out in Good to Great. You need to get the right people on the bus and the wrong ones off.
Once you surround yourself with the best people, talk to them and listen to what they have to say even if itās hard to hear.
Final Thoughts
Great decision-makers donāt just avoid failure. They run towards it with open arms if it means learning and adapting. They understand that data, trends, and technologies are useful, but clarity of vision, ethical responsibility, and decisive action are what ultimately define success.
Involved leadership isnāt about waiting for the fog to lift. Itās about turning on your high beams, plowing through, and pushing until you reach the other side where the sun is shining and clarity awaits.
No one is saying itās easy. If you want the glory, you need the gutsāand a few scars to show for it.
The Challenger example perfectly captures how groupthink isn't about avoiding conflict - it can literally be life or death. But his pattern keeps repeating: Nokia, Blockbuster, Kodak... all killed by their own success. They got so good at what they did, they couldn't imagine doing it differently.
We're not just fighting shiny object syndrome anymore. We're fighting against our own instincts in a world that moves faster than human intuition was built for. When 70% of leaders would rather have robots make decisions, that's not just about data - it's about fear. Fear of being Nokia in an iPhone world.
PS I hate iphones lol
Maybe the real skill isn't choosing between stability and disruption, but knowing when to trust your gut and when to trust the numbers.
Good piece with strong insight! This is the best little nugget: "Once you surround yourself with the best people, talk to them and listen to what they have to say even if itās hard to hear."