Available October 30, 2025

Episode 004: Data Noise and Decision Paralysis: When Too Much Information Kills Critical Thinking

Hosts: Kevin Novak and Elizabeth Stewart
Show: The Human Factor Podcast

Kevin: It’s 2:47 PM on a Wednesday afternoon. A senior executive sits at her desk, staring at three monitors displaying 47 browser tabs, 12 dashboard widgets, 8 Slack channels with unread messages, and a spreadsheet containing 87 KPIs from last quarter.

Elizabeth: Her CEO just asked a simple question: “Should we expand into the Southwest market?”

Kevin: She has more data than any executive in history could have dreamed of. Customer demographics. Competitor analysis. Market trends. Predictive analytics. AI-generated forecasts. Real-time social sentiment scores.

Elizabeth: Six hours later, she still hasn’t answered the question.

Kevin: Not because she doesn’t have enough information.

Elizabeth: Because she has too much.

Kevin: This is the paradox of our data-driven age. The more information we have access to, the harder it becomes to make decisions. We’re drowning in data while thirsting for insight.

I’m Kevin Novak, CEO of 2040 Digital, Professor at the University of Maryland and author of the book The Truth About Transformation and the Ideas and Innovations weekly newsletter.

Elizabeth: And I’m Elizabeth Stewart, Kevin’s consulting partner at 2040 Digital. I’ve spent the last fifteen years helping organizations navigate the intersection of human behavior and digital transformation.

Kevin: Welcome to The Human Factor Podcast. The show that explores the Intersection of Humanity, Technology, and Transformation and the psychology behind transformation success.

Elizabeth, I’m so looking forward to diving into this topic with you today. This is something we see with every single client, isn’t it?

Elizabeth: Absolutely, Kevin. And it’s getting worse, not better. Today, we’re investigating why access to unlimited information is creating decision paralysis, how data noise is killing critical thinking, and what we can do to maintain human judgment in our hyper-quantified world.

Kevin: Here’s a statistic that should concern every leader: According to research from the Institute for the Future, the average knowledge worker consumes 34 gigabytes of information daily—the equivalent of 100,000 words.

Elizabeth: That’s more information in a single day than someone in the 15th century would consume in a lifetime. But here’s what’s fascinating—and Kevin, you and I have seen this firsthand—despite having exponentially more data than previous generations, we’re not making better decisions. In many cases, we’re making worse ones.

Kevin: Exactly. A recent study found that 70% of C-suite executives report feeling overwhelmed by data, and 62% admit they’ve made poor decisions specifically because they had too much information to process.

Elizabeth: This isn’t just about being busy or distracted. It’s about a fundamental mismatch between how our brains evolved to process information and the information environment we’ve created.

Kevin: Over the past decade, through our work with organizations navigating digital transformation, we’ve observed something really interesting together, haven’t we Elizabeth?

Elizabeth: We have. The organizations that succeed aren’t the ones with the most data. They’re the ones that have learned to filter signal from noise. Today, we’re diving deep into:

• Why more data often leads to worse decisions—and the psychology behind decision paralysis
• How data noise is systematically destroying our capacity for critical thinking
• The cognitive traps that make us confuse activity with insight
• And practical frameworks for maintaining human judgment when drowning in metrics

Kevin: But first, let me share a story about what happens when data becomes the enemy of decision-making. Elizabeth, you remember the marketing team we worked with two years ago?

Elizabeth: Oh, the one with the 127 metrics? That was eye-opening.

Kevin: Exactly. This mid-sized organization was struggling with what they called “strategic clarity.” The CMO showed me their marketing dashboard. It tracked 127 different metrics. Daily active users. Click-through rates. Bounce rates. Conversion rates. Time on site. Pages per session. Social engagement. Email open rates. The list went on.

I said, “Impressive system. Which metrics actually drive your business decisions?”

Elizabeth: I remember the long pause that followed.

Kevin: Right. She finally said, “Well… all of them are important. That’s why we track them.”

So I tried a different approach: “Your CEO asks you if your marketing is working. What number do you give her?”

Elizabeth: Another long pause. And then that telling response: “It depends…”

Kevin: And there it was. The trap. They had built an elaborate system for measuring everything, but they couldn’t answer the most basic question: Is marketing working?

Elizabeth: Their team spent 10 hours each week generating reports. They had dashboards for their dashboards. They could tell you the engagement rate on Instagram posts on Tuesdays versus Thursdays. But when we asked them to identify the three metrics that actually predicted business success, they couldn’t do it.

Kevin: They weren’t measuring what mattered. They were measuring what was measurable. And those are two very different things.

Elizabeth: The psychological cost was enormous. Decision paralysis. Every meeting became a debate about which data to trust. Every strategy discussion got lost in conflicting metrics. The team spent more time analyzing data than taking action.

Kevin: As one team member confessed to me privately: “We’ve replaced thinking with counting.”

Elizabeth: This is the data noise crisis. And it’s affecting organizations everywhere.

Kevin: To understand why more data creates decision paralysis, we need to understand three psychological phenomena. Elizabeth, you want to start with cognitive overload?

Elizabeth: Absolutely. The human brain can consciously process about 126 bits of information per second. Sounds like a lot, right? But here’s the thing—understanding one person speaking to you requires about 60 bits per second. This is why you can’t truly listen to two people talking simultaneously—you literally don’t have the cognitive bandwidth.

Kevin: Now consider the modern workplace. You’re in a meeting while monitoring Slack, checking email, glancing at dashboard notifications, and trying to absorb a 60-slide PowerPoint presentation.

Elizabeth: Your brain isn’t processing more information. It’s thrashing—rapidly switching between inputs without deeply processing any of them. Neuroscientist Daniel Levitin’s research shows that this constant task-switching depletes the very neural resources we need for critical thinking and decision-making.

Kevin: Each switch costs us time, but more importantly, it costs us the cognitive depth required for sound judgment. It’s a concept I try to ingrain with my students in every class. The result? We make surface-level decisions based on whichever data point we saw last, not the data that actually matters.

Elizabeth: The second phenomenon is what psychologist Barry Schwartz calls “the paradox of choice”—the counterintuitive finding that more options lead to worse decisions and lower satisfaction.

Kevin: His research showed that consumers facing too many choices experience decision paralysis—they can’t choose at all. They have opportunity cost anxiety—worrying about the options they didn’t select. Their expectations escalate unrealistically. And when they’re dissatisfied, they blame themselves because they had so many options.

Elizabeth: This same psychology applies to data-driven decision-making. Kevin, remember that leadership team we watched spend three hours debating whether to use customer acquisition cost or customer lifetime value as their primary growth metric?

Kevin: While their competitors were actually acquiring customers!

Elizabeth: Exactly. The paradox: The freedom to analyze everything creates the inability to decide anything.

Kevin: The third phenomenon is perhaps the most dangerous—confirmation bias in a data-rich environment. Here’s the dangerous part: More data doesn’t eliminate bias. It amplifies it.

Elizabeth: Research from the University of Illinois found that when people have access to large amounts of data, they become more skilled at cherry-picking information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs and biases.

Kevin: I’ve written about this repeatedly in my newsletter. It works like this: A CEO believes their organization should expand into international markets. Instead of objectively evaluating whether this is the right move, they unconsciously search through available data until they find metrics that support this belief.

Elizabeth: “Look—our brand awareness in Europe is growing!” Meanwhile, they overlook data showing poor international customer retention, higher support costs, and cultural misalignment.

Kevin: With limited data, you’re forced to grapple with whatever information you have. With unlimited data, you can curate a narrative that supports any position you want.

Elizabeth: And this isn’t intentional deception. It’s unconscious bias amplified by data abundance. The cognitive load of processing massive amounts of information makes us more likely—not less likely—to rely on mental shortcuts and our ingrained biases.

Kevin: When you combine cognitive overload, choice paralysis, and confirmation bias in a data-rich environment, you get organizations where analysis replaces action, measurement replaces thinking, reporting replaces strategy, and data collection replaces decision-making.

Elizabeth: The tragic irony? Organizations invest millions in data infrastructure believing it will make them more decisive, more strategic, more effective. Instead, they actually become slower, more risk-averse, and less capable of the critical thinking that actually drives success.

Kevin: Let me be clear about something: Data isn’t the enemy. The problem is our relationship with data.

Elizabeth: We call it “data dependency”—the belief that having more numbers makes us smarter, that measurement equals understanding, and that if something can’t be quantified, it doesn’t matter. This dependency is systematically destroying our capacity for critical thinking.

Kevin: Let me explain how. First destruction pattern: We’ve stopped asking “Why.” In a recent workshop, I asked a room of 40 executives a simple question: “Why do you track the metrics you track?”

Elizabeth: The most common response was shocking: “Because that’s what the dashboard shows.”

Kevin: Think about how backward that is. They weren’t tracking metrics because those metrics informed important decisions. They were tracking metrics because someone had already built a system to track them.

Elizabeth: This is what happens when data collection becomes separated from purpose. Critical thinking starts with questions: Why does this matter? What decision will this inform? What would change based on this information? But in data-rich environments, we skip these questions entirely.

Kevin: I’ve seen organizations spending tens of thousands of dollars monthly on analytics platforms, measuring dozens of variables, without anyone asking the fundamental question: “Why are we measuring this?”

Elizabeth: When pressed, teams often can’t articulate how a specific metric connects to business outcomes. They just know it’s “important to track.” This is measurement theater—creating the appearance of data-driven decision-making without the substance of actual insight.

Kevin: The second destruction pattern: We’ve replaced analysis with reporting. Elizabeth, tell them about that customer satisfaction scenario we see all the time.

Elizabeth: Oh, this drives me crazy. A team generates a weekly report showing that customer satisfaction scores dropped 3% last week. The report gets circulated. Everyone sees the number. Meeting adjourned.

But did anyone ask why satisfaction dropped? Did anyone investigate the underlying causes? Did anyone recommend actions to reverse the trend?

Kevin: No. Because the report itself became the deliverable. The data was presented, so the job was done.

Elizabeth: This is the difference between reporting and analysis:

• Reporting says: “Sales decreased 12% in Q3”
• Analysis asks: “Why did sales decrease, what contributed to it, what patterns can we identify, and what actions should we take?”

Kevin: Reporting is passive. Analysis is active. But analysis requires critical thinking—forming hypotheses, testing assumptions, evaluating evidence, drawing conclusions. It’s hard work.

Elizabeth: Reporting just requires running a query and exporting to PowerPoint. Much easier. As data becomes easier to generate, organizations increasingly substitute reporting for analysis. They confuse showing numbers with understanding them.

Kevin: The result? Mountains of reports that nobody acts on, because nobody actually thinks about what the data means.

Elizabeth: The third pattern—false precision—is one of my personal favorites. Kevin, remember the retail company tracking customer satisfaction to the hundredth of a decimal point?

Kevin: Their satisfaction score was 7.23. Not 7.2. Not 7. Precisely 7.23. I asked the CEO: “What would you do differently if this number was 7.19 versus 7.27?” He looked at me blankly. “I… I’m not sure.”

Elizabeth: This is false precision—the illusion that more decimal places equal more accuracy or more insight. But customer satisfaction isn’t that precise. Human experience isn’t that precise. The survey methodology itself has a margin of error larger than those decimal differences.

Kevin: False precision creates two problems. First, it makes us believe we have more certainty than we actually do. That 7.23 feels definitive. Scientific. Trustworthy. In reality, it might be meaningless noise.

Elizabeth: Second, it distracts us from the real questions. Instead of asking “Are customers happy?” we debate whether 7.23 is statistically different from 7.19. We’re measuring with micrometer precision what should be understood with human judgment.

Kevin: The fourth destruction pattern: We’ve lost contextual intelligence. Data shows what happened. Context explains why it matters.

Elizabeth: Kevin, that SaaS company story is perfect here.

Kevin: Right. They celebrated when their user engagement metrics increased 45% in one month. Champagne was literally opened. Three months later, revenue was down 30%.

Elizabeth: What happened? The engagement increase came from users desperately trying to figure out how to cancel their subscriptions after a poorly designed interface update. Higher engagement. Lower satisfaction. Net result: disaster.

Kevin: The data showed engagement up. Context would have shown satisfaction collapsing. But collecting contextual information is messy. It requires talking to customers. Observing behavior. Making judgments. Synthesizing qualitative and quantitative information.

Elizabeth: Much easier to just look at the dashboard and celebrate the green arrows going up. Critical thinking requires context. Data without context is just noise.

Kevin: When we stop asking why, replace analysis with reporting, create false precision, and ignore context, we haven’t just lost critical thinking skills. We’ve created organizations where those skills are actively discouraged.

Elizabeth: The person who asks uncomfortable questions about what data actually means becomes the problem. The person who points out that the metrics might be misleading becomes the bottleneck. The person who suggests we need less data and more judgment becomes the obstacle to “data-driven decision-making.”

Kevin: We’ve built systems that reward data collection and punish critical thinking. And we wonder why our decisions keep getting worse.

Elizabeth: Kevin, before we talk about solutions, we need to understand why intelligent, capable leaders fall into these traps. It’s not because they’re lazy or stupid. It’s because data dependency serves powerful psychological needs.

Kevin: Exactly. Let’s start with the illusion of control. Uncertainty creates anxiety. Data creates the feeling of control. When a CEO can look at a dashboard showing 50 metrics, they feel like they understand what’s happening in their organization. The anxiety of uncertainty is temporarily relieved.

Elizabeth: But this is often an illusion. Those metrics might be measuring the wrong things. They might be lagging indicators that tell you about the past, not predictors that help you shape the future. They might be precise measurements of irrelevant variables. But they feel like control. And that feeling is powerfully addictive.

Kevin: I’ve worked with executives who spent hours each day reviewing dashboards, tweaking reports, analyzing trends—all while their organizations struggled with strategic challenges that couldn’t be solved with more data. When I suggested they needed less data and more judgment, the response was visceral anxiety: “But then how will I know what’s happening?”

Elizabeth: The data wasn’t informing their decisions. It was managing their anxiety. The second psychological need is what I call “defensibility over correctness.” Here’s an uncomfortable truth about organizational decision-making: Being right is often less important than being defensible.

Kevin: If you make a decision based on judgment and it fails, you’re blamed for poor judgment. If you make a decision based on data and it fails, you can point to the data: “Look, the metrics supported this choice.”

Elizabeth: Data provides cover. It shifts responsibility from human judgment to algorithmic output. This creates perverse incentives. Leaders don’t optimize for making the best decisions. They optimize for making the most defensible decisions.

Kevin: And data—even flawed, incomplete, or misleading data—feels more defensible than human judgment. This explains why so many bad decisions persist even when everyone senses they’re wrong. As long as the data supports it, the decision is defensible.

Elizabeth: The third need is complexity signaling. There’s a status element to data sophistication. The executive who says “We use a proprietary AI-driven predictive analytics model with 87 variables” sounds more impressive than the executive who says “We talk to customers and use our judgment.”

Kevin: Complexity has become a signal of sophistication. Simplicity suggests you’re not serious or rigorous. I’ve sat in meetings where leaders presented Byzantine dashboards not because those dashboards informed decisions, but because complex data displays signaled their analytical prowess.

Elizabeth: This is what sociologist Thorstein Veblen called “conspicuous consumption”—displaying complexity to signal status, regardless of whether that complexity adds value.

Kevin: The fourth and perhaps deepest psychological driver: Data lets us avoid the weight of responsibility. When you make a decision based on judgment, you own that decision. Your experience, your intuition, your assessment of the situation.

Elizabeth: But when you make a decision based on data, you can claim you’re just following what the numbers say. “The algorithm recommended this.” “The data pointed in this direction.” “The metrics indicated this was the right choice.” The decision becomes automated. Impersonal. Not really yours.

Kevin: This is psychologically comfortable. It’s also dangerous. Because the most important decisions—the ones that truly matter—require human judgment. They require someone to synthesize incomplete information, make assessments under uncertainty, and take responsibility for choices that can’t be reduced to metrics.

Elizabeth: Data dependency allows us to avoid this responsibility. We outsource judgment to systems, then blame those systems when things go wrong. Understanding these psychological drivers is crucial, because you can’t solve data noise by just building better dashboards or cleaning up your metrics. You have to address the human needs that data dependency serves.

Kevin: So Elizabeth, how do we navigate this? How do we use data without being paralyzed by it? How do we maintain critical thinking in a data-saturated environment?

Elizabeth: Through our research and consulting work at 2040 Digital, we’ve developed what we call the “Signal Clarity Framework”—five principles for cutting through data noise and maintaining human judgment. Kevin, you want to start with the first principle?

Kevin: Principle 1: Start with the Decision, Not the Data. Most organizations work backwards. They collect data, then figure out what decisions that data might inform. This is exactly wrong.

Elizabeth: The effective approach: Identify the decisions you need to make, then determine what information would help make those decisions better. Before collecting any data, ask three questions:

1. What decision are we trying to make?
2. What would we need to know to make this decision well?
3. What’s the minimum information required to move forward?

Kevin: Note that last question: minimum information, not maximum information. Example: A company is deciding whether to launch a new product line. Wrong approach: Collect every available piece of market data, customer feedback, competitive analysis, and financial projection. Six months later, still analyzing.

Elizabeth: Right approach: Identify the three or four critical unknowns that would change your decision. Get clear answers to those specific questions. Decide. The discipline isn’t collecting more data. It’s identifying which data actually matters.

Kevin: Principle 2: Measure What Matters, Ignore What Doesn’t. This sounds obvious, but it’s shockingly rare.

Elizabeth: Most organizations have vanity metrics—numbers that look good but don’t inform decisions—and actionable metrics—numbers that directly connect to business outcomes. The ratio is usually about 80/20.

Kevin: For every metric you track, ask three questions:

1. If this number changed significantly, would we do something different?
2. Can we directly influence this number through our actions?
3. Does this number predict an outcome we care about?

If you can’t answer “yes” to at least two of these questions, stop tracking that metric.

Elizabeth: I helped one client reduce their tracked metrics from 67 to 11. They were initially terrified. Six months later, they reported making faster, better decisions because they weren’t drowning in irrelevant data.

Kevin: Principle 3: Context Over Precision. Remember: All data exists within a context. Numbers without context are just numbers. Before trusting any data point, ask five context questions.

Elizabeth: What’s the source and methodology? What’s the margin of error? What’s the historical pattern? What else was happening at the same time? And crucially—what does qualitative information tell us?

Kevin: Example: Sales dropped 15% last quarter. Without context: Panic. Emergency meetings. Heads roll. With context: The 15% drop happened because the company intentionally stopped discounting products, leading to fewer but more profitable sales. Net revenue actually increased.

Elizabeth: The number was alarming. The context showed it was actually positive. Critical thinking means always seeking context before reacting to data.

Kevin: Principle 4: Cultivate Informed Intuition. Here’s something data evangelists don’t like to admit: Human intuition, when properly informed, often outperforms algorithmic decision-making.

Elizabeth: Nobel Prize-winning psychologist Daniel Kahneman distinguished between expert intuition—pattern recognition developed through extensive experience—and magical thinking—gut feelings without legitimate basis. The goal isn’t to eliminate intuition. It’s to develop expert intuition that’s informed by data but not enslaved to it.

Kevin: The most effective leaders we’ve worked with don’t choose between data and intuition. They develop the judgment to know when to trust each.

Elizabeth: Principle 5: Build Decision Velocity. Kevin, this is where Jeff Bezos’s Type 1 and Type 2 framework becomes so valuable.

Kevin: Exactly. Type 1 decisions are irreversible with major consequences—they require careful analysis. Type 2 decisions are reversible with manageable consequences—they require speed. Most decisions are Type 2. But organizations treat them like Type 1, demanding extensive data analysis before acting.

Elizabeth: For every decision, ask: If this decision is wrong, how hard is it to reverse? What’s the cost of being wrong versus the cost of delay? What can we learn by moving forward that we can’t learn by analyzing?

Kevin: Let me show you how these principles work together. Remember that client struggling with the mobile app versus website decision?

Elizabeth: Six months of analysis paralysis!

Kevin: Right. Traditional approach would have been customer surveys, competitive benchmarking, financial modeling, user testing, market research. Still no decision.

Using our Signal Clarity Framework: We started with the decision—”We need to decide where to invest our limited development resources.” Identified what matters—”Will customers use this enough to justify the investment?” Added context—”Customers use mobile for quick reference, desktop for deep engagement.” Applied informed intuition—”Customers want better functionality more than a new platform.” And applied the reversibility test—”We can start lightweight and expand if justified.”

Elizabeth: Decision made in three weeks. They built a minimal mobile experience, measured actual usage, and made informed decisions about future investment based on real data, not projected data. Total time from decision to implementation: Two months.

Kevin: More importantly, they didn’t waste six months analyzing a decision they could learn more about by acting.

Elizabeth: Let’s get practical. Here are four specific actions you can take to cut through data noise.

Kevin: Action 1: Conduct a Metrics Audit. List every metric your organization currently tracks. Apply the Three-Question Test. Eliminate any metric that doesn’t pass. Be ruthless.

Elizabeth: Action 2: Establish Decision Protocols. Create clear protocols for fast decisions, collaborative decisions, and major decisions. Most organizations have only one protocol: Analyze everything. This creates paralysis.

Kevin: Action 3: Practice Information Fasting. For one week, disable your primary dashboards. Make decisions based on customer conversations, team observations, and informed judgment. It’s an exercise to break data dependency.

Elizabeth: Action 4: Develop Critical Thinking Rituals. Before any data-driven decision, ask: What are we assuming? What might this data not show us? What would we need to believe for this conclusion to be wrong? Make these questions mandatory.

Kevin: Here’s what we want you to remember: Data is a tool, not a replacement for thinking. Metrics are aids to judgment, not substitutes for it.

Elizabeth: The organizations that thrive in our data-saturated world aren’t the ones with the most sophisticated analytics. They’re the ones that have maintained the human capacity for critical thinking, contextual judgment, and decisive action.

Kevin: They understand that sometimes the most data-driven decision is to ignore the data and trust informed judgment. They recognize that clarity comes from filtering signal from noise, not from collecting everything.

Elizabeth: They know that the goal isn’t to measure more—it’s to understand better.

Kevin: We’ve created unprecedented access to information. But information without wisdom is just noise. The competitive advantage in the next decade won’t belong to organizations with the most data. It will belong to organizations with the best judgment about what data matters—and the courage to act on that judgment.

Elizabeth: Next week, Kevin will be back for Episode 005: The Psychology of Letting Go: Why ‘We’ve Always Done It This Way’ Is Killing Organizations. What makes smart people cling to outdated methods even when they know better?

Kevin: We’ll explore the deep psychological mechanisms that make “unlearning” one of the hardest human challenges. I’ll share why your organization’s greatest asset—its experience—might actually be its greatest liability, and the human factors required to successfully release the past.

Elizabeth: If this episode resonated with you, please subscribe to The Human Factor Podcast, leave a rating and share your comments. And if you’re drowning in data and struggling to make clear decisions, share this episode with your team and your network.

Kevin: For more resources on cutting through data noise and making better decisions, visit humanfactormethod.com.

Elizabeth: Until next week, remember: The goal isn’t more data—it’s better judgment. Measure accordingly.

Kevin & Elizabeth: Thank you for listening.

🎵

Upcoming: Available November 6, 2025

Episode 005: The Psychology of Letting Go: Why ‘We’ve Always Done It This Way’ Is Killing Organizations

Letting go of what worked in the past might be the hardest thing your organization has ever done.

And why your greatest asset—your organizational experience and memory—might actually be your greatest liability.

More Episodes Coming Soon

View Main Podcast Page →