Dirk Verburg

We are always informed by our intuition when it comes to making decisions. More often than not our intuition is ‘right’, but there are also situations when we should definitely not rely on our intuition.

Being able to determine when to use our intuition and when not, often means the difference between our success and failure.

In my second interview with Professor Eugene Sadler-Smith for the Leadership 2.0 Podcast, we discussed the role of intuition in decision-making processes.

During our conversation, we touched on the following topics:

0️⃣1️⃣ What intuition is and what it is not
0️⃣2️⃣ The two types of intuition
0️⃣3️⃣ Adopting an Ambidextrous Mindset
0️⃣4️⃣ How to take important decisions in business
0️⃣5️⃣ Carl Jung and Intuition
0️⃣6️⃣ Why the intuitive mind is a slow learner
0️⃣7️⃣ Values and ethics in decision-making processes
0️⃣8️⃣ Final Thoughts – AI and intuition

Watch or listen to the Interview

▶ YouTube

▶ Apple Podcasts 

▶ Spotify 

Summary

► No time to listen to podcast now? Here is a short summary of our conversation ⤵

Dirk Verburg: What is intuition, and what is it not, according to your research?
Eugene Sadler-Smith: Intuition is “knowing without knowing how or why you know.” It’s fast, automatic, and manifests as a gut feeling or hunch about a situation or person. For example, knowing a house feels “right” instantly. However, it is not a sixth sense, paranormal, or precognition. It’s a product of learning and experience—a “muscular view” of intuition—a manifestation of expertise that can be developed, rather than something magical or innate.

Dirk Verburg: In your book ‘Trust Your Gut,’ you distinguish two types of intuition. Could you describe them?
Eugene Sadler-Smith: The first type is automated expertise. This occurs when experienced individuals face familiar situations (e.g., a firefighter at a blaze). Cues from the situation trigger a recognized pattern, activating a quick, unconscious “action script” or recipe for action. The second type is a holistic hunch. Here, things feel “off” or “don’t stack up” (e.g., a suspicious feeling about an entrepreneur). Unlike automated expertise, there’s no immediate recipe for action; it’s an alarm bell prompting further investigation and analysis to understand the underlying issue.

Dirk Verburg: You advocate for an “ambidextrous mind” combining analytical and intuitive thinking. What are their strengths and limitations, and how do they complement each other?
Eugene Sadler-Smith: We have one brain but two minds: analytical and intuitive. The analytical mind is slow, effortful, conscious, serial, detail-oriented, and verbal. It’s a “solving system.” The intuitive mind is fast, low-effort, non-conscious, parallel, sees the big picture/patterns, and communicates through gut feelings. It’s a “sensing system.” They didn’t evolve to conflict but to complement. To be cognitively ambidextrous, we must learn to use both: analytical for solving, intuitive for sensing.

Dirk Verburg: In decision-making, when should a leader consciously choose intuition versus analysis, or vice-versa, even if their initial inclination differs?
Eugene Sadler-Smith: Most consequential decisions involve both analysis and intuition. I use a “traffic light” model. If both analysis and intuition say “yes,” it’s a green light (go). If both say “no,” it’s a red light (stop). The tricky “yellow light” situations are when they conflict:

• Analysis says YES, Intuition says NO: Re-examine the analysis. (e.g., forensic accounting: data looks fine, but a hunch says something is wrong, prompting deeper investigation.)
• Intuition says YES, Analysis says NO: Stress-test the intuition with a trusted confidant or devil’s advocate. If it holds up, it’s more robust. Leaders don’t have the luxury of choosing one over the other; they must learn to integrate both for optimal decisions.

Dirk Verburg: Do you see parallels between Carl Jung’s distinction of “sensing” and “intuition” and your analytical/intuitive mind distinction?
Eugene Sadler-Smith: While I’m not a Jungian expert, Jung’s “sensing” appears to be about tangible sense impressions (outside-to-in). My “intuitive mind” then senses something internally based on those impressions (inside-to-out). My “sensing” refers to the intuitive mind’s capacity to process all those impressions in parallel and form a non-verbal, holistic understanding—a gut feeling. While it might sound like a “sixth sense,” it’s not paranormal; it’s an internalized, deeply integrated cognitive process.

Dirk Verburg: You’ve stated the intuitive mind is a “slow learner” but “fleet of foot.” Why is it a slow learner, and how should this influence its use in decision-making?
Eugene Sadler-Smith: It’s a slow learner because developing intuitive expertise takes extensive practice and time—often 10,000 hours or 10 years, as Herbert Simon noted, describing intuitions as “analyses frozen into habit.” This means rapid, effortless intuitive decisions are built on years of prior deliberate analysis. While the intuitive mind is fast in action, its development is prolonged. We can accelerate this through “high-quality practice,” which involves deliberate effort, stepping outside comfort zones, and crucially, receiving consistent coaching and feedback. Without feedback, bad intuitions can persist.

Dirk Verburg: Where and how do values and ethics enter decision-making processes, particularly considering the analytical and intuitive minds?
Eugene Sadler-Smith: Ethical judgments are often intuitive. Jonathan Haidt’s research suggests we have immediate “moral intuitions”—gut reactions to dilemmas—and then rationalize them afterward. These moral intuitions aren’t hardwired, but “softwired”; our nature prepares us to develop them. This malleability means moral intuitions can be shaped by culture, persuasion, or charismatic leaders, for good or ill. While powerful, this also makes them potentially dangerous, as they can be influenced to make unethical decisions.

Dirk Verburg: Is there anything else you’d like to share regarding intuition and decision-making, perhaps related to AI?
Eugene Sadler-Smith: With the rise of AI, a key question is what human intuition offers that machines cannot. A crucial aspect is creative intuition. Intuition excels at seeing novel connections and patterns, leading to creative insights and solutions. While generative AI can mimic creativity by producing art or poetry, it’s doing so by mimicking existing patterns. Human intuition, however, brings a unique, inherent capacity for genuine novelty and insight that goes beyond mere mimicry.

About Eugene Sadler Smith

Eugene Sadler Smith is a Professor of Organizational Behaviour at the Surrey Business School. His research interests include hubris (in leadership, business, and politics) and intuition (in decision-making and creativity). 

He published over 100 articles in peer-reviewed journals, and his research has featured on BBC Radio 4, BBC Local Radio, Sky TV, The Insight Channel, The Times, The Guardian, and others. 

Eugene worked on research and executive education projects with, amongst others, Tesco, Mind Gym, ICSA, CIPD, Met Police, Surrey Police, Welsh Government, Forbes, Home Office and the Scottish Government.

He has written a number of books: Learning and Development for Managers (Blackwell, 2006); Inside Intuition (Routledge, 2008); The Intuitive Mind (John Wiley and Sons, 2010, translated into Japanese, Korean, Portuguese, and Russian); Hubristic Leadership (with a Foreword by Lord David Owen, SAGE, 2018); Human Resource Development: From Theory into Practice (SAGE, 2022), ‘Intuition in Business’ (Oxford University Press in 2023), and ‘The Hubris Hazard, and how to avoid it’ (Routledge, 2024).

In September 2024, his book ‘Trust your gut: Go with your intuition and make better choices’ will be published by Pearson Academic.

Resources

The E-Mail address of Eugene Sadler-Smith is: e.sadler-smith@surrey.ac.uk

His website dedicated to the topic of Hubris is thehubrishub.com.