Reality testing: How to see clearly and decide wisely

FOG (Fact, Opinion, Guess) Scan

Leaders operate in constant noise: meetings, reports, and messages filled with claims, impressions, and assumptions. Under this pressure, it is easy to lose track of what is solidly known versus what is speculation or belief. The FOG Scan; short for Fact, Opinion, Guess, is a quick tool that clears this mental haze.

It helps leaders filter information in real time by categorising statements into three types:

• Fact – What is verifiably true, based on observable evidence.

• Opinion – A personal interpretation, preference, or judgement.

• Guess – A hypothesis or assumption made without solid proof.

This method can be used in conversation, when reading reports, or even while thinking aloud. Its purpose is not to silence intuition but to bring awareness to the type of thinking driving each statement. The more a leader practises this distinction, the more precise and credible their reasoning becomes.

Step-by-step guidance

Step 1: Notice information flow

Before reacting to what you hear or read, pause briefly to observe the flow of statements. Notice which sound factual, which sound interpretive, and which seem uncertain.

Why:

This moment of observation activates metacognition — the ability to think about your own thinking. It slows impulsive reactions and allows you to filter information rather than absorb it uncritically.

Step 2: Label each statement as Fact, Opinion, or Guess

As you listen or read, mentally tag or highlight each key statement using F, O, or G. For example:

• “Sales dropped by 12 per cent this quarter.” (Fact)

• “Customers are probably unhappy with the new pricing.” (Guess)

• “We need a stronger marketing message.” (Opinion)

Why:

Labelling creates immediate clarity. It prevents you from treating every statement as equally valid and reminds you that facts are the foundation for good judgement, while opinions and guesses require further testing.

Step 3: Test and reclassify

When uncertain about a statement’s category, ask three quick questions:

• Can this be verified through data or observation?

• Is this based on personal belief or interpretation?

• Have we tested or confirmed this idea yet?

Reclassify accordingly. Encourage others to join this practice by asking, “Is that a fact or a view?” or “What evidence supports that?”

Why:

Reality testing thrives in shared language. When teams adopt FOG tagging as a normal habit, it reduces defensiveness and increases collective accuracy.

Step 4: Prioritise next actions

Once your statements are sorted, act based on category:

• Facts anchor your immediate actions.

• Opinions guide discussion or creative debate.

• Guesses prompt investigation or small experiments.

Why:

Clear decisions emerge when evidence, interpretation, and uncertainty are treated differently. This step turns reflection into strategy, ensuring decisions are informed without being paralysed by data.

Examples in practice

Work example 1: A leadership team reviews a project that has gone off schedule. Instead of arguing about blame, the facilitator asks everyone to label their statements with F, O, or G. The conversation quickly reveals that many “facts” are actually guesses about other departments. Clarifying evidence allows the group to agree on next steps.

Work example 2: During a strategy review, a manager says, “Our competitors are winning because they innovate faster.” The team pauses to check the statement. It is tagged as a guess until competitive analysis confirms it. This simple act prevents the group from chasing an illusion and focuses effort where it matters.

Personal example 1: You assume a friend is avoiding you because of something you said. A FOG scan shows that this is a guess, not a fact. Checking in with them reveals they have been ill, and tension dissolves.

Personal example 2: You believe you are “bad at managing conflict.” Writing this through the FOG lens, you realise it is an opinion, not a fact. Reviewing recent conversations shows examples of you handling tension well, restoring confidence.

Variations and adaptations

• Team dialogue version: During meetings, appoint a “FOG spotter” whose role is to track and call out statements when they drift from fact into assumption.

• Email version: Before sending an important message or report, review key claims through FOG tagging to ensure balance between data and opinion.

• Personal reflection: At the end of each week, choose one decision and rewrite the reasoning using F, O, and G. Notice patterns over time.

Why it matters: The FOG Scan cultivates clarity and emotional control. It trains leaders to distinguish data from drama, which reduces misunderstanding and reactive decision-making. In organisations, this habit becomes a shared discipline that improves communication and builds trust.

By separating fact, opinion, and guess, leaders create transparency in their reasoning. Others can see how conclusions are formed, which makes collaboration more respectful and less political. The result is sharper decision quality and a culture where truth is valued over certainty.

The exercise also strengthens self-regulation. Emotional triggers often arise when opinions are mistaken for facts. Recognising this distinction allows leaders to stay calm, curious, and open under pressure.

The deeper truth: In leadership, confusion between fact and belief is not just an intellectual error; it is an ethical one. When assumptions go unchecked, decisions drift away from reality and people lose confidence in those who make them.

The discipline of the FOG Scan reminds us that honesty begins with clarity. It is an act of respect to label your words truthfully,  to say, “This is what I know, this is what I think, and this is what I wonder.”

Practised over time, it becomes a quiet mark of maturity. Leaders who use it regularly project steadiness. They are trusted not because they are always right, but because they are clear about what they know and what they do not.

Fact-seeking checklist

In leadership, clarity often begins not with answers but with questions. Yet under pressure, leaders can mistake speed for certainty and opinion for evidence. The fact-seeking checklist slows thinking to uncover what is truly known. It helps you separate data from assumption, observation from interpretation, and clarity from confidence.

This exercise trains disciplined curiosity. It does not seek endless data but rather the right data. By structuring inquiry through a small set of powerful questions, it helps leaders make better judgements and model transparency in how they reach conclusions. The goal is not only accuracy but trust. Teams follow those whose reasoning they can see.

Step-by-step guidance

Step 1: Define the decision or issue clearly

Start with one decision, concern, or situation that feels uncertain. Write a brief, neutral summary such as, “Our project timeline is at risk,” or, “Employee engagement has dropped.” Keep it descriptive, not diagnostic.

Why:

Clarity at the start prevents confusion later. A well-framed issue invites focus, while an emotionally charged or vague statement triggers bias. Describing without judging builds the foundation for real understanding.

Step 2: List what is known, what is believed, and what is assumed

Divide your page into three columns: Known, Believed, and Assumed. Fill in each as honestly as possible. Keep evidence separate from interpretation.

Why:

The act of writing externalises thought. It reveals how much of your reasoning rests on inference rather than proof. This step exposes hidden narratives before they distort your choices.

Step 3: Test and expand your evidence

Go through each item in your “Known” column. Ask how recent and representative the data is. Seek input from others who might see the same situation differently.

Why:

Facts without context can mislead as easily as falsehoods. Testing your evidence strengthens both accuracy and humility, reminding you that no one sees the full picture alone.

Step 4: Apply the eight-question checklist

Once you have your notes, move through the following questions one by one. Treat each as a lens, not a verdict.

The eight-question fact-seeking checklist

1. What do I know for certain, and how do I know it?

   Clarify what is verifiable through direct evidence or experience.

   Why: This grounds your judgement in reality rather than perception.

2. What am I treating as fact that may actually be interpretation or opinion?

   Notice language that signals personal bias or untested assumption.

   Why: It helps prevent emotional certainty from disguising itself as truth.

3. What assumptions or expectations am I holding, and where did they come from?

   Trace patterns of thought that repeat from past experiences.

   Why: It distinguishes fresh evidence from recycled stories.

4. What information is missing, unclear, or uncertain?

   List what you do not yet know and where to find it.

   Why: Naming uncertainty restores proportion and keeps decisions open to revision.

5. Whose perspective have I not yet heard or considered?

   Identify voices outside your immediate circle.

   Why: Different perspectives reveal blind spots and broaden ethical awareness.

6. What evidence could disprove or challenge my current view?

   Search for data that contradicts your working assumption.

   Why: Reality testing requires inviting discomfort to strengthen accuracy.

7. What patterns or signals are consistent over time, and what are exceptions?

   Distinguish between recurring trends and one-off anomalies.

   Why: Patterns point to systemic truth, while exceptions highlight noise.

8. What remains uncertain, and how will I monitor or test it over time?

   End with a plan for observation and adjustment.

   Why: Decision quality depends not only on what you know now but on how you keep learning.

Examples in practice

Work example 1: A product director assumes customer churn is due to price increases. After applying the checklist, they discover that most departures come from service dissatisfaction. Instead of cutting prices, they reinvest in customer support and reduce churn by 30 per cent.

Work example 2: A senior HR leader believes low engagement stems from workload. Fact-seeking reveals that while workload is high, the real issue is lack of recognition. By addressing appreciation rather than hours, the team culture improves rapidly.

Personal example 1: A friend seems distant, and you assume they are upset with you. On checking, you learn they are struggling with family pressures. Clarifying the facts replaces anxiety with empathy.

Personal example 2: You think a fitness plan is not working because results are slow. Reviewing facts shows progress is consistent but smaller than expected. Adjusting expectations prevents unnecessary discouragement.

Variations and adaptations

• Team version: Use the eight questions in meetings when deciding strategy. Rotate who asks each one to create shared responsibility for accuracy.

• Coaching version: Invite coachees to apply the checklist to emotionally charged situations where assumptions often drive reaction.

• Rapid version: In fast-moving environments, ask aloud, “What do we know for sure?” to anchor the discussion in evidence.

Why it matters: Fact-seeking strengthens three essential leadership qualities: accuracy, composure, and credibility. It reduces emotional reasoning, protects against bias, and encourages intellectual honesty. Teams trust leaders who think visibly and invite scrutiny of their reasoning.

It also cultivates emotional intelligence. When you check facts before reacting, you regulate emotion with curiosity rather than control. This balance of logic and awareness builds resilience under pressure.

Organisationally, fact-seeking creates cultures of learning. When leaders model evidence-based thinking, teams follow suit. Meetings become inquiries rather than debates, and disagreement becomes data rather than conflict. Over time, truth becomes a shared pursuit.

The deeper truth: Fact-seeking is not a mechanical task but an act of respect, for reality, for others, and for the limits of your own certainty. It requires humility to admit what is unknown and courage to confront what is true.

Leaders who practise it consistently become known not for speed but for steadiness. Their authority does not rest on opinion but on integrity. They understand that clear sight is a form of service: to their teams, to their purpose, and to the decisions that shape lives.

Fact-seeking, at its heart, is moral clarity. It reminds us that seeing the world as it is, not as we wish it to be,  is the beginning of wisdom.

Assumption busting

Assumptions are shortcuts the mind uses to make sense of complexity. They simplify decision-making, but they can also distort reality. Leaders rely on them every day, often without noticing. Some assumptions are useful; they draw on experience and pattern recognition. Others become blind spots, limiting what leaders see, how they listen, and what options they consider.

This practice helps you surface, test, and refine your assumptions. It builds the habit of curiosity before certainty, allowing decisions to be both confident and adaptable.

Steps to take

Step 1: Identify a current decision or situation

Choose a decision you are facing or one you have recently made. Write a short description of the issue and why it matters. Then, list the key beliefs or expectations you hold about it. For example:

• “Our client prefers detailed reports.”

• “The team resists change.”

• “We do not have the budget for this.”

Why: Writing assumptions down externalises them. It turns implicit beliefs into visible statements that can be examined rather than acted on automatically. It also reduces the emotional charge that often accompanies uncertainty.

Step 2: Label each statement

Next to each belief, mark whether it is a fact, belief, or assumption.

• A fact is something verifiable by evidence.

• A belief is a conviction supported by experience but not proven.

• An assumption is something you treat as true without checking.

Why: Labelling introduces discipline. It separates data from interpretation and highlights where your confidence might be misplaced. This is where reasoning becomes visible and open to challenge.

Step 3: Test your assumptions

For each assumption, ask:

1. What evidence supports this?

2. What evidence contradicts it?

3. What would I need to see or hear to change my mind?

4. Who else could provide a different perspective?

5. How recent is my information?

6. What might I be avoiding by holding this view?

Why: These questions simulate a feedback loop. They shift thinking from certainty to inquiry, building cognitive flexibility and open-mindedness. They also surface emotional motives that might sit beneath logical reasoning.

Step 4: Share and invite challenge

Choose one or two trusted colleagues and share your reasoning. Say something like, “I am assuming X because of Y. Does that hold up from your side?” Encourage them to offer alternative explanations or data.

Why: External feedback breaks the echo chamber of your own logic. It exposes patterns of overconfidence or bias that are hard to see from within. Inviting challenge also signals humility and strengthens team learning.

Step 5: Track assumptions over time

Keep a short “assumption log.” Record which assumptions proved accurate and which did not. Note the context and outcome. Patterns will emerge. You might find that you overestimate resistance, underestimate time, or assume alignment too easily.

Why: Tracking creates learning loops. Over time, you will spot where intuition is reliable and where it needs recalibration. This strengthens judgment under uncertainty.

Examples in practice

Work example 1: A finance director assumes her regional team is resisting a new cost-control policy. Before taking corrective action, she lists her assumptions and labels them as facts, beliefs, or guesses. “They disagree with the new model” turns out to be an assumption, not a fact. She gathers evidence and speaks to two managers. She learns the resistance is not about the policy but about unclear data flow between finance and operations. By testing the assumption, she addresses the real issue: process design, not attitude.

Work example 2: During a strategy review, a senior leader assumes the marketing team is too optimistic about next quarter’s forecasts. He writes this down, tags it as an assumption, and asks, “What evidence supports or contradicts this?” When the team shares their data sources and reasoning, he realises his view is based on last year’s underperformance, not current conditions. Together they build a joint forecast with transparent assumptions. The discussion shifts from judgment to shared inquiry.

Personal example 1: After a family conversation about moving cities, you assume your partner is completely opposed. You write this down and ask what evidence you have. When you check, you discover that they are not against moving but are anxious about schooling for the children. Clarifying assumptions allows you to move from argument to planning.

Personal example 2: You assume a close friend has lost interest in keeping in touch because they often cancel plans. Instead of accepting the story, you share your assumption: “I am assuming you are pulling away. Is that right?” The friend explains that they are exhausted from a new job. The assumption dissolves, replaced by understanding and empathy.

Variations

1. Team version: “Assumption wall”

Gather your team and write down assumptions about a shared project, goal, or stakeholder on sticky notes. Label each as fact, belief, or assumption. Discuss which ones need testing. This collective visibility reduces groupthink and improves strategic alignment.

2. “Red team” challenge

Ask a trusted colleague to play the role of a constructive sceptic. Their task is to find flaws or missing perspectives in your reasoning. Listen without defence. This builds resilience to challenge and sharpens your ability to argue from evidence rather than emotion.

3. Pre-mortem lens

Imagine your decision has failed spectacularly. Write a short story explaining why. The reasons you invent will reveal the assumptions most likely to need testing. This method is especially effective for complex or high-stakes decisions.

Why it matters: Unchecked assumptions drive many leadership misjudgements. When people act on untested beliefs, they often misread others’ intentions, miscalculate risks, or overcommit resources. Developing assumption awareness transforms decision-making from reactive to reflective. It encourages leaders to think aloud, validate interpretations, and remain open to correction.

Teams led this way experience greater psychological safety because leaders model humility and curiosity instead of defensive certainty. This creates a culture where truth can be spoken without fear, and ideas can evolve without ego. Over time, it builds sharper collective intelligence and more grounded confidence.

The deeper truth: Reality testing is not about erasing assumptions but about making them visible. Every decision requires hypothesis. The difference between a wise leader and a rigid one is transparency: the willingness to expose your reasoning to inquiry.

When you treat assumptions as working theories rather than fixed truths, you make space for learning. Over time, this mindset shifts leadership from proving to improving, from defending what you think to discovering what is real.

Leaders who practise assumption awareness communicate with greater integrity. Their confidence is grounded not in being right, but in staying open. That balance of conviction and curiosity is what earns enduring trust.

Would you like me to now proceed to Exercise 6: Reality reflection log (the final one for the “Reality Testing” series), matching this exact level of depth, section structure, and tone?

Multiple-lens review

Sound judgement depends on the ability to see clearly from different perspectives. Most leaders default to one habitual frame: data, urgency, or intuition. A multiple-lens review interrupts that pattern. It provides structured ways to test perception before acting, ensuring that decisions are grounded in evidence, context, and awareness of human impact.

This exercise invites you to explore reality through a set of lenses: Decision Impact, Four Realities, Six Perspectives, and an added Emotional Lens. Each one highlights a different truth;  what is known, what is assumed, what patterns exist, and how people feel. Together, they build balanced, self-aware thinking.

Steps to take

Step 1: Define the decision or problem clearly

Write one short, factual sentence describing the issue you want to examine. Keep emotion and blame out of it.

Examples:

• “The product launch has slipped by three weeks and clients are becoming anxious.”

• “Our department needs to reduce costs without damaging morale.”

Why: Clarity is the first act of leadership. A neutral statement prevents the story in your head from distorting what is actually happening.

Step 2: Apply the lenses

Use all of the lenses or select those most useful to your situation. Work through each one, noting observations, questions, and tensions.

The Decision Impact Lenses

The Four Realities Lens

The Six Perspectives Lens

The Emotional Lens

Step 3: Capture insights and contradictions

Review your notes from all lenses. Mark areas of agreement and conflict. Ask:

• Which facts, emotions, or assumptions appear repeatedly?

• Where do the lenses disagree?

• What feels clear and what feels uncertain?

Why: Divergent findings signal where deeper inquiry is needed. Seeing contradiction calmly is a mark of maturity; it means you are holding complexity rather than simplifying it too soon.

Step 4: Decide and act consciously

Record your reasoning, naming which lenses most influenced you and which risks you are accepting. Communicate the decision with clarity and transparency.

Why: Documenting thought process builds accountability and learning. It also signals to others that your decision considered both logic and humanity.

Step 5: Reflect afterwards

After the outcome unfolds, revisit your notes. Ask:

• Which lens proved most accurate?

• What emotional or cognitive biases misled me?

• What patterns am I noticing in how I decide?

Why: Reflection converts process into growth. Over time, reviewing decisions this way refines both instinct and discipline.

Work example

A divisional head must decide whether to merge two teams. Through the Evidence Lens, data on cost and performance are clear; the Stakeholder Lens reveals morale risk; the Values Lens warns against over-automation; the Emotional Lens uncovers personal fatigue colouring urgency. The leader pauses, consults further, and stages the merger over three phases, improving both trust and outcome.

Personal example

A leader debates whether to take a sabbatical. Using the Self, System, and Time Lenses, they weigh personal energy, organisational readiness, and timing. The Emotional Lens exposes guilt about leaving and relief at the thought of rest. Recognising both feelings as valid data, they plan a structured handover and return re-energised.

Variation: Team lens dialogue

Invite several colleagues to each take a different lens and share perspectives on the same issue. Discuss overlaps and contradictions before acting. This method spreads ownership and strengthens collective intelligence.

Why it matters: Research across decision science, behavioural economics, and emotional intelligence demonstrates that structured multi-perspective thinking improves judgement accuracy and ethical quality (Kahneman, 2011; Senge, 1990; Goleman, 2013). The inclusion of the emotional lens reflects findings from affective neuroscience showing that emotion directs attention and value weighting. Ignoring it reduces clarity; naming it enhances it.

Leaders who practise this routinely integrate cognition and empathy. They move from impulsive certainty to thoughtful confidence, capable of seeing both system and soul in every decision.

The deeper truth: Each lens is a way of listening to reality. Some listen to data, others to pattern or feeling, but all reveal part of the whole. Using many lenses teaches humility: no single frame holds the full truth.

When leaders learn to shift lenses fluidly, they begin to perceive both the seen and the felt, the measurable and the meaningful. This balance of analysis and awareness creates a deeper kind of authority — one rooted not in knowing everything, but in seeing more clearly than before.

Reality reflection log

Leaders are constantly interpreting complex situations. They must decide which information to trust, whose views to consider, and when emotion is clouding judgement. In such conditions, perception can easily drift from fact to story. Reality testing is the discipline of staying grounded in evidence while remaining aware of feelings. It helps leaders see what is actually happening, not just what they wish or fear to be true.

This practice turns that discipline into a weekly routine. By reflecting on three to five key moments or decisions each week, leaders can learn how their emotions, assumptions, and interpretations shape their view of reality. Over time, this builds accuracy, steadiness, and credibility under pressure.

Steps to take

Step 1: Choose your weekly moments

At the end of each week, select three to five moments that required discernment or involved strong emotion. These might include a meeting that shifted direction, a tough conversation, or a decision you made with limited information. Record a brief description of each.

Why: Regular review connects reflection to real leadership practice. Selecting several moments instead of one provides a fuller picture of how you process complexity. Patterns begin to emerge between confidence, stress, and accuracy.

Step 2: Capture your perception before the event

For each moment, recall what you believed or expected beforehand. What outcome did you predict? What emotions were strongest? What information seemed most reliable? Write these observations clearly and without justification.

Why: Recording the “before” view highlights how expectation and emotion shape initial interpretation. It builds awareness of how anticipation, hope, or fear influence what you notice and how you prepare.

Step 3: Record what actually happened

Describe the event as factually as possible. What was said? What decisions were made? What data or evidence emerged that you had not expected? Avoid adding judgement or commentary at this stage.

Why: Writing an objective account trains precision. It strengthens your ability to separate experience from evaluation and ensures your analysis rests on reality, not memory distortion.

Step 4: Compare perception with reality

Now place your “before” notes beside your factual record. What matched your expectations, and what did not? Which assumptions held true, and which proved inaccurate? Note any emotional reactions that changed once more information appeared.

Why: This step creates a feedback loop between belief and evidence. Seeing both together develops emotional calibration, teaching you when to trust your intuition and when to question it.

Step 5: Identify learning patterns

At the end of the month, review your weekly reflections. Look for recurring themes. When do you see most clearly? When are you prone to misread others or jump to conclusions? Note any links between emotional state and accuracy.

Why: Patterns over time reveal your personal blind spots. Recognising them allows you to make small adjustments before errors grow. This converts reflection from hindsight into foresight.

Examples in practice

Work example 1: A regional manager reviews her week and selects five moments, including a tense budget meeting. Before the meeting, she believed the operations team was defensive. Her notes show that anxiety led her to interrupt frequently. Comparing before and after reveals that her impatience, not their defensiveness, created tension. She resolves to test perceptions before acting next time.

Work example 2: A product lead records three key events, one of which was a presentation to executives. Beforehand, he expected little interest. In reflection, he notes surprise at the positive response. The log shows how low confidence distorted his expectations. Over time, he learns to distinguish preparation anxiety from actual risk.

Personal example 1: You believe a friend is avoiding you because of something you said. In your log, you record this assumption, then note that she later explained she had been travelling for work. Seeing the contrast helps you notice how self-doubt can colour relationships.

Personal example 2: You expect a family discussion about finances to become heated. After reflecting, you find that it was calm and collaborative. The exercise reveals how past experiences influenced your expectation, not current behaviour.

Variations

1. Quick FOG scan

In the moment, label statements as Fact, Opinion, or Guess. This builds instant awareness of what is known versus what is inferred.

2. Two-column reflection

Divide a page into “What was said or done” and “What I was thinking or feeling.” Capture short exchanges to reveal how emotion filters perception.

3. Paired debrief

Share your weekly reflections with a colleague or coach. Invite them to identify where emotion or bias shaped your interpretation.

Why it matters: Leaders who practise structured reflection gain clearer judgement and stronger credibility. They learn to separate emotion from evidence without dismissing either. This discipline builds resilience under uncertainty and prevents reactive decision-making. It also models intellectual honesty, encouraging teams to discuss mistakes and insights without fear. Over time, reflection transforms from a task into a mindset: one that values truth over comfort and curiosity over certainty.

The deeper truth: Reality testing is not about removing emotion. It is about integrating feeling and fact so that both inform judgement. Emotion offers signals; evidence offers stability. When leaders learn to use both, they lead from awareness rather than reaction.

Weekly reflection builds this integration through repetition. It trains attention, humility, and patience. Over time, leaders who practise it begin to see more clearly when others are clouded by stress or bias. Their authority comes not from knowing more, but from seeing more accurately. That clarity is the quiet strength behind wise leadership.