Thoughtful judgement in the age of outrage

In an age of instant information, hot takes, and algorithmically fuelled outrage, the premium on speed has overtaken the premium on thought.

- Rahul Bhasin

nan age of instant information, hot takes, and algorithmically fuelled outrage, the premium on speed has overtaken the premium on thought. Today, business leaders, investors, and policy makers are expected to have views on everything — from geopolitical conflicts to corporate governance scandals — often within hours, if not minutes. But we must ask ourselves: Are we responding with insight, or simply reacting with emotion? Are we contributing clarity — or adding to the noise?

As public trust shifts from institutions to individuals, the burden on leaders to offer opinions grows. However, opinion alone does not equate to leadership. An ill-informed or prematurely expressed view — especially in complex or emotionally charged contexts—can do real harm to credibility, policy outcomes, investor confidence, and social cohesion.

Every responsible leader must periodically ask if they understand this issue deeply enough to speak with conviction, if they can articulate both the position for and against the argument they are leaning toward, and whether they are relying on verified data or on headlines and emotion. If the answer to any of these is “no,” then silence isn’t a weakness — it is strategic maturity. Great leadership, especially in volatile environments, requires resisting the temptation to fill every silence with a stance. It requires the courage to say, “I’m still evaluating. Let's wait for more clarity.”