Outsource Your Learning, Not Your Thinking
Have a point of view, the humility to test it and the judgement to decide what happens next.
I spend a lot of time looking at the market and understanding where it is shifting. In my line of work, staying close to those changes is part of the job. You need to know what is moving, what is mostly noise and what could materially change how companies operate and grow.
Recently, much of that time has been spent looking at AI, the hype and urgency surrounding it, and the gap between what the technology can make possible and how hard it is to bring that value to life inside a large organisation.
Based on my experience and what I was seeing, I had formed a strong point of view about what was happening and what organisations needed to do next. But I also knew there were parts of the market I could not see and areas where I did not have the technical depth to validate everything I believed to be true.
So I booked time with one of the most senior leaders inside one of the global technology companies shaping this market.
He has technical depth I will never have, sits at the senior leadership table and has visibility into what customers are doing, what the broader business is seeing and where the market is headed.
I told him I had a thesis I wanted to test. I chose him because I trusted him to challenge my assumptions, bring a perspective informed by that vantage point and help me understand whether my view needed to be strengthened, reshaped or changed completely.
I was not asking him to tell me what to think. I was asking him to help me test what I already thought.
The last time we had spoken deeply about AI, we were comparing how it was amplifying our own work. This time, we focused on what large enterprises and government organisations need in place to adopt it meaningfully at scale, particularly the governance and security foundations required to move beyond experimentation.
What had been scheduled as a one-hour conversation became two because neither of us wanted to end it. We were comparing notes, challenging assumptions and testing our thinking in real time.
We each brought knowledge, experience and perspectives to the table, and shared them to shape something bigger than either of us had arrived with.
I did not take the extra hour for granted. His time is incredibly valuable, and he told me he has become increasingly disciplined about where he spends it. He values conversations where both people bring enough knowledge and perspective to contribute.
Our relationship is built on mutual respect, but the conversation continued because we were both learning and contributing.
That is what a real sparring partner does.
The conversation made me think about how long I have been doing this, even before I understood that was what I was doing.
I have written before about leaving school at 16 and the voice that followed me through the early years of my career: “You are the least educated person in this room. You can learn a lot from these people.”
I genuinely believed people who had spent longer in formal education were smarter than me. What could have become a chip on my shoulder became fuel. I sought out people I respected, asked questions and tried to learn everything I could from their experience.
At the time, I thought I was asking them to teach me how to think. But my brain had usually formed a view already. I connected dots, noticed patterns and often reached a conclusion before I knew how to explain how I had arrived there.
I did not always trust my thinking, so I tested it with people I believed knew more than me.
I was outsourcing my learning, not my thinking.
Over time, those conversations helped me strengthen and eventually trust the way I thought. Many of the people I learned from also became sponsors of mine, recommending me for talent programs, special projects and new roles.
That was never why I approached them. I was trying to learn. But in the process, they saw how I connected information, tested ideas and thought about the broader business.
They saw how I thought before I understood that was what they were seeing.
That balance matters at every stage of a career.
Some people ask, “What should I do?” before they have done enough thinking of their own. Others arrive declaring, “I know exactly what to do,” without testing the assumptions underneath their certainty.
One can quietly hand responsibility for the decision to someone else. The other can protect a view that has never been challenged.
Neither builds strong judgement.
A point of view is not a perfectly formed answer or a position you defend regardless of what you hear. It is your current best thinking based on what you know, the experience you can draw on, the research you have done and the assumptions you have made.
The most useful conversations often begin with: “This is what I am seeing. This is what I think it means. What am I missing?”
That applies whether you are new to a role or highly experienced, leading the work or contributing to it, seeking advice or giving it.
When you ask for help, bring enough thinking for the other person to engage with. When someone asks for your help, resist solving the whole problem too quickly. Ask what they see, what they think it means and what they believe should happen next.
A good sparring partner does not take your thinking away. They help you make it better.
The same principle shapes how I use AI. I use it extensively to organise complexity, test assumptions and explore arguments I may not have considered. But I still need to bring my experience, point of view, understanding of the environment and willingness to question what comes back.
AI can produce an answer that sounds certain. That is not the same as judgement built through experience, context and accountability. It does not understand every signal that matters or carry responsibility for the decision you make.
AI amplifies good thinking. It also amplifies poor thinking.
The real skill is knowing when to think for yourself, when to think with AI and when to test that thinking with people whose judgement has been built through real-world experience. AI can emulate patterns in that experience. It cannot replace the experience itself.
Then you decide what happens next.
You listen when the evidence challenges you and work out whether the new information strengthens your view, extends it or requires you to change it.
Changing your mind because you have learned something is not weakness. It is thinking.
Curiosity without a point of view can become avoidance. Conviction without curiosity can become certainty.
The strength is in holding both.
Nugget in Action
Before asking for advice, write down what you think is happening, what it means and what you believe should happen next.
Replace “What should I do?” with “This is what I am seeing. What am I missing?”
Replace “I know exactly what to do” with “This is my current view. What could prove me wrong?”
Seek out people who bring experience or perspectives you do not have, not only people likely to agree with you.
When someone asks for your help, ask what they think before offering your answer.
Use AI to test assumptions, then apply your own context and judgement to what comes back.
Outsource your learning, but never outsource your thinking.
What I’d love to know
Who challenges your thinking in a way that helps make it better?