Well...it is.
Furthermore, when a chosen path no longer works and needs to change, how do we ensure we don’t remain attached to that decision even when the evidence says we should pivot?
In today’s professional landscape, the ability to adapt is more critical than ever. We need to be able to iterate, change our processes, and shift strategies in a way that feels efficient and safe. "Inspect and adapt" isn't just an agile mindset anymore, it’s a survival skill.
The path of least resistance is one our brain is more than happy to choose, which is why default choices are always so appealing. This is one of the first biases that show up when making decisions.
How do we recognize our biases, and what can we do about them?
Here is a list of common biases we will eventually encounter:
- Ambiguity effect: Unclear or partial information pushes us toward the "tried and true." Decision-making often defaults to low-risk, loss-averse options because the unknown feels dangerous.
- Information bias: This occurs when we interpret gathered information to confirm a preconceived preference, tweaking the data to justify what we already want to do.
- Anchoring: We give unbalanced value to the first piece of information presented. All subsequent options are evaluated against that initial "anchor," favoring whatever aligns with it.
- Bandwagon effect: Herd mentality favors options already adopted by the majority. "Everybody is doing it" is rarely a valid argument, yet we see the results of this bias everywhere.
- Confirmation bias: We are wired to seek information that confirms our existing beliefs. "Falling in love with the solution" is a common trap that blinds us to reality.
- Continued influence effect: False information dies hard. Unfounded claims or outdated management models often overstay their welcome, long after the evidence suggests they no longer work.
- Decoy effect: Sometimes an irrelevant option (a decoy) is introduced into the mix and changes how we evaluate the other, more viable options.
- Sunk-cost fallacy: We ignore the evidence and continue investing in a failing strategy simply because of the time, money, and effort already spent. It is the art of being "stuck" by choice.
If we want to be more objective, we must identify these patterns and stay aware of them.
The real question is: How do we confront our biases when choosing our strategies and navigating change?
Could we develop a technique, a checklist, or even an algorithm to audit our biases? Can AI help us stress-test our logic?
As Warren Berger suggests, we can ask a few essential questions to keep our biases in check:
- What am I inclined to believe on this particular issue?
- Why do I believe what I believe?
- What would I like to be true?
- What if the opposite is true?
Creating a space, perhaps a community of practice or a peer review practice, where we regularly ask these questions is one of the most effective ways to address our collective blind spots.