The cause for pause

The "go" or "no-go" is the classic decision maker's dilemma. From something as humdrum as foregoing that last piece of chocolate cake, to one as momentous as choosing a life partner. Whether in business or in government, managers are expected to take decisive courses of action. Following through that course requires setting objectives and investing resources. Should the planned strategy not deliver the expected outcome, then logically, the manager reevaluates and executes alternative approaches anew. If the real world were this simple then this would be the end of my article. Constantly, we suffer through the consequences of decisions played out in diverse personal or organizational settings that have been allowed to persist. Management and behavioral scholars call this phenomenon as the "escalation of commitment" – defined as the tendency of an individual or group to continue with a failing course of action regardless.

Why does this happen? When confronted with the threat of failure, leaders may be hyper-motivated to continue with their original actions – rather than be seen as incompetent. Completion-oriented goals, compounded by the relative size of the financial and emotional investment, are also likely to "escalate" a commitment. Altogether, ignoring alternatives that promise bigger pay offs or prevent further losses. As the astute managers that we ought to be, we acknowledge that previously deliberated plans may be abandoned to give way to emergent ones. However, as author Elizabeth Lesser observed: "How strange that the nature of life is change, yet the nature of human beings is to resist change." Think how "escalation of commitment" is repeated several-fold in organizations, with its departments, cliques, and external parties – where going against an existing norm can potentially threaten one's cherished business reputation, base of support, or financial stake. Acknowledging one's frailty towards commitment bias, leaders must harken back to their purpose and to common sense. Periodic planning serves as routine reminders to embrace flexibility, instead of the "comfortable" consistency. On-board your stakeholders and experts to seek out disconfirming information that challenge your assumptions. Incorporate gate-keeping measures and determine your "no-go" scenario. More importantly, have the courage to admit inadequacies and act accordingly on difficult change.