ReportWire

Tag: Judgement error

  • This Dangerous Judgement Error Could Cost You Your Business

    This Dangerous Judgement Error Could Cost You Your Business

    [ad_1]

    Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.

    Congress just cleared the Boeing 737 Max 10 jet for certification in the omnibus end-of-year spending bill without further safety enhancements. That’s despite significant opposition by those demanding a safety upgrade: from the union representing the 15,000 pilots at American Airlines, from the families of those killed in the two deadly crashes in 2019, and from Rep. Peter DeFazio, chair of the House Transportation Committee. Rep. DeFazio led the key congressional investigation into the Max crashes and said the language in the spending bill was included over his objection.

    This rushed clearance stemmed from the pressure of lobbying by Boeing and its allies. It suggests neither Boeing nor Congress learned the lesson of Boeing’s earlier 737 Max fiasco: when 346 people lost their lives; Boeing lost $5 billion in direct revenue and over $25 billion when counting damage to the brand and losing customers; and Boeing fired its CEO Dennis Muilenburg.

    What caused the disaster for Boeing? At a high level, it was the company’s desire to keep up with Airbus’s newer, more fuel-efficient aircraft, the Airbus 320. To do this, Boeing rushed the production of the 737 Max and provided misleading information to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in order to receive fast approval for the plane. In the process, Boeing disregarded the safety systems that its own engineers had recommended and did not fix known software issues with the 737 Max, which ultimately led to the crashes.

    The new normal

    The root cause of the disaster at Boeing can be traced back to a cognitive error known as normalcy bias. This bias causes people to overestimate the likelihood that things will continue as they have been and underestimate the potential consequences of a disaster occurring.

    Ironically, the transformation of the airline industry in recent decades to make airplanes much safer and accidents incredibly rare is key to understanding Boeing’s disaster. The Boeing leadership was overconfident in the safety record of their airplanes and saw the FAA certification process as an obstacle to doing business rather than a necessary safety measure. This normalcy bias contributed to their decision to rush the production of the 737 Max and overlook known software issues.

    Boeing’s 737 Max disaster is a classic case of the normalcy bias. The Boeing leadership felt utter confidence in the safety record of the airplanes it produced in the last couple of decades, deservedly so, according to statistics on crashes. From their perspective, it would be impossible to imagine that the 737 Max would be less safe than these other recent-model airplanes. They saw the typical FAA certification process as simply another bureaucratic hassle that got in the way of doing business and competing with Airbus, as opposed to ensuring safety.

    Think it’s only big companies? Think again. The normalcy bias is a big reason for bubbles: in stocks, housing prices, loans and other areas. It’s as though we’re incapable of remembering the previous bubble, even if occurred only a few years ago.

    Similarly, the normalcy bias helps explain why leaders at companies of all sizes were so vastly underprepared for Covid-19 and its impact. While pandemics pose a major threat, it’s a low-likelihood, high-impact, slow-moving disaster. The normalcy bias keeps tripping us up on such disasters unless we take effective steps to deal with this problem.

    Related: How You Can Crush the Biggest Sales-Killing Mental Bias

    Normalcy bias in a tech start-up

    Of course, the normalcy bias hits mid-size and small companies hard as well.

    At one of my frequent trainings for small and mid-size company executives, Brodie, a tech entrepreneur shared the story of a startup he founded with a good friend. They complemented each other well: Brodie had strong technical skills, and his friend brought strong marketing and selling capacity.

    Things went great for the first two and a half years, with a growing client list — until his friend got into a bad motorcycle accident that left him unable to talk. Brodie had to deal not only with the emotional trauma but also with covering his co-founder’s work roles.

    Unfortunately, his co-founder failed to keep good notes. He also did not introduce Brodie to his contacts at the client companies. In turn, Brodie —a strong introvert — struggled with selling. Eventually, the startup burned through its cash and had to close its doors.

    The normalcy bias is one of many dangerous judgment errors, and mental blindspots resulting from how our brains are wired. Researchers in cognitive neuroscience and behavioral economics call them cognitive biases. Fortunately, recent research in these fields shows how you can use pragmatic strategies to address these dangerous judgment errors in your professional life.

    Preventing normalcy bias disasters

    It really helps to use the strategy of considering and addressing potential alternative futures that are much more negative than you intuitively feel are likely. That’s the strategy that Brodie and I explored in my coaching with him after the training session, as he felt ready to get back to the startup world.

    While Brodie definitely knew he wouldn’t be up to starting a new business himself, he also wanted to avoid the previous problems. So we discussed how he would from the start push for creating systems and processes that would enable each co-founder to back up the other in cases of emergencies. Moreover, the co-founders would commit to sharing important contacts from their side of the business with each other, so that relationships could be maintained if the other person was out of commission for a while.

    So what are the broader principles here?

    1. Be much more pessimistic about the possibility and impact of disasters than you intuitively feel or can easily imagine getting over the challenges caused by the normalcy bias.
    2. Use effective strategic planning techniques to scan for potential disasters and try to address them in advance, as Brodie did with his plans for the new business.
    3. Of course, you can’t predict everything, so retain some extra capacity in your system — of time, money, and other resources — that you can use to deal with unknown unknowns, also called black swans.
    4. Finally, if you see a hint of a disaster, react much more quickly than you intuitively feel you should to overcome the gut reaction’s dismissal of the likelihood and impact of disasters.

    Unfortunately, Boeing — and Congress — did not appear to learn this lesson in the rushed approval of the new 737 Max model. The fact that they failed to make the safety upgrade demanded by so many diverse external stakeholders signals that more deadly lessons may be in store for us in the future.

    [ad_2]

    Gleb Tsipursky

    Source link

  • 3 Mental Blindspots That Could Explain Why Adidas Waited To Drop Ye

    3 Mental Blindspots That Could Explain Why Adidas Waited To Drop Ye

    [ad_1]

    Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.

    does not tolerate antisemitism and any other sort of hate speech… the company has taken the decision to terminate the partnership with Ye immediately,” according to its October 25 news release. That statement conveys a principled and admirable stance against the antisemitism shown by the rapper formerly known as Kanye West after his antisemitic tweet on October 10 that he would go “death con 3 on JEWISH PEOPLE.”

    Yet Adidas waited much, much longer than other companies that cut ties with Ye. Even Ye’s own talent agency dropped him before Adidas. In fact, Adidas delayed so long that Ye taunted them on his October 16 appearance on the Drink Champs podcast, saying “I can say antisemitic things, and Adidas can’t drop me. Now what? Now what?”

    Related: ‘Unacceptable, Hateful and Dangerous’: Adidas, Gap Among Companies, Athletes Dropping Ye-Related Brands as the Rapper Loses Billionaire Status

    Adidas faced particular pressure to drop Ye due to its dark past. A German company founded by a former member of the Nazi party, Adidas had an especially strong reason to drop Ye earlier than other companies. Adidas faced mounting pressure from the Anti-Defamation League and other organizations to drop Ye given its Nazi past. A Change.org petition set up by the Campaign Against Antisemitism urging Adidas to sever ties with Ye had gathered 169,100 signatures by October 25.

    Yet Adidas refused to drop Ye until all the other companies dropped him. Instead of getting ahead of the problem and dropping Ye immediately after his October 10 anti-semitic tweet, or even his October 16 taunting of Adidas, the company had to be shamed and pressured into cutting its ties with Ye. As a result, Adidas seriously damaged its brand, harming its reputation among anyone opposed to antisemitism.

    What explains the poor decision-making by the Adidas leadership? It’s a classic case of the ostrich effect: A dangerous judgment error where our minds refuse to acknowledge negative information about reality. It’s named after the mythical notion that ostriches bury their heads in the sand at a sign of danger. The ostrich effect is a type of , one of many mental blindspots that impact decision-making in all life areas, ranging from the future of work to mental fitness.

    The Adidas leadership buried its head in the sand. It refused to acknowledge the growing damage to its brand from Ye’s antisemitism, as well as his prior bad behavior, such as having models wear “White Lives Matter” T-shirts in early October.

    Such denialism in professional settings happens more often than you might think. A four-year study of 286 organizations that had forced out their CEOs found that 23% were fired for denying reality, meaning refusing to recognize negative facts about their organization. Other research shows that professionals at all levels suffer from the tendency to deny uncomfortable facts.

    Adidas’ denialism likely stems from the cognitive bias known as the sunk costs fallacy. According to Adidas’ statement, the termination of the contract is expected to “have a short-term negative impact of up to €250 million on the company’s net income in 2022 given the high seasonality of the fourth quarter.” Presumably, the impact will be much higher in 2023, over half a billion at least.

    Related: Facebook to Ban Holocaust Denial, Citing Rise in Anti-Semitism

    The partnership with Ye had a long history since 2013 when the company signed his brand away from rival Nike. In 2016, Adidas further expanded its relationship with the rapper, calling it “the most significant partnership ever created between a non-athlete and an athletic brand.”

    In other words, Adidas invested a great deal of money and reputation into its relationship with Ye. That kind of investment causes our minds to feel strongly attached to whatever we put those resources into, and throw good money after bad.

    You’ll see this happen often in major projects that are working out poorly, such as Meta’s project. Several high-profile industry figures recently criticized Mark Zuckerberg’s efforts. That includes , the founder of VR headset startup Oculus, which Meta acquired in 2014 for $2 billion. Luckey said “I don’t think it’s a good product” about , Meta’s core metaverse product. He called it a “project car,” a fancy automobile that the owner spends a lot of money on as a hobby. So far, Facebook’s shift to building the metaverse has been costly, with the company last year losing $10 billion on it, and Wall Street analysts expect it to lose more than $10 billion again this year.

    Similarly, you’ll see sunken costs in major relationships. That can range from marriages that lasted much longer than they should have to brand partnerships like the one between Adidas and Ye.

    The final cognitive bias relevant here is called hyperbolic discounting. This term describes our brain’s focus on short-term, highly visible outcomes over much more important and less visible long-term ones. Adidas didn’t want to take the short-term financial hit to its bottom line by cutting ties with Ye. However, Adidas failed to give sufficient weight to the long-term damage to its brand from failing to do so.

    Short-term financial damage is highly visible and painful, while long-term brand damage is much less visible and less painful. Yet realistically, such brand damage is much more important to the long-term success of Adidas.

    In my consulting, I’ve seen many executives struggling with the same three mental blindspots when they face top performers engaging in bad behaviors, ranging from incivility to sexual harassment and discrimination. Leaders deny it happened because they have so much invested in the top performer, whether a star salesperson or top data scientist and they don’t consider the long-term consequences to the organization’s culture and employee morale.

    In fact, it’s easy for anyone to fall for these three cognitive biases when someone whom you value behaves badly. Fortunately, forewarned is forearmed: Knowing about these three mental blindspots means you can watch out for these problems in your own professional and personal life.

    [ad_2]

    Gleb Tsipursky

    Source link