Article
How Leader Bias Can Result in Business Failure
Feb 11, 2021
When trusting your gut is dangerous
Your Decisions Create Your Future
There is an old saying, “Leaders are paid to make decisions.” Whether in business or any other field, making decisions is one of the most critical things leaders do. Look at any company’s performance, and you can immediately see the results of its decision making. It is not an exaggeration that the success of your team or your organization depends on whether your decisions enhance your chances of success or set you up for failure. You are creating your future, one decision at a time. The results you get reflect the effectiveness of your decision-making.
Take a quick look at your own past decisions, both personal and professional, and you will have to concede that your track record is far from perfect. Sure you will see smart, timely, effective decisions that got you where you are today. But if you look objectively, you’ll see over the long term the impact of decisions you made that were impulsive, where you trusted your gut, or you made decisions in the heat of emotion, or you had strong beliefs that got in the way of the facts, and you shaped the analysis to fit the mental model that you already had in your head.
Improving your capabilities as a decision maker involves understanding and making use of what research has discovered about the decision making process, as well as understanding your own tendencies and the things in your behavior and your problem-solving process that can lead you astray. The fate of companies rises or falls based on the wisdom and efficacy of the decisions that are made. And so do the careers and destinies of the deciders.
The Pressure to Make Important Decisions---Fast
As all leaders know, the pressure of decision making is great, and gets greater the higher up you go. The torrent of problems requiring solutions and decisions is relentless. “This is the terror of being a founder / CEO,” said Andreessen Horowitz co-founder Ben Horowitz. “It is all your fault. Every decision, every person you hire, every dumb thing you buy or do — ultimately you’re at the end.” The list below shows just a fraction of the key decisions that entrepreneurs, for example, have to make:
• Should I raise more capital to fuel growth but reduce equity?
• Do I have the right people on the bus?
• Do I have the right people in the right seats on the bus?
• Should I change my role or my job?
• Is it time to lay people off?
• Is it time to give up and throw in the towel on this project?
• Is it time to sell the company or should I go for an IPO?
• How should I deal with this new competitive threat?
• Should I pursue this merger opportunity?
• Is it time to expand or should we stick with what we know?
• Is it time to raise funds?
• Should we make this huge capital investment?
• Should we go all out or conserve cash?
• Should I accept a term sheet now or hold out?
“If There Is Time To Reflect, Slowing Down Is Likely To Be A Good Idea" Daniel Kahneman
How do you make decisions of this importance? Do you take enough time to gather data and carefully weigh all the options, the pros and cons? Do you seek input and feedback from your team and/or your peers and mentors? Do you go with your gut?
According to futurist Stowe Boyd, “There is an enormous lie underlying business, the lie that decisions are made rationally, applying logic and expertise, sifting evidence, and carefully weighing alternatives.” The reality, he says, is quite different. “The science is clear: in general, we don’t really make decisions that way.” [Source: “How to Untell the Lie at the Heart of Business”, quoted in “Don't Fail At Decision Making Like 98% Of Managers Do,” Eric Larson, Forbes, May 18, 2017]
Most people are not totally rational when they make decisions. Far from it. According to Daniel Kahneman, the Israeli-American economist awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 2002 for his work on the psychology of decision making and behavioral economics, “irrationality often trumps rationality in the human decision-making process.” Kahneman’s findings on the prevalence and influence of cognitive biases challenged the assumption that human rationality was the key factor in decision making. His book, Thinking Fast and Slow (2011) was an international best-seller.
Most people are not totally rational when they make decisions
Because of cognitive biases, impulsiveness exacerbated by time pressure, failure to do due diligence and get all the relevant facts, and overconfidence regarding our brilliant decision-making ability, a disturbingly large number of our decisions turn out to be faulty. Most people are not totally rational when they make decisions. And because we are unaware of what we don’t know, key information may be lacking. Yet in order to make effective decisions, we need all the information relevant to the problem, viable alternative viewpoints, and we also need a process that minimizes the impact of our biases and blind spots.
Ninety-five percent of our decisions use irrational mental shortcuts or rules of thumb that cloud our judgment and impair our decision-making. “The brain,” Kahneman wrote, “is a machine for jumping to conclusions”.
Entrepreneurs are Wired to Move too Fast
Hagberg research (and others) shows that leaders are often optimistic and self-confident risk-takers, who have strong opinions and a bias for action. These are valuable qualities in leaders, but they are a two-edged sword: This confidence, along with a forceful personality, action orientation and clear points of view can lead to a failure to consider what might go wrong, and that they themselves might be wrong. They over-trust their intuition and jump to conclusions, and are therefore more vulnerable to making bad decisions.
The Impact of Biases on Judgment--200 Ways to Make Your Company Fail
Cognitive biases are systematic mental shortcuts in thinking or judgment, mental models or rules of thumb that influence how we evaluate our experiences and make decisions. They can be helpful, in that they make our thinking and decision making faster and more efficient. But they can also lead to faulty judgment, illogical interpretations and irrational choices.
Close to 200 cognitive biases have been identified and explained, many of them by the American-Israeli psychologist Daniel Kahneman. Over 40 years of research, Kahneman found that 95% of our decisions use irrational mental shortcuts that cloud our judgment and impair our decision making. As a leader, it is vital for you to be aware of these biases, which color not only the attitudes and behavior of team members, but also influence your own. But Kahneman’s later research suggested that this is very difficult and almost impossible for most leaders.
“For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.”
– H.L. Mencken, American journalist and social critic
Kahneman’s research makes it crystal clear that if we want to make better decisions, we need to develop preemptive “workaround” strategies that enable us to make decisions that are more rational. One of the best strategies for this is group decision making, where all members of the team weigh in with their insights and perspectives.
As you learn about cognitive biases, you will be able to spot team members falling prey to them in meetings. And if you have built an environment of trust, in which your people can speak freely without fear of retribution, you can use the collective intelligence of your team to help you uncover your own faulty thinking and thereby enable better decisions.
Common Biases That Derail Entrepreneurial Leaders
Sunflower Bias
: People lean in the direction in which the leader is leaning, as sunflowers pivot to face the Sun. Groups tend to align themselves with the views of their leaders, whether overtly expressed or assumed. If a team knows your position on a decision, or believes they know it, the team is likely to be an echo chamber. As Kahneman said, the decision-making process becomes contaminated when people believe they know the leader’s preference.
Confirmation Bias
: Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and remember information that affirms our prior beliefs or hypotheses. (Remember this bias the next time you do a Google search. Are you looking for info that supports your position or your hunch, or are you truly looking to learn?) In the same way, people often discredit information that does not support their views.
Overconfidence Bias
occurs when a person's subjective confidence in his or her judgments is greater than the objective accuracy of those judgements, i.e., you think you’re smarter or more savvy than you really are, or you’re certain that your plan will bring great results when you really don’t have the data to back up your belief. In tests comparing confidence to actual ability, research data regularly show that confidence often exceeds accuracy, that is, people are more sure that they are correct than is warranted.
Optimism Bias
is at play when we overestimate our likelihood of experiencing positive outcomes and events and underestimate our likelihood of experiencing negative events. People with this bias are sometimes quite unrealistic about what might go wrong when making a business decision. When a leader’s subjective confidence in their own judgments is regularly greater than the facts would suggest, disaster could be right around the corner.
Action-Bias
: This is the pressure or tendency to take action NOW, without doing adequate research and/or taking time for analysis and reflection. “Let’s just get the deal done.” Thus we don’t consider all the possible ramifications of our action. When you have this bias, you will tend to overestimate your odds of a successful outcome, and minimize or discount the chances of failure. Bernard Baruch, American financier and advisor to several 20th century presidents said, “Whatever failures I have known, whatever errors I have committed, whatever follies I have witnessed in public and private life, have been the consequences of action without thought.”
Other Common Biases That Can Damage Your Judgment
Affinity Bias
: The tendency to be biased toward people like ourselves, with similar backgrounds, interests, skills, and affinities. This is a common temptation in hiring but may not result in building the strongest team.
Blind Spot Bias
: This happens when you are able to recognize biased thinking by others, while failing to see the impact of biases on your own judgment and decision-making. This is extremely common: In one study of 600 Americans, more than 85% believed they were less biased than the average person.
Status Quo Bias
: Directly opposite the action-oriented bias, status quo bias is an emotional or unconscious preference for maintaining the current state of affairs. “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” This is not based on analysis that shows the current state to be objectively better, but is simply an attachment to the way things are and have been. Sticking to what worked or works now is fine if a rational decision-making process shows it to be the best alternative, but status quo bias can interfere with openness to new ideas, new technologies, and to progress in general.
Effective team leaders need to be willing to change as the company scales. They often hold on to practices that worked when the company was small and flexible and everybody was in one room, but all of a sudden they have 4,000 employees and holding on to what worked for a dozen or twenty just won’t work.
Anchoring bias
: This describes the tendency to base a decision on the first piece of information we receive; it makes a strong enough impression that we become “anchored” to it This happens consistently when making budgetary predictions and financial plans. When considering a decision or course of action, the decision maker gives undue weight to the initial input or information received. These initial impressions, estimates, or data anchor subsequent judgment or analysis.
Self-serving bias
: We believe our failures are due to external factors, that it is “their fault” when things go wrong, but we believe we are responsible for our successes.
Framing
: Frames, according to cognitive scientists, are the different perspectives through which we look at the world. They are mental models that simplify and guide how we make sense out of a complex reality. They limit the effectiveness of our decision-making. This happens when making decisions with a multi-functional or multi-cultural team who have a variety of perspectives based on their background. Marketing, finance, engineering, product, sales, human resources, operations and so on have very different perspectives on many other issues. They look at different factors, and see different risks, opportunities, and potential outcomes, and are driven by different values and interests, all of which frame their decision making. They may have competing perspectives and concerns. Team members from different countries and cultures see the world differently due to their differing values.
“Mental models are deeply held internal images of how the world works, images that limit us to familiar ways of thinking and acting. Very often, we are not consciously aware of our mental models or the effects they have on our behavior.”
- Peter Senge
Trusting Your Gut or Systematic, Reasoned Judgment
In his book, Thinking Fast and Slow, Daniel Kahneman distinguishes between two broad categories of decision making. Fast decision making is essentially intuition-based, and involves feelings, beliefs, hunches that come readily to mind, require little effort or gathering of information, and result in on-the-spot decisions. Slow decision making, on the other hand, is based on reasoned judgment, and involves decisions that take time and effort to make, require careful information gathering, generation of alternatives, and evaluation of the alternatives. “If there Is time to reflect,” says Kahneman, “slowing down is likely to be a good idea."
Rapid decision making can be based on too-little data and too-little time to analyze it, increasing the odds of making miscalculations and mistakes that can have company and career threatening consequences. The antidote would seem to be to slow down, yet business and technology today are moving at warp speed, and leaders of fast-scaling companies must make multiple decisions every day. Not only that, but even the best-reasoned decisions come face to face with randomness and unpredictability. The challenge is to balance speed with the best possible judgment.
Hiring Mistakes Caused by Trusting Your Gut
A prime example of how biases can interfere with wise decision making is in the hiring process. An interviewer who makes snap judgments and lets his or her first impression cloud the interview can make critical hiring mistakes. You think you don’t do this? Guess again: A study from the University of Toledo found that the outcome of an interview could be predicted by judgments made within the first 10 seconds of dialogue! Interviewers then subconsciously spend the rest of the time seeking new information to confirm their first impression, rather than objectively assessing the person in front of them.
What this means is that your initial or gut reaction isn’t always a product of hidden wisdom! It may be a result of unacknowledged biases that can lead you to overlook strong candidates or choose those who are less qualified.
Example: Giving more credence to the fact that the candidate graduated from the interviewer's alma mater than to the applicant's knowledge, skills, or abilities.
Studies and surveys over the last 50 years have shown that 80% or more of the hiring decisions from traditional interviews are based on rapport and likeability and often miss competency, accomplishments, ability, and potential. In short: We like to hire people who are like us, who share our interests, values and style. But they are not always best for the job.
Hiring mistakes can be very costly. A common rule of thumb is that a hiring mistake ends up costing about 15 times the employee’s core salary, including both hard costs and lost productivity as you bring the new hire up to speed. That means a hiring mistake with a $100,000/year employee can cost you $1.5 million, or more. Another thought provoking statistic is that the success rate for hiring at senior levels is estimated to be about 50% - half of all executive hires do not pan out. According to Marc Bennioff, CEO of Salesforce, “Acquiring the right talent is the most important key to growth. Hiring was – and still is – the most important thing we do.”
We Are All Blind to Our Biases and Mental Models
You have probably recognized many of the biases and mental mind-sets described above, and no doubt you can see how they can and do interfere with clear thinking and thus to making the best decisions. However, it is not enough merely to understand the nature of various biases. Kahneman and other decision-making researchers have concluded that it is extremely difficult to eliminate your cognitive biases by yourself. They are too subtle and wired in. It’s like asking a fish to describe water. In addition, awareness of the effects of biases has done little to improve the quality of business decisions at both the individual and the organizational level. To combat the negative effects of bias on team performance, active steps need to be taken.
Catalyzed by the research of Daniel Kahneman and many others, we now know vastly more about how the decision-making process operates, why it so often leads us astray, and what we can do to become a more effective decision maker. I will summarize some of that research in this and follow-up blog posts, with a special angle: much of the existing research concerns how individuals decide. In today’s corporate universe, an enormous number of decisions every day are made in a group setting by teams of various kinds, a far less studied field that I will look at in addition to discussing individual decision making.
Evaluating Your Decisions
Ask yourself
:
• Did you do enough analysis?
• Did you follow a disciplined process to get all the right facts and views on the table?
• Did you avoid letting your strong viewpoint influence your team and narrow the options that were considered?
• Were you overconfident?
• Did you make assumptions that were wrong?
• Did you miss options that might have improved the results?
• Did you miss the big picture?
• Did you focus too much on short-term rather than long-term implications?
• Did you let pressure and stress influence your choice and end up compromising your standards or violating your values?
• Did you act impulsively without validating your intuition?
share this
Related Articles
Related Articles
Ego-driven leaders This type of leader often sees themselves as the architects of their own fates, solitary figures in the harsh world of business where competition is fierce and only the strong survive. They prize individual success and recognition above all else, their self-worth rooted deeply in personal triumphs. In their world, each decision is a step on the path to victory, which they walk with unwavering confidence. To them, leadership is less about marshalling the collective strength of a team and more about showcasing the force of their own unique vision. Their approach is characterized by a focus on the immediate, with a horizon that often doesn't extend beyond the next win, the next deal, the next acclaim. This type of leader regards the people around them as instrumental to their own narrative, valuing them for what they can contribute to the next achievement. Relationships are often seen through a lens of self-interest, with an underlying expectation of personal gain. They make decisions unilaterally, trusting in their own judgment and instincts above the counsel of others. They are mavericks who challenge the status quo, sometimes at the expense of the greater good, bending rules when they feel it's necessary to reach their goals. To these leaders, success is not just the best measure of their worth; it is often the only one that matters. They push boundaries, and in doing so, they can either lead their ventures to new heights or to precarious edges. They view life as a competition where for them to win, others must lose. Their self-worth is tightly bound to winning and personal achievements. They prioritize their own interests and believe in their unique talents. Recognition of their abilities and contributions is essential for them. They have a strong sense of entitlement and predestination for leadership. Enjoyment of attention and a conviction in their own ideas characterize their self-image. They adopt a utilitarian view of success, willing to use any means to achieve goals, even if it involves manipulating others. The value of others is assessed based on their utility in achieving personal ambitions. They see relationships transactionally, ensuring personal gain. Self-assurance in their judgment leads to a preference for autocratic decision-making. They trust their intuition over others' input and feel they have a superior understanding of the “big picture.” They are willing to bend or break rules if it serves their vision of innovation and success. Ethical flexibility is rationalized if it leads to profitability or maintaining power. There’s a reluctance to admit fault, often attributing criticism to jealousy or misunderstanding. They have a short-term focus on immediate gains rather than long-term strategic planning. Societal norms or ethics may be disregarded if they conflict with personal goals. The Consequences of Ego Driven Leadership Their resistance to criticism and feedback severely limits their capacity for learning and adaptation. By prioritizing their own ideas and dismissing others', they miss out on valuable insights that could steer the company away from potential pitfalls or toward innovative solutions. This closed-minded approach can hinder a startup's ability to pivot or adapt to market changes, a crucial aspect of scaling successfully Their transactional view of relationships undermines trust and loyalty within the team. Viewing interactions as mere exchanges diminishes the intrinsic motivation of team members and erodes the sense of community and belonging. As startups grow, the complexity and demands of managing a larger team require a cohesive, motivated workforce. Ego-driven leaders struggle to foster this environment, leading to high turnover rates and difficulty in attracting and retaining top talent. The overconfidence of ego-driven leaders in their abilities and judgment can lead to risky and impulsive decisions without adequate consideration of potential consequences. While risk-taking is a part of startup culture, unchecked ego can push a company toward unnecessary dangers. Scaling successfully requires balanced, data-informed risk-taking that ego-driven leaders might overlook in favor of bold, but ill-advised, moves. Ego-driven leaders' tendency to bend rules and ethical boundaries for short-term gains can pose significant reputational risks. Such behavior not only jeopardizes the company's standing with customers, investors, and regulatory bodies but can also lead to internal cultures that justify unethical actions. As startups scale, maintaining a strong ethical foundation becomes increasingly important for sustainable growth and avoiding legal and reputational pitfalls. Their focus on immediate results often comes at the expense of long-term planning and sustainability. Ego-driven leaders might prioritize quick wins to boost their image or satisfy short-term financial goals, neglecting the investments in infrastructure, culture, and strategy necessary for scaling. This shortsightedness can stunt a startup's growth trajectory and leave it ill-prepared for future challenges. Lastly, the need for control that characterizes ego-driven leadership impedes their ability to delegate effectively and empower team members. Scaling a startup requires distributing responsibilities and trusting others to make decisions. Ego-driven leaders struggle with this aspect of growth, often becoming bottlenecks for decision-making and innovation, which can slow down the organization and demotivate talented employees Principle-Centered Leadership Leaders who exhibit emotional maturity and responsibility steer their teams with a clear sense of purpose, guided by the ethos of service and community impact rather than personal glory. They recognize their role as an opportunity to uplift and empower, measuring triumph not in the echo of their accolades but in the progress and well-being of their collective. They understand that a variety of perspectives fuels smarter strategies and true innovation, and they champion a collaborative approach that harnesses the collective strength of their team. At the heart of their leadership style is a commitment to trust and respect, essential ingredients in cultivating an environment where open communication and innovation can thrive. These leaders are adept in emotional intelligence, balancing empathy with self-awareness, and adjusting seamlessly to change. Their decisions are anchored in integrity, serving as a living example to their teams. With a gaze set on the long-term horizon, they emphasize sustainable practices and resilience, knowing that meaningful success is not a sprint but a marathon. By investing in their people, they're not just building a team; they're nurturing an ecosystem where every member can flourish. They view leadership as a duty to serve rather than a right to command. They measure success by the positive impact on the team and community. They prioritize serving others and contributing to the greater good. They value diverse perspectives and encourage every voice to be heard. They emphasize collaboration and shared leadership for collective success. They practice and model integrity and transparency. They create a safe space for innovation and honest feedback. They celebrate collective achievements to motivate and unite the team. They believe in the interconnection of the team's and organization's welfare. They utilize emotional intelligence for empathetic and effective leadership. They commit to personal growth and adaptability based on continual feedback. They uphold ethics and integrity as foundations for all decisions. They focus on sustainable success with a long-term perspective. They invest in building strong relationships and a cohesive team. They maintain resilience and positivity in the face of challenges. 16. They encourage work-life balance for team health and sustained performance.
My methodology is a comprehensive approach that delves deep into the intricacies of founder competencies to unearth the secrets of success. Through meticulous analysis and categorization, this methodology provides valuable insights into the behaviors that correlate with success, offering a roadmap for aspiring entrepreneurs navigating the startup journey.
Securing second-round funding is often a pivotal milestone on the journey toward success. While innovative ideas and promising markets certainly capture investors' attention, one fundamental aspect consistently stands out as a critical factor: the strength and experience of the founding team. Behind every groundbreaking startup is a team with the vision, expertise, and determination to turn dreams into reality. Investors recognize that a strong team can navigate challenges, capitalize on opportunities, and drive sustainable growth. Let's delve into why team strength matters and explore the statistical evidence supporting its importance in securing second-round funding. Diverse Skill Set: The Engine of Innovation A diverse skill set within the founding team is akin to having a well-equipped toolbox for tackling the complexities of startup life. Startups require a range of talents spanning product development, marketing, sales, finance, and operations. According to research conducted by Harvard Business Review, teams with diverse backgrounds and skill sets are more innovative and better equipped to solve complex problems. Investors seek teams that complement each other's strengths and compensate for weaknesses, fostering a culture of collaboration and creativity. Startups with diverse teams are more likely to identify unique market opportunities, develop innovative solutions, and adapt to evolving industry landscapes. Relevant Industry Experience: Navigating the Terrain Experience is invaluable in the startup ecosystem, where uncertainty and rapid change are constants. Investors place great emphasis on founding teams with relevant industry experience, as they bring insights, networks, and best practices that can accelerate growth and mitigate risks. According to a study by CB Insights, startups founded by teams with industry experience are more likely to achieve higher levels of success and attract follow-on funding. Seasoned entrepreneurs understand market dynamics, customer needs, and competitive forces, positioning their startups for strategic advantage and sustainable growth. Track Record of Execution: Turning Vision into Reality Ideas are abundant in the startup world, but execution is the true currency of success. Investors scrutinize the track record of founding teams, seeking evidence of execution prowess and the ability to deliver results in the face of challenges. Startups that have demonstrated traction, achieved key milestones, and effectively allocated resources are viewed favorably by investors. According to data compiled by PitchBook, startups with proven execution capabilities are more likely to secure second-round funding and position themselves for long-term success. Investing in People, Investing in Success Team strength emerges as a decisive factor in securing second-round funding. Investors understand that while ideas may spark interest, it is the people behind those ideas who ultimately drive success. Startups with diverse teams, relevant industry experience, and a track record of execution stand poised to capture investors' attention and fuel their growth trajectory. As the startup ecosystem continues to evolve, the emphasis on team strength remains unwavering, underscoring the timeless adage: "Invest in people, and success will follow." For startups eyeing the next stage of growth and expansion, investing in team strength is not just a strategic imperative—it's the cornerstone of enduring success. Team strength emerges as a decisive factor in securing second-round funding. Investors understand that while ideas may spark interest, it is the people behind those ideas who ultimately drive success. Startups with diverse teams, relevant industry experience, and a track record of execution stand poised to capture investors' attention and fuel their growth trajectory. As the startup ecosystem continues to evolve, the emphasis on team strength remains unwavering, underscoring the timeless adage: "Invest in people, and success will follow." For startups eyeing the next stage of growth and expansion, investing in team strength is not just a strategic imperative—it's the cornerstone of enduring success. It is however important to understand that: What got you here, isn't going to get you there!. Being ready and willing to accept that there needs to be some measure of personal growth is what sets Founders who can scale, apart from those who won't.
STAY UP TO DATE
GET PATH'S LATEST
Receive bi-weekly updates from the church, and get a heads up on upcoming events.
Contact Us
