Explore the hidden pitfalls of survivorship bias and how it skews our perception of success. Discover the importance of examining failures and cautionary tales in decision-making. The conversation dives into the complexities of theory-driven practices and the need for adaptability in productizing consulting services. Learn about innovative methodologies like estuarine mapping and the challenges of aligning organizational goals. Ultimately, it’s an exploration of how we can navigate biases and improve our strategies.
Survivorship bias challenges our understanding of success by emphasizing the need to consider both successes and failures in learning processes.
Adopting a portfolio of strategies enables organizations to innovate and adapt by exploring diverse approaches instead of relying solely on past successes.
Deep dives
Understanding Survivorship Bias
Survivorship bias refers to the tendency of focusing on successful individuals or companies while ignoring those that have failed, ultimately leading to misleading conclusions about how to achieve success. This bias can result in the misconception that replicating the decisions of successful entities guarantees similar outcomes, forgetting that numerous others may have tried the same strategies and failed without any acknowledgment. An example highlighted is the academic file drawer effect, where only studies with positive results are published, leading to an incomplete understanding of a topic. Addressing this bias requires a conscious effort to recognize the limitations of observation, prompting the need for a more comprehensive view that encompasses both successes and failures.
The Challenge of Organizational Scar Tissue
Organizational scar tissue develops when adverse experiences shape the collective psyche of a company, leading to narratives aimed at avoiding past mistakes rather than embracing learning opportunities. These scar tissues not only highlight failures but often overshadow instances where similar actions did not lead to negative outcomes, thus intensifying the fear surrounding certain strategies. The discussion includes the importance of sharing both positive and negative stories in organizational contexts, as they serve as valuable learning experiences for teams. By doing this, organizations can balance caution with the potential for innovation, preventing the paralysis that often accompanies too much focus on past catastrophes.
Embracing a Portfolio of Strategies
Adopting a portfolio of strategies allows organizations to experiment with multiple approaches simultaneously, thus reducing the risks associated with survivorship bias. This method emphasizes that the best solution may not be immediately evident and encourages the exploration of varied paths to uncover the most effective strategies. Through this framework, companies can gain insights from diverse experiments rather than relying solely on past successes, fostering a culture of adaptability and innovation. The idea is to remain open to contrasting methods and not settle for a single solution, ultimately enhancing the organization's capacity to navigate uncertainty.
Survivorship bias is unavoidable. By default, we see what survives and not what doesn't. This is OK but it creates the risk that we take the wrong lessons from the survivors.
In this episode, we talk about how we might mitigate the downsides of survivorship bias. We touch on a bunch of topics:
rejecting simplistic Sinekisms
theory-informed praxis, rather than copy-pasting patterns across contexts
challenges to Estuarine Mapping
zero-sum games
bounded applicabilty – asking when something doesn't apply, or who shouldn't use a thing
Double Diamonds
Shiny Frameworks
Portfolio of small bets in parallel – as a way to optimise for survival
And an invitation to you: what are we missing? How do you handle survivorship bias?