On 1st July 1916, Field Marshall Haig ordered troops ‘over the top’ in long, close-formed lines. Of up to 120,000 troops involved on day one of the Battle of the Somme, nearly 20,000 died and nearly 37,000 were injured. Some myths suggest that British troops were told to walk slowly across ‘no man’s land’ with their rifles by their side. One battalion was said to have taken bets on who would be the first to kick a football to the other side. Historians argue that different regiments each had their own strategies for advancing. So, why did the advance go ahead? Did Haig order soldiers to walk (not run) with rifles by their side? Why did he allow 57,000 casualties on that first day? Read on as we ask how bias blind spots can lead to erroneous decision-making.
Bias blind spots
All human beings have bias, also known as blind spots. Bias blind spots include confirmation bias, the availability heuristic and optimism bias to name a few. Confirmation bias involves seeking only the facts and information that supports our prior belief, ignoring the facts that contradict our belief. The availability heuristic is an overestimation of the importance of events or experiences with greater ‘availability’ in our memory, such as something recent or emotionally-charged. Optimism bias occurs when we are overoptimistic about the chances of success and underestimate the probability of failure.
Blind spots lead us into making decisions based on intuition, our beliefs and what worked for us in the past. As you will see, not all intuition is good. Not all beliefs are supported by evidence. Not everything that worked in the past will work today. Ultimately, research into what makes up a broader intelligence, including emotional intelligence (EQ) and rational intelligence, are still in their infancy. However, there is a growing consensus of work that suggests that IQ is not the best measure of decision-making, since intelligence is scientifically considered an abstract concept. It also seems that the most prone to bias and fallacy may actually be those with higher cognitive potential as measured by IQ.
So, let’s look at a few fallacies and biases that we see today.
Downtime ≠ low productivity
Since Peter Drucker’s influence on business schools, there has been a correlation between labour productivity and profit. Most people educated in business schools during the 1970s-1980s believe in maximisation of profit and high productivity. Put simply, profit was put above all and some employees were lazy. A whole industry of frameworks and management consulting arose around the subject, helping to increase profits and productivity. The COVID pandemic gave us new insights into productivity, both at home and during ‘downtime’.
The long-held belief of most leaders seemed to be that time away from the desk, outside of the cubicle, away from the instant messaging app or chatting to colleagues means lost productivity. Context is clearly important here. Many also lament the lack of innovation in their organisations. Some more recent studies have shown a significant drop in productivity for more hours worked. High productivity may also reduce interaction, with recent studies focused on collaboration tools and technologies shown to reduce collaboration. The collaboration tools that we use may be reducing interaction and productivity rather than increasing it. Others have identified that when we try to ‘switch off’, either on a break or at home, our brain activity significantly increases as our minds start to wander. This ‘wandering’ is a source of innovation – a time to let ideas flourish and solutions effervesce.
High-intelligence ≠ rational
It goes without saying that the majority of people associate IQ with the ability to make decisions. The intelligence quotient is used as a proxy for mental capability. As you might expect, it spawned an industry of testing, both through education and for recruitment, to filter out low achievers. There are professional memberships for the gifted and certain educational establishments and employers look out for the brightest and ‘best’. However, as always, things are not so straightforward. Why are the occupiers of the highest political office not the smartest people in the country? Why are some scientific problems unsolved, despite arranging teams of the ‘best’ in their field? How is it that some highly intelligent individuals make bizarre decisions?
A US study found that individuals with a higher IQ were more likely to drink heavily and have taken drugs than those of a below average IQ. Members of one ‘intelligence’ community had a higher propensity to believe in extra-terrestrial visitation than on average. In another study, those with high cognitive abilities were found to have higher cognitive biases, even though they believed they could ‘outsmart’ their own biases. It seems that there is a risk that highly-intelligent people could have stronger beliefs and use that extra intelligence to cement their beliefs beyond doubt. In summary, this is of great concern if evidence and rational thought suggest the opposite of their belief(s).
Pursuing an erroneous course while ignoring bias blind spots
The sunk-cost fallacy occurs when people invest more in a decision, based on the resources already invested, despite evidence contradicting the approach. In short, it is “throwing good money after bad”. Despite the bloody start to the Battle of the Somme (the bloodiest day in British military history), it raged on for several months. It finally ended on 13th November 1916, incurring nearly 1.3m casualties for all sides. The assault gained an area of around 6 x 20 miles and is generally accepted to have failed most of the major objectives, though some of the lessons may have eventually contributed to the end of the war in 1918.
Was Haig guilty of the hot-hand fallacy? Did his previous victories give him a greater chance of success as he persevered, or was it just wishful thinking? Did Haig suffer a form of cognitive dissonance, failing to plan for or react to something that had not occurred before? If we re-examine the facts, the artillery bombardment had failed to clear the way:
- Nearly 1 in 3 shells failed to explode on impact;
- Around 2 in 3 shells were shrapnel (used against concrete, impregnable positions);
- Artillery guns were thinly spread (used to clear barbed-wire);
- Much enemy artillery survived this preliminary bombardment (meant to clear resistance).
The result of these failures and errors, of which historians still disagree, was a loss of nearly 20,000 people in a single day. 300,000 died before the battle ended. Why did Haig not know of the ineffectiveness of the artillery or the rate at which losses occurred? Could reconnaissance have identified the problems before the assault? Perhaps he believed that his plans, based on intuition and what had worked for him before, were going to give him a ‘hot hand’ again. Hindsight bias is a wonderful thing.
An external or outside view
It is worth noting that different perspectives, examples and analogies can challenge internal thinking. Organisations can struggle to think beyond the confines of their business, industry and challenges. Additionally, we know that 90% of large infrastructure projects are delayed or over-budget (the planning fallacy). We tend to assume that we possess all of the answers, resources and capabilities internally. We also know that internal experts suffer from specialist bias, over-recommending things that they know how to do. With the multitude of biases we all suffer from, an external point of view may be wise.
A final thought on bias blind spots is to consider how a lack of inclusion and diversity might contribute. Douglas Haig was perhaps typical of military commanders of the time. He was a white male, son of a wealthy business owner, studied at Oxford, played polo and was a Freemason. He enrolled at Sandhurst Royal Military College and was likely surrounded by a similar pedigree of officer, thus excluding other candidates with neurodiversity. Could a different composition of commanders have planned the artillery bombardment better, executed the assault in a more co-ordinated fashion and reacted to events much sooner? We will never know the true answer, but what we do know is that the cost was too high.
A different perspective beyond
Here at Think Beyond, we listen, research and recommend courses of action that we think will support better outcomes. Sometimes, that just means offering an external perspective – an outside lens on what is happening elsewhere.
If you would like to get a different perspective, why not organise an introduction online. Alternatively, send us a short email and we will arrange a video chat.
Finally, why not read about how to engage us to support your business.