A company launches an expansion; it fails; the manager who championed it is quietly passed over at the next promotion. A rival launches the same expansion with the same odds; it works; their manager is celebrated as a visionary. Nothing in these two stories says anything about the quality of the two decisions — and both companies conclude the opposite. This is outcome bias, and it is not a philosopher's quibble: it is a training program, run in every personnel review, that teaches an organization to reward luck and punish risk-taking. Over years it reliably produces a company that takes no good risks and all the bad ones.
Decisions split along two independent axes: the quality of the process that made them, and the outcome that followed. Good process, good outcome — the only quadrant everyone reads correctly. Bad process, good outcome — the dangerous quadrant: the gamble that worked, reinforcing exactly the habits that will eventually destroy the company; nothing teaches bad process faster than its early successes. Good process, bad outcome — the quadrant that tests whether the company deserves its best decision-makers: the odds were right, the risks were named, the variance went the other way. Bad process, bad outcome — the useful quadrant, if the company studies it as a process failure rather than a personnel one.
Organizations that judge decisions well share one artifact: a record made before the outcome is known. The decision, the reasoning, the alternatives, the odds as they were seen at the time — written down when the future was still future. Without this record, every review is retro-fitted: the winners' reasoning becomes brilliant in retrospect, the losers' reasoning becomes obviously flawed, and no one can tell whether the process actually differed. With the record, a losing decision can be examined honestly: did the world break the way the risk analysis said it might — acceptable variance — or did the analysis not look where the break came from — a real defect, and a lesson.
A company that judges decisions by outcomes teaches its people to be lucky, quiet or gone. A company that judges by process teaches them to think.
This is the quiet half of decision support as a practice — the half that works on how the organization decides, not on any particular decision — and it extends the questions opened in strategic decisions under uncertainty.
We use cookies to analyse traffic and improve the site. Analytics is enabled only with your consent. Cookie Policy