To find a solution, understand the problem. Listen to the problem; accept the problem. Life tests our intentions with obstacles. We all remember the Pogo cartoon, "we have met the enemy and he is us."
Have we ever missed our exit ramp on the highway? Do we replan and find the next exit or stay wrong? When we err and stay wrong, we double down on mistakes. It's common in business, in sports, in trading, in education (test taking).
Escalation of commitment loses time, money, and opportunity. A professional team drafts a player ("bonus baby") and he can't play. He can't hit the curve ball, drinks too much, or views the game as secondary to 'the life'. But the team keeps giving him opportunity, minutes, and a role. Or an owner hires a coach who's over his head. Rather than cutting bait, management stays the course.
We know this as "sunk cost", the strategy (above) of investing in a losing proposition. It's particularly dramatic in medicine. Decades ago, I cared for an ICU patient with terminal illness and organ failure, and his doctor asked me about prognosis. I told him that if the patient did spectacularly well, he might live a few weeks. He died in three days. Six months later, the physician told me that he thought I was crazy at the time, because he had cared for the patient for years. But he realized that he was so invested in the patient recovering, that he lost all perspective.
Ask ourselves, if we faced this problem now, what would we choose?
Leeds et al. ask whether sunk costs are irrelevant in the NBA. They analyze whether lottery picks and first round choices get more opportunity than less pricey acquisitions with similar levels of performance. We know from data from psychologists in the 1980s that prior financial commitment impacts our decisions.
Leeds reports, "We find no evidence that NBA teams exhibit discontinuous commitment to players whom they draft in the first round or in the lottery over those drafted later. Our RD results show that players drafted in the above positions receive no more playing time – and, in some situations, receive less playing time – than other players."
Leeds argues that their analysis looks at wins added versus other performance metrics to explain the difference. We might wonder whether teams learned from their mistakes and have less commitment to failed projects (e.g. Kwame Brown) and move on when decisions fail.
"When people focus on others, as givers do naturally, they’re less likely to worry about egos and minuscule details; they look at the big picture and prioritize what matters most to others." - Adam Grant
"Openness to criticism" affects our behavior. The scene from "Steve Jobs" illustrates one maladaptive style. By the way, the scene was suggested by Andy Hertzfeld, Jobs' target.
Threats to our ego push us to recommit to flawed decisions. Do we find "sunk cost fallacy" at work in our decisions? Sorkin advises us to ignore the non-experts commentary, but see real problems and fix them.
Lagniappe: Raptors Spain PnR (screen-the-roller)
Toronto Raptors | Spain Pick & Roll pic.twitter.com/eYDPGtFub6— Half Court Hoops (@HalfCourtHoops) June 6, 2019