BNET Insight

Big Think

Game-changing ideas from new business books and other sources of inspiration.

Why We Can't Stop Making Bad Decisions

July 17th, 2008 @ 1:57 pm

6 Comments

Categories: Strategy

Tags: Robots, Financial Planning, Taxes, Investment, Financial Services, Emerging Technologies, Finance, Michael Fitzgerald

Might the bailout of the week strategy in vogue in Washington be simply irrational behavior on an institutional level?

I hinted at this in Peeling Away the Economic Onion. I ran across this Shankar Vedantam column in the Washington Post, Taking More Risks Because You Feel Safe
.
He asserts that

Trying to fix problems that affect vast numbers of people has an intuitive appeal that politicians and policymakers find irresistible, but several warehouses of research studies show that intuition is often a poor guide to fixing systemic problems.

For instance, protecting homeowners from foreclosure, dishing out a massive tax rebate and saving big financial services firms all might sound like good ideas, but Vedantam tells us “the problem with most social interventions is that they target not robots and machines but human beings — who regularly respond to interventions in contrarian, paradoxical and unpredictable ways. ”

He cites Clifford Winston, a Brookings Institution economist and author of “Market Failure Versus Government Failure,” who says that government actions generally ‘have little effect, or actually make things worse.’

Not a good sign for the economy. I’m not picking on government officials, either. Businesspeople aren’t necessarily any better — remember this Jim Cramer moment from January?

But what is it in our psychology that causes us as individuals and in concert to, in effect, throw good money after bad?

The short answer may be that we hate losing, and that aversion to losing can override good judgment. That’s the thesis of “Sway: The Irresistible Pull of Irrational Behavior” a book by Ori and Rom Brafman that starts with the dramatic tale of one of the world’s safest pilots inexplicably getting into the worst airplane collision in history, and uses that to illustrate how the desire to avoid losing can make the irrational seem reasonable (here’s the gripping first chapter. If, as they get into a bit later in chapter one, individuals in the stock market will chase a loss, why wouldn’t government officials do the same thing on a larger scale? It might seem to them like common sense, but it’s more like common nonsense. Having started, will they be able to resist its pull? And can knowing what’s going on help you keep your company out of harm’s way?

Know of a good business read you'd like to share with your fellow BNET readers?

 
Reply to Story

BNET TalkbackShare your ideas and expertise on this topic

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

  •  
    1

    HaslKelchner

    07/20/08 | Report as spam

    Bad Decisions

    Three cognitive biases are responsible for over 80% of the poor decision making in business: availability (knowledge of how real the risk is), overconfidence (this one speaks for itself), and loss aversion (we hate to lose a lot more than we love to win). Unfortunately, we'll continue to see poor decision making and decisions that result in lawsuits and more regulation until business leaders create effective processes that serve as checks and balances to these biases.

    Hanna Hasl-Kelchner
    author, The Business Guide to Legal Literacy: What Every Manager Should Know About the Law (Jossey-Bass, 2006)

  •  
    2

    Michael Fitzgerald

    07/21/08 | Report as spam

    re:bad decisions

    Hanna,
    Interesting assertion about the 80 percent. Is it from a study you could share with us?

    Have you seen a process that leaders can use to lower this percentage? I know the idea of 'reframing' seems to help with avoiding overconfidence biases, for instance.

    Thanks,

    Michael

  •  
    3

    gerryharry

    07/23/08 | Report as spam

    RE: Why We Can't Stop Making Bad Decisions

    The government's bailout decisions can certainly be viewed as an irrational attempt to avoid loss -- whether it's Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac today, or Mexico and South Korea in the 1990's. But I think this viewpoint is too simplistic. I know that in much smaller-scale decisions I make at work for my group, there are often multiple viewpoints. Deciding which viewpoint holds sway oftentimes makes my decision appear irrational to a different viewpoint.

    Is it hypocritical of the Administration to preach and apply "free market" principles to individuals but not to corporations? Yes. Is bailing out Fannie and Freddie the "right" decision? Maybe; maybe not. To ascribe the decision to our genetic loss aversion tendencies is, I feel, too simplistic.

  •  
    4

    Michael Fitzgerald

    07/23/08 | Report as spam

    re: points of view

    It may be simplistic to attribute the repeated bailouts of financial companies as a product of mere psychology. But I look at what's happening as boiling down to this:

    Large financial firm has behaved with extravagant irresponsibility (as President Bush said, "Wall Street was drunk").

    Firm to politician: Save me, or the world economy will implode!

    Politician (squints at mind-numbing definition of derivatives and reams of frightening-looking data): Yes, the world economy looks like it's about to stop. We'll get right on that.

    [politicians don capes and stride off to their staffs to save the day].

    [end of scene]

    Okay, I'm kind of joking here. But I just saw where the economist Nouriel Roubini says the government should just nationalize mortgage lending and prepare to take a trillion-dollar write-down to fix the problems in the lending market, or else be prepared to see pretty much every major bank fail. And part of me gets very angry, and part of me remembers the loan crisis of the early 1980s, and gets rather skeptical about whether letting one of these banks just plain fail wouldn't be a good bracing dose of reality for all of us. And part of me squints a bit and thinks, maybe the world economy is going to slip into a state of disaster if a large investment bank goes belly-up, and they should be saved.

    See? Multiple points of view, in my own head. Perhaps I should have it examined.

    Michael

  •  
    5

    gerryharry

    07/23/08 | Report as spam

    Incentives and Risky Behavior

    It's exactly this scenario that makes the psychological viewpoint too simplistic.

    To tie this back to Shankar's article, the government's reaction needs to be less reactionary and more visionary; focused on long-term incentives than short-term fixes. Their actions today will have long-lasting consequences as future banks and lenders take government intervention into their risk calculations.

    I wonder if there's some causal connection between the S&L bailout you mention and the wide-spread mortgage crap-shoot that has lead to our current crisis. Speaking of 'crap-shoot', I think that gambling behavior is more applicable to this situation than the loss-averse lesson of irrational behavioral psychology.

  •  
    6

    Michael Fitzgerald

    07/25/08 | Report as spam

    re:incentives and risk

    I think it all comes down to risk, doesn't it?

    In the case of the politicians, it seems to me they don't want to risk the chance of another big depression. They're afraid of loss. I'm not sure I see how that's different from a gambler doubling down, feeling it's the only way to not lose.

    There's a telling anecdote in the book "Sway," mentioned in this post. It cites a professor who has groups bid for $20, in increments of $1. The winner gets the $20. The second-highest bidder has to pay the professor his or her bid. In this bidding game, the professor has never had to give someone $20 -- they always bid more than $20 (the record is $204).

    People don't like to lose.

    Michael

Please add your comment:

  1. You are currently: a Guest |
  2.  

Basic HTML tags that work in comments are: bold (<b></b>), italic (<i></i>), underline (<u></u>), and hyperlink (<a href></a)

advertisement
Click Here
Top Rated
    advertisement
    • Click Here
    • Click Here
    • Click Here
    advertisement