Verified by 
We remain in the midst of a global pandemic, and across many parts of the United States, COVID-19 cases continue to grow at an alarming rate. There are raging debates about mask mandates and plans to open schools safely in the fall. Medical researchers and healthcare professionals argue that our collective response has been inadequate in meeting this challenge. In short, there is ample evidence that much of what we have been doing is not working, particularly when compared with the results achieved in other countries.
Nevertheless, some leaders remain committed to staying the course, arguing that their actions are working and that the situation is under control, even in the face of evidence to the contrary. Although such behavior may seem irrational, it is not uncommon. Indeed, it is consistent with a decision-making bias—escalation of commitment—that has been widely investigated in the organizational behavior and psychology literature.
Unfortunately, changing direction, even when you realize you may be headed the wrong way, can sometimes be harder than it should. Over the years, researchers have identified several causes of escalation of commitment, but there are some common psychological and social determinants that tend to increase its occurrence.
Two psychological factors that can set escalation of commitment into motion are felt responsibility and the investment of resources. In other words, leaders have a tendency to stick to their current plan, in spite of data that says they are off track, when they feel personally responsible for making the decision (i.e., it was their choice) and they have invested more heavily in the decision (e.g., in terms of time, energy, and money).
Another psychological factor at play is leaders’ tendency to adhere to an adopted position in order to protect their ego. In other words, people have a hard time admitting they have made a misjudgment or mistake, and therefore, leaders are often unwilling to change their position because it might diminish their own self-image.
Unjustified optimism is another contributing psychological factor. Sometimes decision-makers have an unfounded belief that problems will just go away, and that the current situation will somehow get better with additional time, money, or effort. Further, their optimism can also cause them to selectively interpret information and data in a way that confirms their position and reinforces their obstinance.
Social factors can also play a role in escalation bias. Most notably, people want to be viewed as consistent and steady by others. For instance, it can be politically damaging to be labelled as a "flip-flopper." For this reason, elected leaders are often reluctant to be perceived as someone who is indecisive or changes their positions too often; they want to be seen as steadfast in their beliefs.
At the same time, though, making good decisions means that one must also be able and willing to adapt to changing circumstances and new information. As such, if leaders are too concerned about their image, it can cause them to continue down the wrong path for the sake of perceived consistency.
Given the problems that escalation of commitment can engender, it is useful to consider some ways that this bias can be reduced.
First, decision-makers can find ways of involving others in decision making so that no one person shoulders all of the responsibility. Indeed, important decisions should normally be made with the input of experts, advisors, stakeholders, and other concerned parties. Moreover, although leaders should take responsibility for their actions, this sense of responsibility can be problematic if it makes them intransigent and unwilling to adapt to an evolving situation.
Further, when decisions are made collectively, research has found that diffusion of responsibility can help counteract the tendency for any one individual to continue pursuing a failing course of action. To avoid the effects of felt responsibility, it may also be feasible for one party or group to make initial decisions, while another has greater control over follow-up decisions and the potential need to course correct.
Second, in light of the problems associated with the selective interpretation of data, it may be useful for decision-makers to pre-commit to a decision rule or some agreed-upon metrics that would determine if a change in plans is required. For instance, in determining whether to keep schools open, it might be helpful to decide, a priori, how many COVID-19 cases within a community would necessitate a shift to virtual learning.
Third, leaders should be aware of the tendency to escalate, open to hearing the truth even when it is unpleasant, and willing to admit they may have made a mistake and to change course regardless of any previous investments they have made. In fact, research on leader humility suggests that leaders who admit mistakes and acknowledge their limitations tend to be more effective at eliciting engagement, trust, and loyalty from their employees and increasing team performance.
Finally, if we want leaders who are willing to change direction when warranted, we need to be more accepting and supportive when they do so. Indeed, there is a difference between vacillating or changing positions on a whim and undergoing an evolution or changing direction based on new information. In short, we should applaud leaders who make a genuine effort to avoid the escalation of commitment trap.
