Organizational Change Management and Behavioral Economics are two fields that intersect when understanding human behavior in the workplace and I love them both! In this post, I will delve into the intricacies of escalation of commitment bias and discuss how we all can fall victim to entrapment problems. The Escalation of Commitment bias is one of the most critical behavioral biases that can impact technical change management efforts.

Learn more: Best Practices for Managing Project Escalations

The Escalation of Commitment Bias

The Escalation of Commitment bias is the tendency for individuals to continue investing time, resources, and effort into a project or decision based on the amount they have already invested rather than evaluating the current and future value of the project. This bias can have severe consequences in the context of change management, as it can lead to organizations investing in failing projects, overlooking more viable alternatives, and stifling innovation. It also drives teams to over-rely on GRIT, in the hopes that things are about to improve.

Looking at the impact on change management efforts, the bias can manifest in several ways:

• Resistance to change: Employees may resist new technologies or processes due to their attachment to the time and effort invested in the existing systems. "Email works great for all my needs" is often said, but probe a little deeper, and you will find how many hours a day they spend working on emails.
• Overlooking alternatives: Managers may become overly committed to a specific technology or approach, ignoring or downplaying other viable options. Is an opportunity to introduce the concept of Red Teaming - even just a mini red-team exercise can help.
• Prolonged investment in failing projects: Organizations may continue to invest in projects with diminishing returns, reluctant to admit that their initial investment could have been better.
• Stacks of patches/band-aids have been implemented to keep an old process or add-in working.

Jeffrey Rubin's Story and Entrapment Problems

Jeffrey Rubin was a Psychology and Adjunct Diplomacy Professor at Tufts University. He was also a Senior Fellow in the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School and the author of more than a dozen books on interpersonal and international conflict. He was an expert in the escalation of commitment problems. He was also an experienced hiker who tragically perished while hiking in the mountains. Despite encountering adverse weather conditions and being warned by a graduate student that conditions were too rough and the student was turning back, Rubin continued his ascent and unfortunately perished. (Obituary)

His story serves as a powerful example of entrapment problems, where individuals become so committed to a course of action that they fail to recognize the warning signs or make rational decisions. We can all be victims of entrapment problems. In change management, entrapment can occur when organizations become so committed to a particular technology or project that they fail to recognize and adapt to changing circumstances, ultimately leading to, team stress, a complex solution architecture, over-time, over-budget, and poor outcomes.

Awareness is NOT enough

I love this quote from Anne Duke; "Knowing Isn't the Same as Doing" from the HBR podcast, Grit is Good. But Quitting Can Be, Too. Anne's quote underscores the importance of recognizing and mitigating the escalation of commitment bias. It is not enough to merely be aware of the bias; organizations must actively take steps to counteract its effects.

To prevent the Escalation of Commitment bias from hindering your efforts:

1. Implement a culture of learning and adaptability, encouraging your team to embrace change and new technologies.
2. Re-Journey Map! I emphasize the "re" part because, in many projects, we start with a gap assessment which would include time and effort to map the users' journey, but we need to reevaluate or update our maps regularly to make sure that minor decisions have not significantly altered the course for our users.
3. Regularly evaluate and reassess projects, ensuring that decisions are based on current data and future prospects rather than past investments.
4. Lead by example, open communication and feedback, enabling team members to hear concerns and highlight potential issues from across the project members.

Dead Horse Theory

The theory is derived from an old saying, "If you find yourself riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount." The Dead Horse Theory is a metaphor that highlights the importance of recognizing when a situation or project is no longer productive, viable, or worth investing in and knowing when to move on.

If you find yourself riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount.

I like the Dead Horse Theory because it is easily translatable to many issues in projects. The art is finding the balance for when more GRIT is needed to push through and when to change horses and find a different path to success.

The Escalation of Commitment bias can significantly impact technical change management efforts, often leading to bad outcomes. By understanding this bias, learning from stories like Jeffrey Rubin's, and heeding Anne Duke's advice, we can make more informed decisions and successfully navigate the complexities of change.

Frequently Asked Questions

About the Author

Timothy Lynch

Senior Organizational Change Management Consultant

I help people as they go through technology changes