Olivier Sibony is a former McKinsey senior partner and a professor at the French business school HEC. He is a behavioral economy enthousiast with a focus on decision biases. Here is an English synthesis of his book on the topic. I wrote it for my own purpose and I hope you may find it useful.
Intuition or thinking slow?
Intuition works when someone with experience is placed in a regular environment with predictable outcome and the feedback loop is clear. Whenever the three conditions are not met intuition becomes dangerous. Indeed there is a long list of biases to beware of and are not linked to intelligence or ethics. These biases can be grouped within action, group, interest, inertia, and mental model.
A list of biases to beware of
⁃ Optimism bias, i.e. we tend to believe we will succeed and Darwinism probably made this a condition for survival
⁃ Storytelling bias, i.e. facts seem to make sense together while they are actually random as human beings like to tell themselves stories
⁃ Confirmation bias, i.e. we only consider the facts that go in the sense of what we want to hear
⁃ Champion bias, i.e. we tend to trust an individual supposed to know better
⁃ Experience bias, i.e. we believe events will repeat in the fashion we are used to
⁃ Halo bias, i.e. we assume something is good because it was done by someone who is good at something else
⁃ Solipsism bias, i.e. we forget we have competitors or underestimate them
⁃ Inertia bias, i.e. we tend to take too little risk and delay decisions
⁃ Retrospective bias, i.e. after the events took place we tend to explain why it had to be so
⁃ Certainty bias, i.e. we tend to remove uncertainty from our communication and shun from alternative scenarios
⁃ Short-term bias, i.e. we tend to care more about the present than the future
⁃ Group thinking bias, i.e. it feels safer to be wrong with everybody else than to be right alone
⁃ Self-serving bias, i.e. we tend to act in our own interests even if we claim having a rock solid ethics
⁃ Survivor bias, i.e. we tend to take decisions based on what we can see and what we can see as a selection bias
Fighting agains biases is a collective sport
One cannot erase their own biases and it may actually be counter-productive as most are unconscious. A strong methodology can help nevertheless.
⁃ A decision architect, i.e. someone in charge of the decision process
⁃ Time, i.e. enough time to ponder different solutions and to make the required assessments
⁃ Rules, i.e. forcing everyone to argue in favor and against a decision
⁃ Discord, i.e. people willing to argue several ways
⁃ Tools, e.g., pre-mortem, asking other colleagues to decide based on the facts,
⁃ A decision taker, i.e. someone will have to take the decision and this person should have the facts in favor and against the decision
⁃ Different angles, i.e. viewing the decisions from the client, the regulator or the competitor angle to see the facts differently
⁃ Challenge, e.g., asking consultants, experts, crowd or a different team to argue another way
⁃ Criteria checklist, e.g., having a list of items to verify before the decision is taken
⁃ Fact based analysis, i.e. requiring participants to prove their points and show data
⁃ Tricks, e.g., pushing one or several biases on purpose in order to see the situation with a different angle
⁃ Informality, i.e. people need to be willing to talk about the decision and to take the risk to speak up
To make better decisions, small steps can help
⁃ Small decisions, like a venture capital would do
⁃ A/B testing, to ensure the decision will be the best
⁃ Learning from failures, to ensure that failure will also bring something good
The book appendix contains a good checklist
After I had read the book I realized the appendix would make a good checklist synthesis. Thus I copied below the list of biases to beware of:
Modèle mental
⁃ Confirmation
⁃ Storytelling
⁃ Expérience
⁃ Champion
⁃ Attribution
⁃ Rétrospectif
⁃ Halo
⁃ Survivant
Biais d’action
⁃ Optimisme
⁃ Certitude
⁃ Précision
⁃ Oubli des concurrents
Biais d’inertie
⁃ Ancrage
⁃ Inertie d’allocation de ressources
⁃ Statu quo
⁃ Sunk costs
⁃ Aversion à la perte
⁃ Aversion au risque
⁃ Aversion à l’incertitude
Biais de groupe
⁃ Groupthink
⁃ Polarisation
⁃ Ordre des arguments
Biais d’intérêts
⁃ Intérêts personnels
⁃ Présent
⁃ Passif vs. Actif
Liste des actions à favoriser lorsque nous prenons une décision importante :
Orchestrer le dialogue
⁃ Diversité
⁃ Temps
⁃ Eléments pour discussion à l’ordre du jour
⁃ Lire les documents à l’avance
⁃ Bannir le storytelling
⁃ Temps de réflexion à froid obligatoire
⁃ Pas d’opinions tranchées
⁃ Avocats du diable
⁃ Pas de propositions binaires
⁃ Ce que nous ferions si l’option préférée disparaissait
⁃ Histoires alternatives sur les mêmes faits
⁃ Pre-mortem
⁃ Comité de décision distinct (six amigos)
⁃ Date de décision
Favoriser le décentrage
⁃ Personnalités divergentes
⁃ Réseau informel
⁃ Experts
⁃ Consultants à qui on ne donne pas ses hypothèses
⁃ Challenger interne
⁃ Equipe rouge
⁃ War gaming
⁃ Sagesse des foules
⁃ Modélisation
⁃ Analogies structurées
⁃ Routines de remise en cause du statu quo
⁃ Standardisation des formats de présentation
⁃ Critères de décision
⁃ Stress test
⁃ Vue due l’extérieure
Adopter une dynamique de décision agile
⁃ Relations confiantes
⁃ Culture de speak up
⁃ Alignement des intérêts personnels et du collectif
⁃ Apprentissage sans frais
⁃ Tests où l’échec est possible
⁃ Tests contrôlés A/B
⁃ Expérimentation permanents
⁃ Engagements progressifs
⁃ Echecs partagés et communiqués
⁃ Capacité.à changer d’avis
⁃ Décision en binôme
Et enfin prendre la décision à la lumière du petit matin et en assumer la responsabilité !
Et si vous vous intéressiez davantage à l’auteur Olivier Sibony ? Ce serait forcément un bon choix !