Managers, when and how to recognise error in one's decisions

As the title of this column states: wrong we learn; but what about admitting that you are wrong? Can this awareness avoid making mistakes? The problem with error is not just that it happens. It is that, while it happens, it takes on the reassuring appearance of reason; impossible, then, to conceive of being wrong.

In management, as in many other contexts, error is often treated as an anomaly to be managed, prevented, corrected and, if possible, quickly filed away. In reality, contemplating the idea of being wrong is a structural component of decision-making, just remember that in statistics there is a concept necessary to explain this idea: the standard error. This measure of uncertainty does not indicate that an estimate is wrong, but how far it can reasonably deviate from reality because it is a structural component of the measurement, not a defect to be eliminated. Borrowing this concept in decision-making, we can say that every choice, like every estimate, inherently holds its own standard error. Ignoring it does not reduce it: it simply shifts it into the future, when hidden costs may become visible.

In ordinary life, we are all ultimately bad at considering the standard error of small and large decisions that affect us; however, we come to terms, every day, with the fact that the very act of deciding is based on incomplete information, partial interpretations and beliefs that, at the time they are made, appear to be correct.

Kathryn Schulz, columnist for the New Yorker and author of Being Wrong, Adventures in the Margin of Errors, observes that being wrong is not a recognisable feeling: when we are wrong, we feel, speak and defend ourselves in exactly the same way as when we are right. This characteristic makes error particularly insidious in organisations, where a widespread and seldom questioned confusion often lurks: that between argumentative security and decision-making reliability. The former concerns the form of reasoning - clarity of exposition, internal consistency, command of language - the latter concerns the quality of decisions over time. The two dimensions do not coincide, but in social and organisational contexts they frequently overlap, especially when uncertainty makes it difficult to immediately assess the outcome of a choice.

Under these conditions, argumentative security risks becoming a substitute for solidity; those who speak with conviction appear competent; those who introduce doubts or limiting circumstances are perceived as less trustworthy. Charisma - i.e. the ability to exert a strong influence on others through a combination of personal traits and social skills - amplifies this effect: objections, when raised, are toned down; alternatives to the idea of the charismatic leader are less explored, not because they are lacking, but because the context makes them more difficult to formulate. Thus error runs the risk not only of not being eliminated, but, conversely, of being protected; not to mention the fact that dissent tends to diminish as one moves up the hierarchical ladder.