resulting
Ever thought about when you’ve been wrong for the right reasons?
Probably not.
We can all probably agree that we’re decision-making machines. Some decisions are made without much thought, a sort of reflexiveness. But others are made with thoughtful intention. And when one of those slow, logical decisions winds up failing, it tends to feel like a mistake. We treat outcomes as a judgement on the decision itself.
Author Annie Duke calls this resulting. And like many of our mind’s traps, it’s illogical and prevents actual analysis or reflection.
When we win, we don’t ask questions. We stop at giving ourselves credit. When we lose, we torch the blueprint and blame ourselves (or others) for a bad decision. All of it rooted in the same flawed assumption that results are proof of the correct decision.
What if we reframed individual results as a datapoint?
If a statistically solid decision fails, it doesn’t mean it was wrong. It means the risk was real, that randomness plays a role. It means that things with a 95% success rate still fail from time to time.
I like the idea of the process being the product. And reflecting on the result is part of that process.
So next time a decision delivers a poor outcome, ask yourself:
Given what I knew at the time, would I make that call again?
Were there variables I didn’t I consider that made me overconfident?
What can I learn about my decision-making process from my win/loss trends?
Answer honestly and you’ll escape the loop that can easily keep you stuck. That is, chasing outcomes and misinterpreting results. A poor outcome isn’t a reason to chastise the decision. And sometimes a win is luck, not wisdom.