Between “Paralysis by Analysis” and “Extinction by Instinct”

Reading Time: 42 min 

Topics

Permissions and PDF

I come from an environment where, if you see a snake, you kill it. At GM, if you see a snake, the first thing you do is go hire a consultant on snakes. Then you get a committee on snakes, and then you discuss it for a couple of years. The most likely course of action is — nothing. You figure the snake hasn’t bitten anybody yet, so you just let him crawl around on the factory floor.” — Ross Perot1

As time passes, old management formulas become outmoded and are replaced by new ones, but the underlying message is often the same: formal analysis — the systematic study of issues — can help organizations make better decisions. This seemingly plausible hypothesis is supported by an extensive literature in cognitive psychology that shows convincingly that unaided human judgment is frequently flawed.2 For example, people seem to be unduly influenced by recent or vivid events, consistently underestimate the role of chance, and are often guilty of “wishful thinking.” Formal analytical techniques are a way to avoid such problems.

However, the “rational” approach has also had some influential detractors.3 For example, Peters and Waterman condemn formal analysis for its bias toward negative responses, its degree of abstraction from reality, its inability to deal adequately with nonquantifiable values, its inflexibility and bias against experimentation, and finally its tendency to lead to paralysis. In fact, most of us are familiar with “paralysis by analysis.”4 If we have not experienced it in our own working environment, we have certainly seen it in the unending parade of studies, inquiries, papers, and reports of all shapes, sizes, and colors emerging from government agencies. And, as the opening quotation shows, large private corporations are also a fertile breeding ground for this disease.

Thus managers need to navigate between two deadly extremes: on the one hand, ill-conceived and arbitrary decisions made without systematic study and reflection (“extinction by instinct”) and on the other, a retreat into abstraction and conservatism that relies obsessively on numbers, analyses, and reports (“paralysis by analysis”). But why do some organizations become bogged down in analysis? Why are certain decisions insufficiently analyzed? How can rationality and efficiency be combined? These are the issues I explore in this article.

Topics

References (81)

1. R. Perot, “The GM System Is Like a Blanket of Fog,” Fortune, 15 February 1988, pp. 48–49.

2. See, for example:

Show All References

Acknowledgments

The author is grateful to the participants in this research for their assistance and to numerous colleagues for comments and advice on earlier versions. This paper evolved from an earlier article published in French in Revue Internationale de Gestion 17 (1992): 6–17 under the title “Entre la paralysie par l’analyse et l’extinction par l’instinct.”

Reprint #:

3635

More Like This

Add a comment

You must to post a comment.

First time here? Sign up for a free account: Comment on articles and get access to many more articles.

undefined