Breaking Through “Analysis Paralysis”

by: Charity L. Boyette, CFO

We’ve spent the past several weeks on our social media talking about decision-making: how to identify root causes, develop options, analyze and synthesize them, etc. Working through each of these steps should give us the ability to make informed decisions based on our understanding of the benefits and costs for each alternative in the context of our organization and its needs. We can even create fancy flowcharts and standard operating procedures to capture our decision-making processes and share them throughout our teams to increase transparency, improve inputs, and build buy-in among organizational members.?

Easy-peasy, right? Except sometimes we, as leaders and decision-makers, can run headlong into a seemingly insurmountable barrier that we call “analysis paralysis.” Less a brick wall than a bank of misty fog, analysis paralysis occurs when we feel unable to make a decision, even when we have followed our established (and previously productive) analytical processes. As a result, organizational progress comes to a halt, piling even more challenges onto an already complex situation. A few things to understand about analysis paralysis: first, it’s a very normal human response to uncertainty, so, if you find yourself stuck in a decision-making process, you have plenty of company. Second, there are concrete steps you can take to break through your paralysis and begin to move forward again, starting by understanding why it can occur in the first place. Let’s take a look at both of these points in more detail.?

Analysis paralysis is not a new concept. By the time French author Voltaire added an old Italian proverb saying that “perfect is the enemy of the good” to his writings in the 1770s, variations on the negative effects of overthinking a problem had shown up in sources ranging from Aesop to Shakespeare. In Aesop’s fable about the fox and the cat, the fox gloats that he has “hundreds of ways of escaping” from predators, but the cat has “only one.” When chased by some hounds, however, the fox is caught while trying to decide between his many options; the cat takes his one avenue – running up into a tree – and survives.??

This ancient story points to a distinctly human capability that can sometimes lead us astray: our ability to think, analyze, and apply reason. Another way to describe analysis paralysis is “overthinking” our situation and options. Wanting to be rational in how we weigh our options, we can become overwhelmed by the seemingly infinite possibilities available to us for addressing particular issues. Nobel laureate Herbert Simon spent decades researching decision-making in organizations, theorizing that humans are unable to know every possible outcome for every possible option available to us; therefore, we work within a “bounded rationality” to achieve the best possible result given the information at hand, often deferring to the easiest or most available option that meets the basic requirements (what he termed “satisficing”). What is so interesting about Simon’s theories is how, in many cases, satisficing is not the default method of decision-making, and this striving for the “perfect” solution is what can drive analysis paralysis.??

In some cases, the desire to find the perfect solution is driven by fear of making an error. This can be especially true in organizations when leaders’ decisions carry implications for more than their own sphere. Team members’ livelihoods, shareholders’ investments, the organization’s very survival – all of these can turn on individual choices by senior leaders. While some people are simply more introspective, it is understandable that many leaders want to explore their options fully before committing the organization to a particular course of action. At the other end of the spectrum is the leader who likes to “go with their gut,” making quick decisions based on irrelevant, incomplete, or inaccurate information. While Hollywood might like these types of leaders in action movies and political thrillers, in the real world, the potentially disastrous consequences of such approaches usually inhibit most leaders from flying by the seat of their proverbial pants.?

If analysis paralysis is a normal human reaction, how do leaders break through it? Here are some tangible tools for balancing between “way too much” and “not nearly enough” analysis:?

• First, learn to recognize when you’re in the throes of it. Consider similar decisions made in the past: how long did you spend considering your options? How many perspectives did you include in your analysis? How much difference in feasibility, cost, and potential outcomes did you identify? Decision-making that lasts longer than your usual timeline, that has you seeking out more and more opinions, and seems only to generate an endless list of options has likely veered into paralysis territory.?
• Second, consider why you’re stuck. Has the environment changed (new stakeholders, new organization, etc.)? Did the last decision not work out as you expected? Are some dynamics overshadowing others? Step back a bit and think about what factors are contributing to your reluctance to commit to a decision. This is an excellent time to seek perspectives from trusted colleagues, not about the problem itself but your approach to analyzing it.?
• Third, break up the decision into more manageable parts. For truly complex issues, there are often multiple components or phases to decision-making. If you deconstruct the overall decision into those pieces, you may find that some sub-decisions require minimal analysis. Deciding on those achieves two goals: focusing your analysis on the thornier elements and giving you practice in being decisive quickly. Like many workplace leadership skills, we tend to get better at making decisions the more we do it.?
• Finally, spend some time examining your processes. Too often, when we get through a difficult decision we simply move on to the next decision. Taking the time to evaluate both the process of making the decision and its outcome(s) can provide us with crucial insight into how we can improve. It’s also important to capture the steps and participants in the process to foster consistency and transparency from an organizational perspective.?

Those who aspire to organizational leadership often underestimate the weight of responsibility that comes along with it. President Truman may have popularized the idea that “the buck stops here,” but it was Shakespeare’s Henry IV who warned us that “uneasy lie the head that wears a crown.” Making decisions on behalf of others can be the double-edged sword of leadership: our desire to make good choices can be the very thing that inhibits us from actually making them. The good news is that, through a combination of self-examination and process definition, we can overcome these barriers and improve our ability to lead our teams and organizations.?