Cognitive biases in software development. Part 3. Managers — are they subject to biases as well?

(Spoiler — yes)

Myroslava Zelenska
Sep 7, 2018 · 6 min read

3rd part, other posts — first part, second part, fourth part.

Survivor’s bias: Double check it, really…

Such a mistake is often made not only by fairy-tale idiots, but also by ordinary people, sometimes even with education and experience, in all branches of life, up to the planning of a business strategy. “We will pass this stage in three weeks, because the others have also passed”. It can lead to overly optimistic beliefs because failures are ignored, such as when companies that no longer exist are excluded from analyses of financial performance. It can also lead to the false belief that the successes in a group have some special property, rather than being just lucky.
What can you do against this effect?

  • Be careful when jumping onto known decisions and someone else’s experience. Double check you won’t fall in this pit.
  • Communicate with other teams — maybe you don’t take smth into account. Listen to your team on every ceremony — maybe they’ve already spotted your weak places.

Fundamental Attribution Error: Probably customer is not an idiot, too?

Sometimes I can get really annoyed when looking at some new requirement where I think “oh damn, this design won’t get us very far, what a stupid customer” — but wait! — how much do I really know about why the PO took that design decision? Maybe there’s an additional change to come which affects the design problems I spotted? Maybe he had valid reasons to do/suggest this? Very likely there is a valid explanation beyond “he’s an idiot”.
What can you do against this effect?

  • Be careful when attributing behaviour to personal characteristics. Talk to the person before jumping to conclusions.
  • Make sure people get in direct contact so they understand the context under which the other person was acting. Call your customers. Write them. Keep annoying them :)

Confirmation Bias: Keep being aware!

Confirmation Bias is the tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one’s preconceptions. We tend to only look for things that confirm our beliefs and are often blinded by any information that does not fall in line with our preconceived view. By doing so, we become less objective to any information being presented. For example, if a stakeholder hears and believes unwarranted negative things about a project and has already developed his own preconceptions before even hearing a single project briefing, by the time the project is formally presented to him, he will most likely only see what he already believes, that the project is a waste of time, and not give it a fair evaluation. All the while not even aware of the fact that he is already biased to not liking the project.

What can you do against this effect?

  • realize that information which proves you wrong is much more valuable than information that confirms what you already know
  • do some “break the model”-thinking whenever something is easy to interpret: what other explanations exist for what I just observed? If you don’t find any, you’re certainly wrong.

Anchoring bias: Bigger is still bigger, less is still less

In business, first isn’t always best, but in our minds, the first bit of information we take in does hold special sway. The Anchoring cognitive bias is our tendency to rely heavily on our first impressions (or ‘anchor’ information) when making a decision. We think relatively, rather than objectively. Research shows that anchoring can explain everything from why you didn’t get the salary increase you wanted (studies have shown that when the initial figure is set high, the final negotiated amount will be higher and vice versa) to relations of temperature and project price.

One of the silliest, yet most powerful studies involving the anchoring effect comes from Strack and Mussweiler who asked two groups how old they thought Mahatma Ghandi was when he died. Each group had the question prefaced with a different anchoring statement:

  • Group 1 was asked: “Did he die before or after the age of 9?”
  • Group 2 was asked: “Did he die before or after the age of 140?”

Both statements are equally ridiculous, but the respondents’ answers were clearly influenced by them.Group 1 suggested 50, while Group 2 suggested 67. (He actually died at the age of 87).

Anchoring the question with the age 9 caused Group 1 to respond with a significantly lower number, while Group 2 guessed higher based on their own anchor.This might seem like an arbitrary issue, but consider the impact of the first information you’re given before you make a decision. For example, when negotiating a price for a particular product or service, the first price to be suggested by either party will often set the tone of the whole negotiation.
What can you do against this effect?

  • If the situation permits, always try to make the first offer when selling and suggest a starting point way above what you are willing to settle for. It will be more likely that the final negotiated price won’t fall too far away from the one that you will be happy with.

Planning Fallacy: I will do this for tomorrow!

Planning Fallacy is the tendency to underestimate how long it will take to complete a certain task. This often happens during planning, when those who are going to do the actual work underestimates the time it will take to complete a task. Coupled by the pressure from sponsors to finish the project as soon as possible, is it any wonder why most project does not complete on time? Optimism and pressure from the management results in an unattainable datelines that will eventually lead to schedule delays. A better way to estimate how long a task will take is to look at similar projects from the past and see how long it took the team to complete the same task before.
What can you do against this effect?

  • Appoint an individual to the role of devil’s advocate. This person needs to question assumptions and plans, challenging the views of the group.
  • Build diverse teams with different experiences, perspectives, and modes of working to avoid this trap.
  • Use project meetings and reports to track the progress against the agreed plan and take actions where needed. Use project history and previous examples.
  • Be careful not to brush off valid concerns made by the team members and try to plan accordingly for when things go wrong.

False Consensus Effect: I swear they approved this!

The False Consensus Effect is a cognitive bias where a person tends to overestimate the extent in which others share their beliefs or opinions. For example, when conducting a project, you may feel that your project is an exciting one and is of great value. The false consensus effect will bias you into perceiving that others share your enthusiasm. Never assume that everyone is onboard, always check to be sure. We often overestimate the extent to which others share our beliefs or opinions, and assume everyone is invested in the project.

What can you do against this effect?

  • Actively secure and nurture buy-in from the team and stakeholders when planning and executing the project. Use meetings, workshops, and a collaborative project site to report on project progress and celebrate success!

Part IV (to be continued)

Myroslava Zelenska

Written by

Geek project manager with nonstandard thinking. Passionate for neurology, intellect, mind and all about ‘how-this-damned-brain-works’. Blog is bilingual.

Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade