Point Lookout: a free weekly publication of Chaco Canyon Consulting
Volume 24, Issue 5;   January 31, 2024: Improvement Bias

Improvement Bias


When we set about improving how our organizations do things, we expose ourselves to the risk of finding opportunities for improvement that offer very little improvement, while we overlook others that could make a real difference. Cognitive biases play a role.
An example of erosion of a mountain in Death Valley

Erosion of a mountain in Death Valley, California. From the perspective of the water that erodes the mountains, erosion is an improvement, in that it smoothes the path of the water to the valley. From the perspective of the mountains, the erosion is a threat to their existence. So it is with organizational improvement. Different people have different perspectives. Some "improvements" are unwelcome in parts of the organization.

When we undertake assessment efforts to find opportunities for improvement, we risk biasing our results because we're subject to a variety of cognitive biases. A cognitive bias is the tendency to make systematic errors of judgment based on thought-related factors rather than evidence. For example, a bias known as self-serving bias causes us to tend to attribute our successes to our own capabilities, and our failures to someone else's shortcomings, or, more generally, to situational disorder.

I mention self-serving bias in this context not only because it is an example of a cognitive bias, but also because it's one of the several cognitive biases that have direct effects on organizational searches for opportunities for improvement in processes, procedures, training, and strategies. In what follows, I refer to the elements of the set of processes, procedures, trainings, and strategies as artifacts.

Cognitive biases Cognitive biases that affect searches for
opportunities for improvement are especially
insidious because they ought to be among
the results such searches should uncover
are effective, in part, because they operate outside our awareness. But the biases that affect searches for opportunities for improvement are especially insidious because they ought to be among the results such searches should uncover. In effect, then, a search for opportunities for improvement in artifacts is subject to the very phenomena that limit our ability to improve them. Below are some examples of cognitive biases that can affect searches for opportunities for improvement.

Self-serving bias
This bias causes us to misidentify the causes of successes and failures. As noted above, we tend to attribute our successes to our own capabilities, and our failures to someone else's shortcomings, or, more generally, to situational disorder. So if we're looking for ways to improve, this bias tends to steer us away from actual causes of failure.
Priming effects
Surveying the users of an artifact is a common approach to identifying opportunities for improvement. Typically the user population is asked to identify so-called "pain points." This approach might be effective for identifying sources of waste, but because the request specifically focuses on pain points, it tends not to find new opportunities for generating business value.
Moreover, when people do identify issues, they tend to focus on those that have arisen more recently, rather than issues that have the greatest impact. This happens because of a set of cognitive biases known as priming effects.
Another source of priming effects arises when Management suggests places to search for opportunities for improvement. Such suggestions cause the seekers of opportunities to focus on the areas Management has suggested, which might not be the areas most likely to produce improvements.
Confirmation Bias
Confirmation bias distorts our decision making in three ways. It limits our access to information that contradicts our preconceived notions, it causes us to undervalue information that contradicts prevailing beliefs, and it causes us to overvalue information that confirms prevailing beliefs.
When we begin our search for opportunities for improvement, some of us might have beliefs about where the juiciest opportunities might lie. Confirmation bias then makes us more likely to find them there, and less likely to find them anywhere else.
Myside Bias
While confirmation bias appears in the gathering and weighing of evidence, myside bias appears in the way we use evidence in reasoned arguments. Myside bias is our tendency to overlook or even dismiss flaws in our own rational arguments that we easily notice in the arguments of others.
The effect of myside bias is to cause us to be less likely to notice an opportunity for improvement in an artifact if we participated personally in the design, development, or deployment of that artifact.
Choice-Supportive Bias
Among the effects of choice-supportive bias is distortion of our assessments of the quality of our past choices, which compounds the difficulty of improving upon our past efforts. [Mather 2000] [Lind 2017] [Brenner 2021.3]
This bias tends to make us believe that the Status Quo is already perfect. That's why mitigating the effects of choice-supportive bias is of special interest to organizations that are seeking opportunities for improvement.

Last words

One of the results of these effects is that, over time, we make "improvements" to the same artifacts again and again. This happens because our selection process for opportunities is biased. It repeatedly produces the same targets. Evidence of this is the festooning of these targets with improvements accumulated from multiple improvement efforts. Look around your organization. The most complicated artifacts are possible victims of festooning. Go to top Top  Next issue: Responses to Outrageous Demands  Next Issue

101 Tips for Managing ChangeIs your organization embroiled in Change? Are you managing a change effort that faces rampant cynicism, passive non-cooperation, or maybe even outright revolt? Read 101 Tips for Managing Change to learn how to survive, how to plan and how to execute change efforts to inspire real, passionate support. Order Now!


Comprehensive list of all citations from all editions of Point Lookout
[Mather 2000]
Mara Mather and Marcia K. Johnson. "Choice-supportive source monitoring: Do our decisions seem better to us as we age?," Psychology and Aging 15:4 (2000): 596-606. Available here. Retrieved 6 April 2021. Back
[Lind 2017]
Martina Lind, Mimì Visentini, Timo Mäntylä, and Fabio Del Missier. "Choice-supportive misremembering: A new taxonomy and review," Frontiers in Psychology 8 (2017), 2062. Available here. Retrieved 6 April 2021. Back
[Brenner 2021.3]
Richard Brenner. "Choice-Supportive Bias," Point Lookout blog, April 21, 2021. Available here. Back

Your comments are welcome

Would you like to see your comments posted here? rbrendPtoGuFOkTSMQOzxner@ChacEgGqaylUnkmwIkkwoCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.

About Point Lookout

This article in its entirety was written by a 
          human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Organizational Change:

FeedbackHe's No Longer Here
Sometimes we adopt inappropriate technologies, or we deploy unworkable processes, largely because of the political power of their advocates, and despite widespread doubts about the wisdom of the moves. Strangely, though, the decisions often stick long after the advocates move on. Why? And what can we do about it?
Artist's conception of the Mars Pathfinder landing by bouncing on its airbagsTraining Bounceback
Within a week after we've learned some new tool or technique, sometimes even less, we're back to doing things the old way. It's as if the training never even happened. Why? And what can we do to change this?
A sea otter and pupPower, Authority, and Influence: A Systems View
Power, Authority, and Influence are often understood as personal attributes. To fully grasp how they function in organizations, we must adopt a systems view.
An empty theaterOrganizational Roots of Toxic Conflict
When toxic conflict erupts in a team, cooperation ends and person-to-person attacks begin. Usually we hold responsible the people involved. But in some cases, the organization is the root cause, and then replacing or disciplining the people might not help.
The S.S. Eastland, in Cleveland, Ohio, around 1911On Anticipating Consequences
Much of what goes wrong when we change systems to improve them falls into a category we call unanticipated consequences. Even when we lack models that can project these results accurately, morphological analysis can help us avoid much misery.

See also Organizational Change and Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

A well-festooned utility poleComing June 26: Additive bias…or Not: I
When we alter existing systems to enhance them, we tend to favor adding components even when subtracting might be better. This effect has been attributed to a cognitive bias known as additive bias. But other forces more important might be afoot. Available here and by RSS on June 26.
A close-up view of a chipseal road surfaceAnd on July 3: Additive bias…Not: II
Additive bias is a cognitive bias that many believe contributes to bloat of commercial products. When we change products to make them more capable, additive bias might not play a role, because economic considerations sometimes favor additive approaches. Available here and by RSS on July 3.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrendPtoGuFOkTSMQOzxner@ChacEgGqaylUnkmwIkkwoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

Reprinting this article

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info

Follow Rick

Send email or subscribe to one of my newsletters Follow me at LinkedIn Follow me at X, or share a post Subscribe to RSS feeds Subscribe to RSS feeds
The message of Point Lookout is unique. Help get the message out. Please donate to help keep Point Lookout available for free to everyone.
Technical Debt for Policymakers BlogMy blog, Technical Debt for Policymakers, offers resources, insights, and conversations of interest to policymakers who are concerned with managing technical debt within their organizations. Get the millstone of technical debt off the neck of your organization!
Go For It: Sometimes It's Easier If You RunBad boss, long commute, troubling ethical questions, hateful colleague? Learn what we can do when we love the work but not the job.
303 Tips for Virtual and Global TeamsLearn how to make your virtual global team sing.
101 Tips for Managing ChangeAre you managing a change effort that faces rampant cynicism, passive non-cooperation, or maybe even outright revolt?
101 Tips for Effective MeetingsLearn how to make meetings more productive — and more rare.
Exchange your "personal trade secrets" — the tips, tricks and techniques that make you an ace — with other aces, anonymously. Visit the Library of Personal Trade Secrets.
If your teams don't yet consistently achieve state-of-the-art teamwork, check out this catalog. Help is just a few clicks/taps away!
Ebooks, booklets and tip books on project management, conflict, writing email, effective meetings and more.