Our Actions Are Blindly Biased Towards What We Want

On the surface, we think we are rational.

We make rational choices based on multiple factors and conditions under review. We gather information, weigh the options, consider the risks and arrive at a decision. At least, that is the story we tell ourselves.

The want comes first

In reality, what we want deep inside exists already.

It is there before the analysis starts. Before the options paper is written. Before the meeting is called. Our actions, our reasoning and our choices merely support that goal, that narrative, that outcome.

Our actions are blindly biased towards what we want.

The word that matters is blindly. We do not choose the bias. We do not even see it. We experience it as clear thinking.

How it shows up

Consider a simple personal decision.

If I don’t want to invest in a house, then all my rational thinking, choices and thoughts are biased to support that narrative. Interest rates are too high. The market is about to turn. Renting gives me flexibility. Each point may be true. But I did not arrive at the decision through those points. I arrived at the points through the decision.

The same pattern appears at work.

If I am scared about making major changes within enterprise software, then I am likely to come up with all the logical reasons to leave current systems as they are. The timing is wrong. The budget is tight. The staff are already stretched. The vendor roadmap is uncertain. Let us wait another year and review.

None of these reasons is false. That is what makes them so convincing. But they are not the cause of the decision. They are its defence.

A familiar example

Consider a council that has reviewed its core business system three times in six years.

Each review is thorough. Each one finds real gaps. Each one ends with the same recommendation: defer, stabilise, revisit next financial year.

From the outside, it looks like a process problem. Perhaps the business case was weak. Perhaps the options were not costed properly.

But the people in the room may simply not want the disruption. They remember the last implementation. They know what it cost them personally. That want sits underneath every review, and every review faithfully finds the reasons to honour it.

The analysis was never the problem. It was doing exactly what it was asked to do.

What change programs miss

We talk about change resistance. We run workshops and give lectures about influencing others. We build communication plans, key messages and stakeholder maps.

However, many change programs add no value, because they amplify the message without any attempt at addressing what we want deep inside our hearts.

A louder message does not change a want. It only gives the want more to argue against. The person who does not want the change will listen politely, nod, and quietly find the reasons it cannot work here.

If the want stays untouched, the logic will keep serving it.

The questions that remain

Here are some questions to ponder.

When you last made a decision you were proud of for its rigour, how sure are you that the want did not come first?

In your organisation, how many deferred decisions are really unspoken wants dressed in sound reasoning?

And when a change program is struggling, is it the message that people are resisting, or something they have not yet been asked about at all?