Analysis Paralysis (Blue Decision-Maker)
Erikson describes a Blue decision-maker who continues researching after the main options have been assessed. A deadline, a clear decision criterion, or the information needed to resolve a specific uncertainty may help the process move forward.
THE IDEA
Decisions Made Here
Because the Blue experiences the decision itself as less important than the path to the decision, stagnation can occur. After painstakingly collecting facts and meticulously studying all available conditions, you finally come to the moment of truth—the decision. There is a risk that everything can deadlock. On the one hand … but on the other hand …
A project manager I met a few years ago wanted to buy a new car. For eight months he test-drove sixteen different makes. Over fifty different models in different combinations: different engines, bodies, transmissions, interiors, colors. He tried everything. Fabric versus leather upholstery. Gas versus diesel. Automatic versus manual. He did calculations on fuel consumption and depreciation and gave different graphs to respective car salesmen for an evaluation. After considerable internal torment, he bought a Volvo V70, then the country’s most popular car, in metallic silver, the most popular color at that time. This particular model was the most tested car of all by the various consumer agencies that year. You would think he could have picked that car just by reading about it.
“Why did you go and buy the most common, boring car after all that research?” everyone asked. “Why not?” he replied.
You can help with a Blue’s decision stagnation. Provide him with the crucial piece to the puzzle. Softly and gently, try to steer him in the right direction or, in any case, in a direction.
Conclusion: Pay attention to when the decision process stalls out. Suppose, for example, two equally strong candidates have applied for an opening at your company. So far, everything has gone well. The Blue decision maker has submitted detailed information via email and kept everyone informed about the necessary steps. The process has been followed to the letter.
In order to get something to happen, provide the decision maker with the necessary data required for him to make a decision about one of the candidates. Push him to make a choice. Remind him that the deadline is approaching. Point out the repercussions of delaying the decision—the quality of the company’s work will suffer if he doesn’t hire a new employee. Review the evidence already considered, identify any unresolved concern, and agree on when to choose. A decision can be justified without pretending that every risk has been eliminated.
When to use it
Choosing between job offers with similar pros and cons.
Deciding on a software purchase for a company when many options are comparable.
Selecting a vacation destination when all options seem equally appealing.
Hiring a new team member after a lengthy interview process.
FROM THEORY TO EVERYDAY LIFE
In practice
Car Purchase Over-Analysis
A project manager spent eight months test-driving sixteen car makes and over fifty models, evaluating every combination. After exhaustive research, he bought the most popular car in the most popular color, which Erikson uses to question whether the lengthy search justified its cost.
Hiring Decision Stagnation
A Blue decision-maker has two equally strong candidates for a job. Despite following the process meticulously, they stall on making a final decision. To move forward, they need reminders of the deadline and consequences, and a clear account of which uncertainties remain and whether more research would change the choice.
A MOMENT TO REFLECT
Put it to work.
When have you experienced decision paralysis due to over-analysis?
How can you recognize when a Blue decision-maker is stalling?
What strategies can you use to push past analysis paralysis?
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION
Source texts
- Surrounded By Idiots (Thomas Erikson)