McG mix
How Bank of the West’s purposeful messaging paid off
Betsy Fiden
We’ll wager to guess it’s more often than you’d like to admit. One small consolation: You’re not alone.
Overshooting deadlines and budgets happens so frequently, cognitive researchers have a name for it. It’s called the planning fallacy.
First proposed by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky in 1979, the planning fallacy is a cognitive bias caused by our inherent belief that we are not likely to anticipate a negative event, which causes us to inaccurately predict how much time, cost, or risk is associated with completing a task regardless of past experiences with similar tasks.
In a 1994 study, 37 psychology students at The University of Waterloo were asked to estimate how long it would take to finish their senior theses. The average estimate was 33.9 days. They also estimated how long it would take “if everything went as well as it possibly could” (averaging 27.4 days) and “if everything went as poorly as it possibly could” (averaging 48.6 days). The average actual completion time was 55.5 days, with only about 30% of the students completing their thesis in the amount of time they predicted. That means that nearly 70% saw their plans for completion go awry.
Too often in marketing we idealize how a project will proceed. We don’t like to think about the roadblocks of a project: The extra days necessary for stakeholder feedback, additional rounds of revisions needed to perfect a campaign, new deliverables being added, or our own procrastination. It’s human nature to be inherently optimistic.
There’s even a name for that: It’s called the optimism bias. A recent roundtable discussion on the Freakonomics podcast shed some light on the prevalence of the planning fallacy and its relation to the optimism bias. Roger Buehler, professor of Psychology at Wilfrid Laurier University, confirms that “the planning fallacy is a tendency to underestimate the time it will take to complete a project while knowing that similar projects have typically taken longer in the past.” He goes on to say, “It’s a combination of optimistic prediction about a particular case in the face of more general knowledge that would suggest otherwise.”
Tali Sharot, a cognitive neuroscientist at University College London, has explored the benefits to an optimism bias, explaining that it “drives us forward. It gives us motivation. If you expect positive things, then stress and anxiety is reduced.”
Sharot’s studies have shown that the brain processes positive inputs about the future more readily than negative ones. As humans have evolved, this optimism bias may even guard against hopelessness. Considered in that sense, it’s easy to see how it feeds a planning fallacy.
Yael Grushka-Cockayne, a visiting professor at Harvard Business School, sums it up with a two-word directive to overcome the fallacy: “Look back,” she says. “Look back at all the projects you’ve done, all the projects that are similar to this new project X and look historically at how well those projects performed in terms of their plan versus their actual. See how accurate you were, and then use that shift or use that uplift to adjust your new project that you’re about to start.”