Dan Ariely’s monthly column is one of my favorite changes in the Harvard Business Review redesign.
In the April issue, he muses over “Why Businesses Don’t Experiment.” Naturally (perhaps I should say “Predictably“), he looks at behavioral reasons–companies seeking to avoid creating discriminatory situations (i.e., being unfair), or preference for action over insight leading to reliance on expert opinion–”Do this.”
There’s probably some pretty rational fear at work, too: the fear of making a career-limiting mistake. Relying on others helps to distance us from situations that don’t turn out right.
I experienced one more reason. I was in a large meeting with a client in which they were discussing whether certain actions by their staff were impacting revenue.
It was a plausible hypothesis, but it was a volatile moment in the industry & there could have been many factors contributing to the revenue loss.
Plus, even if the staff actions were the cause, what impact would changes make? What side effects would ensue?
It seemed to me a situation ripe for an experimental approach. But it was not to be. Action was needed–the shortfalls amounted to millions of dollars. “Come up with a plan by next week & start rolling it out.”
So, another impediment to experimentation: time pressure, real or perceived. We can’t wait for the results of an experiment; we need to act.
Since that experience, I’ve been thinking about what I can do to make a better case to my clients for experimentation. One requirement, I think, is to detect problems earlier, to buy a little time to put a mechanism in place to measure the effectiveness & side effects of a change.
Are there other steps to take to make experimenting easier?
Related posts:
On the HBR redesign
Dangerous job: change agent
To make progress in complex environments, experiment