5 Kesalahan Berpikir di Kantor / Top 5 Thinking Fallacy in The Office

Pada perang dunia ke-2 Amerika berusaha meningkatkan keselamatan penerbangnya. Ditunjuklah Columbia University sebagai konsultan ahli. Setelah dilakukan analisa, ditemukan jika bagian sayap sangat rentan mengalami tembakan.

Sempat ada wacana untuk memperkuat bagian sayap yang rawan terkena hujaman peluru. Sebuah tindakan logis dengan logika sederhana:

Pesawat terkena tembakan di bagian sayap > perbaiki bagian yang sering tertembak.

Tapi ada seorang ahli statistik Yahudi berkebangsaan Hungaria bernama Abraham Walkd yang menentang logika ini. Dia mengajukan postulat yang sangat masuk akal:

Pesawat yang berhasil kembali tertembak di bagian sayap. Pesawat yang tidak kembali pasti tertembak di bagian lain. Kita perlu memperkuat bagian yang tidak punya lubang tembakan.

Ia mengajukan istilah yang kemudian dikenal sebagai survivorship bias. Kita hanya melihat para survivor dan tidak melihat mereka yang gagal.

Saya mengangkat cerita diatas bukan untuk men-glorifikasi kecerdasan orang Yahudi. Tapi bagaimana pola pikir yang sesat, akan menghasilkan keputusan yang sesat pula.

Dan dalam dunia korporasi, ada banyak pola pikir sesat yang menghasilkan keputusan tidak optimal. Contohnya:

1. Confirmation Bias

Kita cenderung lebih memperhatikan informasi yang mendukung pandangan atau keyakinan yang sudah kita miliki, dan mengabaikan atau meremehkan data yang bertentangan dengan pandangan tersebut.

Contoh: Manajemen yang yakin bahwa WFH menyebabkan penurunan produktivitas hanya akan mencari data atau laporan yang mendukung opininya, sementara mengabaikan data yang menunjukkan bahwa produktivitas bisa meningkat dengan fleksibilitas kerja.

2. Bandwagon Effect

Keputusan diambil karena banyak orang melakukan hal yang sama. Ini menciptakan asumsi bahwa jika mayoritas melakukan sesuatu, maka hal tersebut pasti benar atau terbaik.

Contoh: Ketika semua perusahaan berinvestasi ke AI, banyak korporat yang latah dan menghasilkan shallow technology asal punya embel-embel ‘artificial intelligence’.

3. Authority Bias

Kita lebih cenderung percaya atau mendukung pendapat seseorang hanya karena orang tersebut memiliki posisi otoritas atau jabatan tinggi, tanpa mengevaluasi argumen atau bukti yang diberikan.

Contoh: Titah CEO adalah perintah yang tidak bisa dan tidak boleh di challenge. Hal ini menciptakan top-down culture yang tidak sehat dan terlalu boss centric.

4. Gambler’s Fallacy

Keyakinan bahwa kejadian masa lalu akan mempengaruhi hasil masa depan dalam situasi yang seharusnya acak atau tidak terkait.

Contoh: Seorang manajer pemasaran yang berpikir bahwa karena kampanye iklan sebelumnya sukses besar, kampanye selanjutnya pasti akan sukses juga, tanpa memperhitungkan perubahan tren pasar atau strategi pesaing.

5. Sunk Cost Fallacy

Keputusan terus dilanjutkan meski jelas-jelas merugikan hanya karena sudah banyak waktu, uang, atau sumber daya yang terlanjur diinvestasikan.

Contoh: Perusahaan terus mengembangkan produk yang jelas-jelas tidak diterima pasar hanya karena sudah menghabiskan dana besar untuk riset dan pengembangan, daripada menghentikan proyek tersebut dan mengalihkan sumber daya ke proyek lain yang lebih potensial.

Ibu kota baru Indonesia, Nusantara, juga sangat mungkin menjadi sunk cost fallacy. Pemerintah akan terus memaksa pemindahan ibu kota hanya karena sudah menginvestasikan uang jutaan dollar.

—----

Sebenarnya ada banyak fallacy (sesat pola pikir) yang ada. Tapi lima point diatas hanyalah contoh. Betapa sulitnya memiliki kemampuan berpikir yang objektif, berdasarkan data, dan benar-benar menghasilkan manfaat yang besar bagi seluruh stakeholders.

Rolf Dobelli sampai menulis ‘The Art of Thinking Clearly’, buku yang membahas 100 pola sesat pikir yang ada. Ia menulis:

“Whether we like it or not, we are puppets of our emotions. We make complex decisions by consulting our feelings, not our thoughts. Against our best intentions, we substitute the question, “What do I think about this?” with “How do I feel about this?” So, smile! Your future depends on it.”

During World War II, America sought to improve the safety of its pilots. Columbia University was appointed as an expert consultant. After conducting an analysis, they found that the wings were very vulnerable to gunfire.

There was a suggestion to strengthen the wings, which were prone to being hit by bullets. A logical action based on simple reasoning:

Planes were hit in the wings > reinforce the areas that are often shot.

However, a Hungarian-Jewish statistician named Abraham Wald opposed this logic. He proposed a very sensible postulate:

The planes that returned were hit in the wings. The planes that did not return were likely hit in other areas. We need to reinforce the parts that don't have bullet holes.

He introduced the concept later known as survivorship bias. We only see the survivors and not those who failed.

I bring up this story not to glorify the intelligence of Jewish people, but to highlight how flawed thinking can lead to flawed decisions.

And in the corporate world, there are many flawed mindsets that result in suboptimal decisions. Examples include:

1. Confirmation Bias

We tend to pay more attention to information that supports our existing views or beliefs, while ignoring or downplaying data that contradicts them.

Example: Management convinced that remote work (WFH) reduces productivity may only look for data or reports that support their opinion, while ignoring data showing that productivity can increase with flexible work.

2. Bandwagon Fallacy

Decisions are made because many people are doing the same thing. This creates the assumption that if the majority is doing something, it must be right or the best.

Example: When all companies are investing in AI, many corporations jump on the bandwagon, producing shallow technology just to include the label 'artificial intelligence.'

3. Authority Bias

We are more inclined to believe or support someone's opinion simply because they hold a position of authority or have a high rank, without evaluating the arguments or evidence presented.

Example: The CEO's directive is treated as an unquestionable order. This creates an unhealthy top-down culture that is overly boss-centric.

4. Gambler’s Fallacy

The belief that past events will influence future outcomes in situations that should be random or unrelated.

Example: A marketing manager thinks that because the previous ad campaign was a huge success, the next one will also be successful, without considering changes in market trends or competitors' strategies.

5. Sunk Cost Fallacy

Decisions continue to be made even when clearly disadvantageous, simply because significant time, money, or resources have already been invested.

Example: A company continues developing a product that is clearly not accepted by the market just because a large amount of money has already been spent on research and development, rather than stopping the project and redirecting resources to a more promising one.

Indonesia's new capital, Nusantara, could very well become a case of the sunk cost fallacy. The government might continue to push for the relocation of the capital simply because millions of dollars have already been invested, despite potential challenges or drawbacks that arise along the way.

---

In truth, there are many fallacies (flawed ways of thinking). But the five points above are just examples. How difficult it is to have the ability to think objectively, based on data, and truly create benefits for all stakeholders.

Rolf Dobelli even wrote The Art of Thinking Clearly, a book discussing 100 common cognitive biases. He wrote:

“Whether we like it or not, we are puppets of our emotions. We make complex decisions by consulting our feelings, not our thoughts. Against our best intentions, we substitute the question, “What do I think about this?” with “How do I feel about this?” So, smile! Your future depends on it.”