Identifying Biases

As the Product Manager at Matterhorn Health, I had to determine the cause of inaccurate readings with
the GlucoGauge blood glucose monitor and make recommendations on how Matterhorn could address
it. In a rapidly evolving situation, I was presented with how strongly I felt that inaccurate readings are
customer error or a device malfunction. I thought the first scenario was about anchoring bias, where the
initial estimates are used and their accuracy is not challenged [CITATION Kah11 \l 1033 ]. I thought it
was visible in the Research & Development team staff meeting when Kurt stated that 8 out of 10 of the
most recent product failure reports filed for competitors’ products revealed that inaccurate readings
were linked to improper wording of instructions. It was evident when Nick offered that we all know that
consumer error in using a glucose measuring device is often linked to insufficient or improper consumer
education. It turns out that the bias presented was confirmation bias or confirming-evidence bias. This
bias leads us to seek out information that supports our existing instinct or point of view while avoiding
information that contradicts it. It impacts how evidence is collected and interpreted [ CITATION
Ham98 \l 1033 ]. The R&D team placed more weight in the supporting information that the issue was
customer error and did not consider that the conditions that could be experienced in the field were not
tested in the lab.

In the second scenario, the sunk cost trap section, it was clear that Matterhorn had invested time and
money to this technology. The board authorized an immediate expenditure of $1 million to try to
increase proper use of the device. When that failed, an additional request was made to invest in
language translation. It was just as the authors of “The Hidden Traps of Decision Making” explained that
victims to sunk cost trap, will continue to invest time or money to avoid admitting to a mistake
[ CITATION Ham98 \l 1033 ]. The board members were investing more money in hopes of allowing the
team to “fix” the customer instruction problem, thus justifying their expenditure on product
communication to date.

The third scenario was the anchoring bias section. Again, it was clear that by setting a 10% reference
number regarding how often patients synched their data, I was to base my opinion on the 10% estimate.
I was able to identify this as an anchoring bias. There was no evidence presented to state where this
estimate was coming from. I did consider that this could be a section of framing bias because a frame
can introduce an anchor [ CITATION Ham98 \l 1033 ].

In the final section, the options were framed as saving jobs (gain frame). This was clear in this section,
because no other alternatives were provided nor the opportunity to offer a third decision.

Bias Vulnerability

I was the most vulnerable to the framing bias when given the “gains” frame. I was least vulnerable to
the confirmation bias. The pressure to make quick decision did impact my decision-making process
because I was forced to limit my analysis. Understanding this time limitation impact, I can recognize that
I made many “good-enough” decisions [ CITATION Fra13 \l 1033 ]. However, I considered the
motivations of the individuals presenting me their opinions, so that I would not fall for the confirmation
bias.
Guarding Against Bias

When making decisions in real life, we can guard against letting bias impact us by recognizing the
limitations that prevent us from being completely rational or objective [ CITATION Fra13 \l 1033 ]. In the
article “Before You Make That Big Decision…” applying the 12-question checklist may help incorporate a
more systematic way of detecting cognitive biases [CITATION Kah11 \l 1033 ]. This approach is more
aligned with the traditional paradigm that "good decision making as a rational process", but also
recognizes that it is also a social process [ CITATION Fra13 \l 1033 ].

In the simulation, I tried to avoid the confirmation bias by analyzing and considering the motivations of
the different sources. I was successful to avoiding the sunk-cost bias by asking whether the
recommenders were overly attached to a history of past decisions [CITATION Kah11 \l 1033 ]. It was
clear that the Board of Matterhorn Health did not want to admit that this was not customer error hence
the request for repeated investments for instruction material.

I failed to use the tactics presented in “The Hidden Traps of Decision Making” for framing bias, to not
automatically accept the initial frame, whether it was formulated by you or by someone else. I
responded to the frame as predicted. That is, I chose the risk averse option to ship replacement strips
when presented with a “gains” frame [ CITATION Ham98 \l 1033 ].

Impact of Decision Making Style

My decision-making style was Analytical, which has a much greater tolerance for ambiguity and a more
cognitively complex personality that desires more information and consideration of many alternatives.
Analytical decision makers tend not to make rapid decisions and examine every detail in a situation
[ CITATION Alq03 \l 1033 ]. Given the limitation of time, this played against me and impacted the bias I
exhibited, more so the bias of framing. Given the abbreviated timeframe, I only considered the options
presented and the way they were presented, instead of considering or developing a third option. My
tendency to consider multiple sources helped me avoid the confirmation bias. I considered the possible
assumptions made about the data and tried to be more objective.

References
Alqarni, A. O. (2003). The Managerial Decision Styles of Florida's State University Libraries' Managers.
Retrieved from http://purl.flvc.org/fsu/fd/FSU_migr_etd-0006

Frame, J. D. (2013). An Evolving Decision-Making Paradigm. In J. D. Frame, Framing Decisions: Decision

Hammond, J. K. (1998). The Hidden Traps in Decision Making. Harvard Buisness Review, 118-126.

Kahneman, D., Lovallo, D., & Sibony, O. (2011). Before You Make that Big Decision... Harvard Business
Review, 50–137.