Smart Choices common mistakes
Smart Choices · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
When a question describes a decision situation, the candidate immediately jumps to evaluating options without first clarifying the decision frame (e.g., what decision is actually being made, who is involved, and what constraints exist).
Under time pressure, candidates often assume the decision is obvious and skip the framing step, leading to answers that address the wrong problem or overlook key stakeholders.
What to do instead
Before evaluating any options, explicitly restate the decision in your own words: identify the decision maker, the scope, the time horizon, and any constraints. Ask: 'What decision is being made, by whom, and why now?'
The candidate treats objectives as given and fails to generate a comprehensive list of objectives, often missing important intangible or long-term goals.
Candidates may focus on the most obvious or quantifiable objectives (e.g., cost, speed) and neglect others like reputation, learning, or stakeholder relationships, because they anchor on the first objectives that come to mind.
What to do instead
Use a structured technique such as asking 'What do we want to achieve?' repeatedly, or create a means-ends objective network. Consider multiple perspectives and explicitly list both tangible and intangible objectives.
The candidate ignores the distinction between normative and descriptive decision-making, applying one model where the other is appropriate.
Candidates may conflate how decisions should be made (rational choice) with how they are actually made (bounded rationality, heuristics), leading to incorrect predictions about behavior or flawed recommendations.
What to do instead
Clarify whether the question asks for an optimal decision (normative) or an explanation of actual behavior (descriptive). Use the appropriate framework: expected utility for normative, and consider biases/heuristics for descriptive.
The candidate fails to consider base rates and instead relies solely on case-specific information when assessing probabilities.
Vivid or personalized information feels more relevant, so candidates neglect statistical base rates, a common bias known as base-rate neglect.
What to do instead
When estimating probabilities, always start with the reference class (base rate) and then adjust based on specific evidence. Ask: 'What is the general frequency of this outcome?'
The candidate treats all information as equally reliable and does not evaluate the quality or source of data.
Candidates may assume that any data provided is valid and relevant, especially if it appears quantitative, without questioning its accuracy, recency, or potential biases.
What to do instead
Assess information sources for credibility, relevance, and potential bias. Consider whether the data is representative and whether there are systematic errors. Use triangulation from multiple sources.
The candidate overlooks the role of values and trade-offs, treating decisions as purely technical and ignoring the need to weigh competing objectives.
Candidates may focus on maximizing a single metric (e.g., profit) and fail to recognize that decisions often involve trade-offs between incommensurable values (e.g., profit vs. environmental impact).
What to do instead
Explicitly identify all relevant objectives and their relative importance. Use techniques like even swaps or multi-attribute utility analysis to make trade-offs transparent and deliberate.
The candidate assumes that group decisions are always superior to individual decisions and fails to account for group dynamics such as groupthink or polarization.
There is a common belief that groups make better decisions, but groups can suffer from biases like conformity, dominance by a few members, or escalation of commitment.
What to do instead
Recognize the potential pitfalls of group decision making. Recommend structured techniques like devil's advocacy, nominal group technique, or Delphi method to mitigate groupthink and ensure diverse input.
The candidate neglects to consider implementation challenges and assumes that once a decision is made, it will be executed as planned.
Candidates may focus on the choice itself and overlook the need for action planning, resource allocation, and overcoming resistance.
What to do instead
Always include an implementation plan: identify who is responsible, what resources are needed, potential barriers, and how to monitor progress. Consider stakeholder buy-in and communication.
The candidate fails to recognize and mitigate cognitive biases such as anchoring, confirmation bias, or overconfidence when evaluating alternatives.
Biases operate unconsciously and can distort judgment. Candidates may not be aware of their own biases or may underestimate their impact.
What to do instead
Learn common biases and use debiasing techniques: consider the opposite, seek disconfirming evidence, use reference class forecasting, and take an outside view.
The candidate does not generate a sufficient range of alternatives and instead settles on the first acceptable option.
Satisficing behavior and time constraints lead candidates to stop searching once a viable option is found, missing potentially better solutions.
What to do instead
Deliberately generate multiple alternatives using brainstorming or other creative techniques. Set a target number of alternatives (e.g., at least three) and avoid evaluating until a diverse set is developed.