Run a premortem before committing
Imagine the decision has already failed — then ask why.
Why it works
Prospective hindsight — imagining a future event as if it has already occurred — has been shown to generate more and higher-quality reasons for why it might fail than forward-looking risk identification. The mechanism is that imagining the failure as real removes the wishful-thinking filter that blocks identification of uncomfortable risks when the decision has not yet been made.
How to do it
- After settling on a decision, say: "It is [time horizon] from now. This decision failed. Why?"
- Spend 10 minutes writing every plausible reason for failure, however uncomfortable.
- Identify which failure reasons are preventable now and which are inherent to the uncertainty.
- Adjust the plan or confidence level based on what the premortem revealed.
Evidence
Klein (2007) introduced the premortem in a practitioner context; Mitchell et al. (1989) found that prospective hindsight — imagining an event as having already occurred — significantly increased the ability to identify reasons for outcomes. (observational)
Most premortem research is lab-based; field evidence on decision improvement from premortems in organizational settings is limited and mixed.
Sources
- Mitchell, Russo & Pennington (1989), Back to the Future: Temporal Perspective in the Explanation of Events, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
Common mistake
Running the premortem and identifying failure reasons but then not doing anything about them — the exercise is only useful if it changes the plan or the confidence level.
Practice this with IX Coach
7 days free, then $40/month (~$1.30/day).
More practices for Thinking in Bets
- Separate the quality of the decision from the outcome
A good decision can produce a bad outcome, and a bad decision can produce a good outcome — do not confuse them.
- Think in probabilities, not certainties
Replace "I think this will happen" with "I think there is a 70% chance this will happen."
- Check the outside view before trusting the inside view
Ask how similar situations have gone before trusting your story about this specific situation.
- Update beliefs explicitly when new information arrives
Treat new information as a reason to state a revised probability, not as confirmation of the old one.
- Find a truth-seeking group that argues with you
Surround yourself with people whose job in the relationship is to challenge your reasoning, not validate it.
Related concepts
- Thinking, Fast and Slow, Made Usable
Two systems, the biases they create, and when to slow down
- Hanlon's Razor: Never Attribute to Malice What Stupidity Can Explain
The charitable-attribution heuristic and why it usually serves you better
- Circle of Competence
Know what you know, know what you do not know, and act accordingly
- Second-Order Thinking: And Then What?
Tracing consequences of consequences, the way Howard Marks does