Action Bias

Abstract

When it comes to decision-making, a common paradigm holds that we are dominated by two modes of thought, namely rational and emotional. Rational thought is deliberate and reason-based (e.g., cost–benefit analysis), while emotional decisions are intuitive and influenced by context (i.e., from the gut). Our personal experiences shape our decisions, though there are many biases at play—such as status quo bias (tendency to keep things as-is), loss aversion bias (preference to avoid losses over making similar gains), and action bias. Action bias refers to our innate desire to take action. Part of this stems from the sense that it feels better to fail if you've tried something as opposed to failing without making an effort. Human nature seeks credit for positive actions and seeks to avoid blame for losses. Most people would rather go down swinging than watch the ball go by, and the same is true for water professionals, for whom taking action to solve problems is embedded in the very fabric of their nature. Yet, in situations where emotional perceptions dominate reasoned analysis, taking action may result in an outcome that's worse than if nothing is done at all. Our emotional activity around a negative outcome often outweighs its likelihood to the degree that it unduly influences our understanding and analysis. An example of action bias from the water industry may be partial lead service line replacements. As public water systems had no legal means to compel property owners to replace their lead service lines, many water utilities used to replace only that segment under their control. In these cases, the desire to fix the problem, to do something, was clear. However, the only way to remove lead contamination is to eliminate the lead pipes altogether, and studies have shown that partial lead pipe replacement can potentially disturb the system, stirring up particulate lead that would have remained dormant if left alone until the entire line could be replaced. Partial lead line replacements show how the water industry is susceptible to action bias—if something is wrong or broken or, worst of all, hurting someone, water professionals want to fix it, now. But we must always remember the interconnectedness of our water systems, and as much as we want to control them, remember that water systems are complex, and sudden changes can potentially ripple into unintended consequences. Partial lead line replacements seemed reasonable at first blush, but with more experience, full replacement became the preferred response. Quick action can be appropriate, especially when a community faces critical incidents—and those on the front lines need training and systems that support rapid decision making. However, there is often time for analysis and rational discussion to determine the best path forward. To avoid action bias, first, recognize that it exists. Relocate if your surroundings or context prevent you from making rational decisions. Put processes in place that ensure deliberation and encourage collaboration before action. Research the issue and ask colleagues for their opinions. Try to understand the outcomes of action, waiting for action, and no action at all. In short, you should check your gut, but check your head first. This month's Journal AWWA highlights the regulatory concerns facing water professionals as well as options for infrastructure funding, drought, and regional collaboration. Please consider submitting your technical, managerial, and financial experiences as a feature article for Journal AWWA and share your insights with water professionals around the world.