Boosting self-esteem can backfire in decision-making

Mar 31, 2008

Smart business leaders understand that confidence affects decision-making and ultimately a company’s earnings. But giving employees positive feedback in the hopes of promoting better decisions sometimes can backfire, suggests new research from the psychology department and the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University and the London Business School.

Some types of positive feedback actually can escalate perceived threats to the ego and increase the need to prove that a questionable decision was the right one.

Across several studies, the research examines how boosting self-esteem – whether contemplating one’s own accomplishments or receiving positive feedback from others -- affects the face-saving impulse to justify and recommit to decisions whose outcomes seem dubious at best.

The specifics of the positive feedback or self-affirmation that occurs at a critical juncture of decision-making are key to whether a person recommits or walks away from a questionable decision, the studies suggest.

The research will be published in an article titled “The Promise and Peril of Self-affirmation in De-escalation of Commitment,” currently in press at the journal Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes (published by Elsevier).

In one study, participants, acting as senior managers of a large investment bank, received positive feedback that emphasized how rational they were. Despite being positive, this feedback also closely related to a decision they made to hire someone who was not performing well. Those “senior managers” overwhelmingly recommitted themselves to the initial hiring decision and recommended spending additional time and money training that person, rather than simply acknowledging the poor decision and cutting their losses.

The esteem-boosting feedback backfired, the research suggests, because it was so closely linked to the particular skills that should have prevented the questionable decision in the first place.

“The more that people’s feelings of self-worth are wrapped up in a poor decision they’ve made, the greater their impulse will be to justify it in some way,” said Daniel C. Molden, assistant professor of psychology at Northwestern and one of the researchers.

Research collaborators and co-authors of the article are Niro Sivanathan, lead author and doctoral candidate in management and organizations at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern; Molden; Adam Galinsky, Morris and Alice Kaplan Professor of Ethics and Decision in Management at Kellogg; and Gillian Ku, assistant professor of organizational behavior at the London Business School.

In contrast to the outcome of decision-relevant feedback, study participants who received praise for skills unrelated to the questionable decision (e.g., creativity or innovation) or more global affirmation of positive qualities were less likely to recommit to the decision.

In another study, participants acting as chief financial officers had to revisit an earlier decision in which they had allocated $10 million of research and development (R&D) funding to a division of the corporation that they had determined would bring the greatest benefit to the company.

After learning that their chosen division had performed poorly, they were then given an additional $20 million in R&D money that could be distributed between multiple divisions in any proportion they deemed fit. Those who tended to already possess a global sense of high self-esteem, compared to those with low self-esteem, decided to not throw good money after bad and did not reinvest as much in the poorly performing division.

In contemporary organizational life, many people feel threatened by their poor decisions and end up escalating their commitment to them, wasting additional time and resources and creating even worse outcomes, the studies suggest. The research provides a framework for how organizations might most effectively bolster their employees’ self-esteem as well as the bottom line.

“Our research indicates that a supervisor could make a problem even worse when he or she tries to restore the confidence of, say, the finance division by reminding everyone that they are skilled analysts at the same time the current allocation strategy is bleeding money and is in need of reassessment,” said Kellogg’s Galinsky.

Such employees are likely to only feel more threatened by the feedback and recommit to the failing strategy in the hope they could prove that they were right all along.

“But positive feedback that generally affirms how valuable the employees are to the company could go a long way in alleviating costs to individuals and organizations that result from throwing good time and money after bad,” Galinsky added.

With the present volatility of the stock market, findings of the research have broad implications. “There always are some people who will continue to hang on to stocks that are tanking in the belief that their judgment will be vindicated in the end,” Molden said. “Our research suggests that these are more likely to be the people who take pride in being expert analysts or who have received lots of accolades for past investment success.”

The challenge is to instill confidence in people so they can change, rather than justify, the course of a failing strategy, concluded lead author Sivanathan.

“Our work offers organizations a framework for systematically leveraging self-affirmation processes so that people will be less likely to recommit to decisions not producing optimal results.”

Source: Northwestern University

Explore further: Education Dept awards $75M in innovation grants

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

The impact of social media

Sep 25, 2014

Janey Lee, a new faculty addition to Lehigh's Department of Journalism & Communication, is combining her interest in media psychology and political communication with her past career as a Korean journalist ...

Unlocking the potential of simulation software

Aug 21, 2014

With a method known as finite element analysis (FEA), engineers can generate 3-D digital models of large structures to simulate how they'll fare under stress, vibrations, heat, and other real-world conditions.

Study sheds light on factors affecting veteran hiring

Aug 14, 2014

In the coming years, increased troop withdrawals from the Middle East may result in greater numbers of combat veterans searching for jobs in the private sector. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, ...

Recommended for you

Research band at Karolinska tuck Dylan gems into papers

20 hours ago

(Phys.org) —A 17-year old bet among scientists at the Karolinska Institute has been a wager that whoever wrote the most articles with Dylan quotes before they retired would get a free lunch. Results included ...

A simulation game to help people prep for court

Sep 25, 2014

Preparing for court and appearing before a judge can be a daunting experience, particularly for people who are representing themselves because they can't afford a lawyer or simply don't know all the ropes ...

When finding 'nothing' means something

Sep 25, 2014

Scientists usually communicate their latest findings by publishing results as scientific papers in journals that are almost always accessible online (albeit often at a price), ensuring fast sharing of latest ...

User comments : 1

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

superhuman
not rated yet Mar 31, 2008
Well if an employee made an obviously wrong decision and then comes the boss and prises him for this particular decision then what will the employee think?
He will think that the boss doesn't yet know/understand all the outcomes of said decision yet since he based his prise on this particular one its outcome must mean a lot to him, and he uses it to judge the employee! That will obviously freak out said employee and will lead him to try to improve that outcome at all cost.