Search

Students of complex organizations have often noted the tendency of organizational leaders to block out crucial information that raises doubts about plans and evidence they have already embraced. Recent research has expanded our understanding of this apparently irrational behavior. This essay examines two historically interesting cases—when attractive alternatives existed but leaders were unable to overcome their prior psychological commitments. These cases underscore the problems of “grooved thinking” and “selective reinforcement” in the development of large urban projects. However, close examination of one of the cases suggests a way to break through this “irrational” rigidity, by setting a goal that is short of “the best” but likely to achieve important results. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]