On this page
Project room. After a short discussion, Zofia closes the topic and chooses option A. Amira starts the detailed implementation work.
— We’re going with A. Let’s start today.
Three days later, Zofia returns with new data.
— We’re switching to B.
— But A was the decision.
To Zofia, changing course proves flexibility. To Amira, it means something was called a decision too early.
How does Empatyzer support communication when a decision changes?
Empatyzer helps you see that changing your mind can be a rational response to new data, or it can seem like chaos. This makes it easier to understand how to communicate a change in decision.
Features that can help:
- Tips: They help you choose the tone, level of directness and the way of expressing the expectation in a "Decision today, decision tomorrow" situation for this person, instead of using one message for everyone.
- Talk to Em about a specific person: Allows you to prepare a conversation with a specific person around a "Decision today, decision tomorrow" situation based on your differences and the current context, rather than starting with a generic solution.
- You vs. the team: Provides a reference point for the "Decision today, decision tomorrow" situation: shows whether you are similar to the team or clearly different from it in areas such as decision flexibility, new data and communicating change.
What really happened
Zofia believes a good decision should change when the data changes. Amira believes that once a decision has been made, the team needs to be able to build on it; reopening it too often destroys work already invested. They see different costs. Zofia fears staying with a bad choice just because it has already been made. Amira fears putting time into something that may stop being valid again tomorrow. The conflict is therefore not about changing one’s mind in itself, but about the cost of reversibility and the point at which a decision becomes a commitment.
What the research says
Decision research shows that people often like retaining the option to change a choice, although reversibility can carry psychological costs such as more comparison and lower satisfaction after choosing (decision reversibility; Gilbert & Ebert, 2002; Bullens et al., 2013). Organizations face the opposite risk as well: continuing down a path simply because significant resources have already been invested — escalation of commitment (Staw, 1981; Sleesman et al., 2012). Together, these streams of research show why neither “never change” nor “always stay flexible” is a sound rule.
How to handle it
When making the decision, say how reversible it is and what would reopen it. Simple labels can help: “one-week test,” “reversible decision,” or “stable through the end of the quarter.” It is also useful to define the threshold of new evidence that would trigger reconsideration. The general rule is: people can safely invest in execution when they know whether a decision is an experiment or a commitment, and what information could change it.
How Empatyzer and Em can help
Empatyzer can show Zofia and Amira that both are acting responsibly while placing the cost of uncertainty in different places. Zofia prefers to decide faster and correct course later; Amira invests more heavily in the stability of a decision once execution begins. The assessment and profile comparison allow Em to anticipate the friction and suggest language that changes its meaning: “We’re choosing A as a test until Thursday; these three data points could still reverse the choice.” Amira then knows how much to invest in execution, while Zofia keeps the flexibility she values. At team level, Empatyzer can help create shared meanings for “decision,” “test,” and “working option.” Micro-lessons reinforce that precision, so changing direction does not look like chaos and stability does not turn into rigidity.
Sources
- Daniel T. Gilbert; Jane E. J. Ebert (2002). Decisions and Revisions: The Affective Forecasting of Changeable Outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(4), 503-514. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.4.503 10.1037/0022-3514.82.4.503
- Lottie Bullens; Frenk van Harreveld; Jens Förster; Joop van der Pligt (2013). Reversible decisions: The grass isn't merely greener on the other side; it's also very brown over here. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(6), 1093-1099. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.07.011 10.1016/j.jesp.2013.07.011
- Barry M. Staw (1981). The Escalation of Commitment to a Course of Action. Academy of Management Review, 6(4), 577-587. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1981.4285694 10.5465/AMR.1981.4285694
- Dustin J. Sleesman; Donald E. Conlon; Gerry McNamara; Jonathan E. Miles (2012). Cleaning Up the Big Muddy: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Determinants of Escalation of Commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 55(3), 541-562. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2010.0696 10.5465/AMJ.2010.0696
Find an article
Enter at least 2 characters. Minor typos are OK.