Christopher Chabris and Daniel Simons created an experiment known as “The Invisible Gorilla.” They would ask students taking one of their Harvard University psychology courses to watch a video of two teams playing basketball. One team was wearing white shirts, the other black. They were to count the number of times a player wearing a white shirt passed the ball.

They were not told that halfway through the exercise, a person dressed as a gorilla would walk through the game, stand in the middle, pound their chest, and then walk off.

At the end, they were asked about the number of passes they counted, but they were also asked, “Did you see the gorilla?” More than half of the students, busy counting the passes, were oblivious to the gorilla. Even after they were told about it, they said they couldn’t remember seeing it. Even more telling, they were certain they couldn’t have missed it.

But they did.

The point of their experiment, and others like it, is that we think we see and know more than we actually do. We have selective attention. We believe we will intuitively notice what there is to notice, see what there is to see, particularly highly distinctive things—but that intuition can be wrong.

In his book on developing the ability to think more strategically, Michael Watkins builds off the “invisible gorilla” results with a look at the specific ways we can diminish our abilities to see all that is really around us.

For example, there is confirmation bias. This is when you seek out only those sources of information that are consistent with your pre-existing viewpoints. Or you “recall” only the evidence that supports your existing theories.

Similar to confirmation bias is what Phil Rosenzweig calls the halo effect. This is when you take an aspect of a person or organization and let it shape perceptions of the whole in ways that aren’t supported by the facts. For example, think of an organization that has a robust financial performance—we assume they must have a sound strategy and strong leadership.

Yet when that organization’s financial performance becomes less than stellar, we’re quick to conclude that its strategy wasn’t sound, and that leadership wasn’t strong. As Watkins puts it, “Tangible overall results create a general impression (a halo) that informs our perception of the more granular elements contributing to firm performance.” Or as Rosenzweig put it, we confound outputs with inputs.

Another way to fall prey to the “invisible gorilla” syndrome is what Watkins calls the sunk cost fallacy. Think “wishful thinking.” This is when you double down on something that just isn’t working. But instead of recognizing a losing proposition, you simply pour more and more resources into it in the vain hope of recouping previous losses.

A final way to limit your ability to see the reality around you is what psychologists call the self-serving bias. In essence, this is blaming others when things go wrong. It’s just natural to blame something outside of ourselves for when things go wrong and then take full credit for when things go well.

Being a strategic thinker, writes Watkins, begins with the ability to see what is truly around you—what he calls “pattern recognition.” Namely, the ability to “observe complex, uncertain, volatile and ambiguous... scenarios, rapidly figure out what is and isn’t essential, and identify critical threats and opportunities.”

Which will mean seeking out information that may go against preconceived notions, realizing the real nature of outputs and inputs, realizing what isn’t working and shouldn’t be invested in further, and always starting with ourselves when things go wrong and others when things go well.

Oh, and don’t miss the gorilla in the middle of the basketball game.

Source