Can you see into the future?
That’s what premortems are for. It’s a pity we don’t use them enough
The intent of a postmortem is to understand what went wrong in the past (or right, as the case may be). There is a premium placed on this exercise, and rightfully so. We learn from the past. But little emphasis is placed on premortems — imagining what may happen in the future.
Why this matters to decision-making was first articulated by the American psychologist, Gary Klein. And how it works was placed in clinical perspective by the neuroscientist, Daniel Levitin.
When stressed out, Levitin explains, our brains release a hormone called cortisol in excess of what our body needs, and impairs our decision-making capabilities. The thing about stress is, there is no running away from it. How we deal with it is what matters.
That is why, in organisations, for instance, Klein suggests that people split into two teams.
One team is tasked with imagining what the future may look like in a best-case scenario and the other is asked to imagine all that can go wrong. When the exercise is done, both converge and exchange notes with the benefit of ‘prospective hindsight’.
Extrapolating from the notes allows people to curb excessive optimism, as well as kill the absurd reasons people use to explain failure away. It also allows people to cope with stressful situations as they hit.
Premortems can be used by individuals as well, to imagine the future and ask questions that may otherwise not occur to them. For example, what may happen on a routine visit to the doctor? How may you respond if told your cholesterol levels are high? An acceptable thing to do is go with the physician’s advice and go on statins, the most widely prescribed class of drugs to keep high cholesterol levels in check.
When a premortem is conducted, pertinent questions emerge. Such as: What does the data show on how people have benefited from statins? What are the side effects?
Data has it only one in about 300 people benefits from statins. When stressed out, our foggy brains may assume we will be among that small percentage to benefit.
If a premortem is conducted, it will point to the side effects too. Gastrointestinal distress and debilitating muscle pains afflict 15 out of 300 people on statins.
The likelihood of being harmed then is 15 times higher than that of being helped. This is not to suggest statins be ruled out completely. But clearly, a more informed conversation with the physician is called for. The smartest among us fail to do that. Why?
Because there are narratives we are weaned on. That we must be decisive in all kinds of situations. There are times when not making a decision is a good decision.
Having said that, pointers to good decisions emerge as well when premortems are conducted. By way of example, a narrative I was in love with was of how focused I am while at work. But evidence suggested this is humbug and that nothing of consequence emerges out of me between 2 pm and 4 pm.
While this narrative was difficult to accept, a premortem clarified that it has to do with my lifestyle. And that I ignore wellwishers suggesting willpower be rustled up to fight the battle against fatigue. Persisting would be futile. These hours are now used to complete monotonous tasks and I’ve saved on much heartache.
Like the narrative on statins, this may sound counter-intuitive, but it doesn’t make itself apparent until an exercise such as a premortem is conducted. (The writer is co-founder at Founding Fuel & co-author of The Aadhaar Effect)