Cognitive bias in projects

In day-to-day project work, people are constantly having to make decisions. This often happens under time pressure, with incomplete information and within complex social contexts. Cognitive biases play a significant role in this. Our brains rely not only on facts, but also on experience and familiar patterns to quickly make sense of new information. This enables us to remain capable of taking action. At the same time, it can lead us to misjudge situations, react too hastily or overlook important perspectives.

Particularly in projects where collaboration, leadership and decision-making are closely intertwined, cognitive biases can exacerbate conflicts, foster misunderstandings and compromise the quality of decisions. Those who recognise these biases can act more consciously, lead more clearly and deal better with differing viewpoints.

Why our thinking sometimes misleads us in day-to-day project work

We are constantly taking in our surroundings and processing a vast amount of information. To handle this information efficiently, the brain looks for patterns. These help us to assess situations more quickly, conserve energy and react swiftly in unfamiliar circumstances.

This was extremely helpful for our survival over many millennia. However, our living and working environments have changed faster than our brains could adapt. As a result, some of these patterns are now only of limited use in meeting modern demands. In day-to-day project work, they can lead to us not always treating one another with respect, openness or as equals.

The first step, therefore, is simply to become aware of these patterns. Once we recognise them, we create the space to question them and consciously act differently.

How automatic patterns develop

Many behaviours that we humans developed millions of years ago are still evident today. Back then, they were necessary for survival. Over the course of human evolution, these patterns have become ingrained and, in some cases, neurologically embedded in the brain.

One example is our preference for high-calorie food. In the past, this helped us to consume enough energy. Another example is the grasping reflex in newborns, which promotes security and bonding. Some behavioural patterns are culturally influenced, whilst others arise through experience, repetition and observation. Instincts, on the other hand, are innate, genetically inherited behavioural patterns that are triggered by specific stimuli.

Some of these patterns are barely noticeable in everyday life, whilst others become very apparent under pressure – particularly when the nervous system reacts to danger.

When the nervous system goes into alarm mode

Stress responses are the nervous system’s reactions to extreme stress, danger or threat. In the past, this might have been a sabre-toothed tiger or a mammoth. In such moments, heart rate, pulse and cortisol levels rise. At the same time, the amygdala, a part of the limbic system, takes control. Areas responsible for logical thinking, such as the prefrontal cortex or the hippocampus, then function only to a limited extent.

In such situations, we often react automatically and without conscious thought. Typical reactions include:

• Fight: We become angry, irritable or argumentative, speak more loudly and try to control the situation.
• Flight: We back away, avoid confrontation or take refuge in distractions (mobile phones or TV series).
• Freeze: We feel a sense of emptiness, feel paralysed or numb. Thinking and feeling are then only possible to a limited extent.

Whilst these stress and survival responses once ensured survival and continuity, today they are more of a hindrance than a help.

In addition to these acute reactions, long-term conditioning also influences our behaviour. It affects how we interpret situations and how we react in our interactions with others.

How our upbringing shapes our behaviour

Our upbringing refers to the influences that have shaped us throughout our lives. These include family, social, cultural and historical influences.

Our behaviour in social interactions is shaped, among other things, by how we grow up, the environment in which we live and the values we are taught. For example, in many Western cultures, a certain distance between conversation partners is considered pleasant, whereas in Latin American cultures, conversations often take place at a much closer distance.

In addition to these influences, we develop further learned behavioural patterns. These arise through repetition, observation and experience. A typical example is the association: ‘If I behave myself, I will be loved.’ We store such patterns and repeatedly recall them in similar situations. This further reinforces this association in the brain.

Why our brain simplifies complexity

Every day, we experience a wide variety of situations and take in a flood of stimuli from people, objects and events. Processing this information is a complex process, as each piece of information must be assessed for its relevance and its connection to other information. Our brain automatically sorts it into categories (pigeonholes). In this way, it reduces complexity and can make decisions more quickly.

This categorisation is generally helpful. It becomes problematic, however, when it systematically distorts our perception – this is precisely where biases arise.

How biases distort our perception

In conversations, we usually understand what the other person means. Yet misunderstandings do occur time and again. A seemingly harmless statement can quickly take on an emotional charge.

A sentence such as: “Please ring the customer and tell him he has to deliver xy” can quickly elicit the following reaction: “What’s with that tone of his – am I his secretary now? Let him ring them himself!”

This is because we view a situation through a certain “lens”. We bring with us our childhood, our upbringing, our culture, our education and many personal experiences. Added to this is how we have learnt to interact with other people. All of this shapes our view of the world.

Our stress patterns also continue to influence us. They used to protect us and, in essence, still do. At the same time, our brain tries to protect us from information overload by categorising things. It simplifies, sorts and evaluates.

These processes are interlinked. This gives rise to personal patterns of perception and, beyond that, systematic distortions of perception, known as biases.

Here are some biases that occur particularly frequently in everyday project work and can influence decisions, communication and collaboration.

Halo effect

A positive first impression influences the perception of subsequent impressions.

Examples:

• A project manager has successfully completed a major project. Afterwards, it is often expected that they will also be able to successfully lead other projects, perhaps of a completely different nature.
• A new team member comes across as very charismatic and confident at the kick-off. Subsequent mistakes may then be judged less harshly because the first impression was positive.

Mere-Exposure Effect

The more frequently we come into contact with something, the more familiar and often more positive it seems to us. This effect is deliberately exploited in advertising and election campaigns. We are also more likely to trust information from people we know.

Examples:

• We don’t like a song at first. If we hear it often on the radio, we eventually come to like it.
• In projects too, repetition can help to make progress visible and build trust.

Primacy bias / anchoring heuristic

The first information we receive sticks in our minds more strongly and influences our judgement more than information that becomes known later.

Examples:

• A client asks for a cost estimate for a project. The first rough figure sticks in their mind and influences subsequent assessments. As the project progressed, the target had to be adjusted because an additional area was added that had not been included in the rough estimate. “But you said it would cost around 100,000 euros, so why do we now have to pay 50% more?”
• This is also used in retail: a higher price crossed out makes the reduced price appear more attractive.

Confirmation Bias

We seek out and evaluate information in such a way that it confirms our existing assumptions and hypotheses. Contradictory evidence or warning signs are downplayed or dismissed as exceptions.

Examples:

• “Now my colleague has landed another good project. I’ve been overlooked yet again.”
• We often pay more attention to the customers who make the most contact, rather than those who make the greatest financial contribution.
• New software is to be introduced because senior management is convinced of its benefits. Concerns raised by staff are dismissed as “resistance to change”.

Authority Bias

We tend to trust the opinions of people who demonstrate a certain level of authority or expertise without questioning the facts.

Examples:

• In meetings, the proposal put forward by the most senior manager is often accepted, even if other team members have data-based counterarguments. [1]
• A team realises that a milestone will not be met. However, because the project manager (the authority figure) has previously emphasised strongly that the project is on schedule, no one dares to say otherwise. This can lead to delays and inefficient decisions.

Barnum effect

People perceive general statements as being very personally relevant.

Example:

Horoscopes are often worded so generally that they could apply to almost anyone. Nevertheless, many people feel they are being spoken to directly.

How we can break the cycle of biases and patterns in day-to-day project work

The good news is that, whilst biases cannot be completely avoided, we can significantly reduce their impact.

To recognise cognitive biases and be less at their mercy, we first need to be mindful. In an age of information overload and intense pressure to make decisions, there is often little room to consciously scrutinise our choices. This makes it all the more important to pause and reflect on our own perceptions.

Helpful steps include, for example:

• Taking time before moving on to the next point.
• Asking yourself: Why do I favour this solution?
• Check: Who provided the information and on what basis?
• Formulate or define a clear objective to which the decision relates.
• Question: Does this decision really help achieve the objective?
• Consider and weigh up alternatives.

This ensures the decision is based more on objective and technical criteria and less on spontaneous perceptions.

The following approaches can help to reduce typical biases:

Halo effect

• Base decisions on concrete metrics and facts.
• Objective criteria: Use checklists and standardised evaluation forms.
• Seek multiple perspectives.
• Be aware that first impressions can be misleading.

Primacy bias

• Use structured decision-making processes (checklists and criteria catalogues).
• Consciously give equal weight to information received later.
• Seek feedback independently before an open discussion.

Confirmation Bias

• Ask specific counter-questions: “Why might my assumption be wrong?”
• Actively invite critical voices.
• Work with neutral comparative data.

Authority Bias

• Appoint a person to consciously question decisions. [2]
• Collect ideas anonymously if the status of individuals could influence the assessment.
• Rely on evidence-based arguments rather than hierarchy.

The following example of estimating work packages illustrates how such bias can specifically affect project decisions.

Project example: Estimates and anchors

A team is tasked with estimating the next work packages. Based on experience, the effort for Package A is around ten days. If different team members are asked independently using different anchors, this often results in systematically different estimates:

• What is your estimate – will we need more than six days for this work package?
• What is your estimate – can we complete this work package in less than 20 days?

Depending on the anchor, the estimate tends to be lower or higher.

To reduce this effect, the following are helpful:

• actual figures from similar work packages,
• various estimation methods such as Delphi or three-point estimation,
• explicitly stated buffers,
• and a person who consciously questions the estimate. [2]

The effect becomes even more pronounced when stress reactions and biases occur simultaneously.

Project example: When stress and biases reinforce each other

Stress reactions and cognitive biases rarely occur in isolation in day-to-day project work. They often reinforce each other and can thus lead to tension or conflict.

HR manager Annemarie is strongly characterised by punctuality and perfectionism. Her colleague Sarah, on the other hand, stands for creativity and spontaneous ideas. An important project meeting with Mr Müller, the client, is coming up. This will determine whether the project receives additional resources. Sarah arrives five minutes late, first grabbing a coffee and having a brief chat with a colleague.

The following could now happen to Annemarie:

• Thought: “Sarah is late and unreliable yet again.”
• Confirmation bias reinforces past experiences: “She’s always the chaotic creative type.”
• Stress reaction: Her heart races, adrenaline and cortisol levels rise. Fight mode is activated: Annemarie wants to attack and control the situation. At the same time, her perfectionism intensifies the internal pressure: “I have to save this.”

Without awareness of these patterns, the situation could continue as follows:

Annemarie sharply interrupts Sarah: “Sarah, we only have 30 minutes. Start straight away, otherwise we’ll have to postpone the meeting.”

The result could be that Sarah withdraws, the team feels the tension, and valuable contributions are lost.

With awareness of her own patterns, Annemarie could react differently:

She notices her stress response, takes a deep breath, steps briefly to the window, and consciously returns to the moment. Afterwards, she might say to herself:

“Thank you, stress pattern, for wanting to protect me. In this situation, I don’t need you right now.”

Outwardly, she could say in a friendly and clear manner: “Sarah, Mr Müller only has 30 minutes. Please start with your presentation and your key findings.”

In this way, Annemarie remains on equal footing, avoids an escalation and gives Sarah space to contribute constructively. At the same time, she keeps an eye on the time, and the team experiences her leadership as confident and clear.

Conclusion: What patterns, conditioning and cognitive biases mean for project work

Our automatic patterns, conditioning and perceptual biases are not bad in themselves. On the contrary: they help us to react quickly, reduce complexity and remain capable of taking action in our day-to-day lives. Without these mechanisms, we would often be overwhelmed in a highly dynamic working environment.

The problem arises when we mistake these patterns for objective truth. We then judge people too hastily, listen to one another less, overlook warning signs or make decisions based on assumptions rather than facts. This is precisely what can prove costly in projects – in terms of expertise, time and interpersonal relations. Misunderstandings, unnecessary conflicts, missed opportunities and unclear decisions often arise not from malice, but from automatic reactions operating unnoticed in the background.

In other words: awareness is a key factor for success. Those who recognise their own patterns can pause, ask questions, seek different perspectives and scrutinise decisions more effectively. This fosters quality in the work itself and a collaborative atmosphere built on mutual respect. And it is precisely in a project context that pressure, uncertainty and conflicting interests often converge. Here, it is crucial not to react reflexively, but to pause and consciously assess: What is really going on here? What is fact, what is interpretation? What other perspectives exist?

This creates more space for clarity, confidence and collaboration on equal terms. Biases cannot be completely eliminated – but we can significantly reduce their impact. And this is precisely where the major benefit for projects lies: better decisions, less friction and a more professional approach to complexity.

Notes:

Would you like to examine cognitive biases and patterns in your projects and strengthen teamwork? Then it’s worth taking a look at Irene Timmers’ website.

[1] This phenomenon has a name: the HIPPO effect. HIPPO is an apronym and stands for ‘Highest Paid Person’s Opinion’. The effect suggests that the opinion of the highest-paid person is given greater weight in a decision because it is, by definition, of greater value. The value of the opinion is thus linked to the salary of the person expressing it. The higher the salary, the more important the opinion. Or, to put it another way: ‘We do what the person with the highest salary says’.
[2] Such a person is referred to as an Advocatus Diaboli. The Advocatus Diaboli is a person who, with constructive intent, deliberately takes opposing positions in order to critically examine arguments.

Would you, as an influencer or opinion leader, like to discuss cognitive biases and patterns? Then please feel free to share this post within your network.

Irene Timmers has published another post on the t2informatik Blog: