Running head: REFLECTION: THINKING TRAPS 1

Reflection: Thinking traps

Name of student

Institution of affiliation

Date
REFLECTION: THINKING TRAPS 2

Introduction

Decision-making is an integral component of the daily lives of humans, irrespective of

their occupations. We make decisions at our homes that regard what we eat, what we buy, and

when to pay our bills, among other things. Managers also make decisions intended to improve

the situations of their companies. While making these decisions, there is no guarantee that these

decisions will give us favorable outcomes. As humans, we are always biased, and that is true

when it comes to decision making. These biases are psychological traps that influence the

decisions that we make and therefore, leaders need to be aware of these traps so that they cannot

undermine the choices they make. I failed to consider these traps when I worked with a retail trap

in my city. The retail organization was growing, and a new branch was being opened, and they

needed an experienced person to manage it. I was the assistant manager in the main store, and I

was the preferred person to take up the role, but I turned down the offer.

Thinking traps

The retail organization I worked for wanted me to manage the new branch on probation

terms for three months, after which they could promote me to be a manager if my performance

was satisfactory. They also offered a salary increase from my current earnings, but it could not

match that of the current manager. I rejected the offer and they had to hire someone from outside

to manage the retail store. I have since regretted my decision, and I have understood the thinking

traps that informed my decision. One trap is the anchorage trap (Kahneman, Lovallo, & Sibony,

2011). I was aware of the salary my manager was earning, and therefore, I could not accept

anything less than what he was making. Besides, managing a new organisation was tough, given

that I will build the customer base from the ground, and hence I perceived the pay as inadequate.
REFLECTION: THINKING TRAPS 3

Another trap is the status quo. I was happy with my role as an assistant manager and not willing

to try something new that can potentially ruin my career should it fail.

Kahneman and Charan (2013) identify confirming bias as a trap that affects our

decisions. I had my doubts concerning the viability of the location of the new retail outlet since it

was located in an area I doubted it we could get customers. When I called my friend who was

from the place to give me his opinion, he told me that people from the location love buying their

stuff from markets and small stores and our store might not succeed in this area. This confirmed

my fears and hence the reason for declining the offer. Prudence trap was also a factor in

declining the offer. Prudence trap is about exercising excess cautiousness. I rejected the offer

because I wanted to be in an established branch, which I knew will continue growing because it

was already popular in the city.

Conclusion

My decision to forfeit the chance of becoming a manager in the new store, though it

appeared good at that time, has come to haunt me. The person picked to head the store did so

under the same terms I was offered, and after the three months, the store had picked, and he was

promoted to be the manager of the store. The store has since grown its customer base, and if it

continues at that pace, it will soon outdo the main branch. After learning about the thinking traps,

I have been able to identify the traps that blinded my decision. The traps are anchorage, status

quo, confirming evidence and prudence traps. This encounter has taught me to be aware of the

traps that can influence my decision.

References

Kahneman, D., & Charan, R. (2013). HBR's 10 Must Reads on Making Smart Decisions (with

featured article" Before You Make That Big Decision..." by Daniel Kahneman, Dan

Lovallo, and Olivier Sibony). Harvard Business Press.

Kahneman, D., Lovallo, D., & Sibony, O. (2011). Before you make that big decision. Harvard

business review, 89(6), 50-60.