In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

  • Toward the Barry Bonds Award
  • Thomas E. Merz (bio)

David Henderson and Charles Hooper's recent book Making Great Decisions in Business and Life enlightens and entertains readers while describing the ingredients of great decision making. Chapter 9, "Consciously Select the Best Alternative," provides hypothetical examples that "may be new to some readers and familiar and obvious to others."1 One example illustrates how a good outcome is due to good luck rather than good decision making:

A teacher in a third-grade class wants to select one of two children for a special privilege, such as cutting the end-of-year celebration cake. So she asks the two children to think of a number between one and ten, with the winning number being the one closest to the teacher's. Addie selects two and then Greer picks number one. The teacher announces that the number is one and that Greer has won.2

Greer chose poorly: choosing the number one gave him a 10 percent chance of winning, while choosing the number three would have given him his highest (80 percent) probability of winning.3 The important message is, "A good decision is the decision you'd make the next time given the same information, not the decision that happened to give a good outcome this particular time."4

Henderson and Hooper point out that, in business and life, many adults are just like Greer—they make bad decisions and get lucky. The difference from the example above is that adult games can have enormous amounts of money at stake. Since "many people judge a decision purely by the outcome," there is a tendency to "extol the genius of" and reward the decision maker.5 As an example, they describe a hypothetical case of a baseball executive who trades for a player with a poor track record. If the executive is lucky, the acquired player will put up all-star numbers and the sports page will extol his managerial genius.6

Tim Kurkjian's Most Heads-Up Play award is a real-life example of rewarding a bad decision based on a good outcome: [End Page 126]

On April 9 in Houston, in the 10th inning of a 1–1 game, the Giants' Barry Bonds was on first base, Steve Decker was on third and Matt Williams was at the plate. Astros pitcher Todd Jones threw a ball to the screen behind home plate, but Decker did not attempt to score. Bonds went halfway to second, then realized that if he left first base open, Williams surely would be intentionally walked. So Bonds ran back to first, beating the throw with a slide. Williams followed with a two-run double. The Giants won 3–1.7

Presumably, advancing to second base was a sure thing for Bonds. Does it strike you as being counterintuitive that he would choose not to do so? Merz developed the formal analysis leading to the conclusion that not advancing to second was a bad decision.8 This article addressed the alleged base running decision of Willie Mays with Willie McCovey on deck. Mays hit a sure double but settled for a single. While demonstrating that Mays made a bad decision, I pondered whether Mays ever refused to advance to second on a wild pitch with McCovey at bat.9 So what we have are different actors (Bonds replaces Mays and Williams replaces McCovey) playing the same scene (choosing not to advance to second).

General Douglas MacArthur once proclaimed, "We are not retreating. We are advancing in another direction."10 Choosing not to take a sure base is never advancing in another direction; it's an ill-advised retreat. Neither Bonds nor his godfather, Mays, was on the ball.

While accolades and bonus checks enhance the recipient's self-esteem, a habit of making bad decisions is unlikely to breed long-term success. Prudence needs to be practiced so that the selection of recipients for awards is not solely outcome driven. Perhaps an effective way to convey this message is for organizations to provide two annual awards: "The Most Heads-up Play Award" and "The Luckiest, but Most Inappropriate, Play Award." The latter might be...

pdf