A decision process gone wrong, and what we can learn from it

The complex military strategy Xerxes envisioned involved a simultaneous naval and land invasion, which in turn involved the construction of two parallel “pontoon bridges,” each over 2 kilometers long, to span the Hellespont.   However, when describing his plan to invade and conquer Greece, he skipped over the risks and focused mainly on the benefits that awaited his empire after victory has been secured:

“We can gain glory; take possession of lands fully as extensive, productive, and fertile as those which we have now; and at the same time obtain vengeance and retribution too.”

That last admission about exacting “vengeance and retribution” reveals Xerxes inner motivations, and should have raised serious red flags for his advisors.

When making a major decision, strong emotions like anger, envy, or in the case of Xerxes, a desire to avenge his father’s failed invasion 10 years earlier, can seriously cloud judgment.

Various techniques in the Decision Mojo learning experience– Hold Back, Check Your State of Mind, Guard Against Overconfidence, Hold up the Mirror – could have helped Xerxes frame the proposed decision more effectively.

Before making the final decision about whether to go forward with the invasion plan, Xerxes solicits the feedback of his assembled generals and advisors.

“But so that I should not seem to be the kind of man who make plans all by himself” Xerxes says, “I now set the matter before you for open discussion, and bid any of you who wishes to do so to reveal his own opinion.”

As is often the case in organizations with a strong leader, the first to speak is someone who confirms the leader’s thinking, in this case Mardonios. He flatters the Persian king and says: “Everything you said was right on mark.”

Then Mardonios selectively highlights the strengths of Xerxes' plan and confidently asks, “What do we have to fear?” He downplays the risks of the invasion by claiming their adversaries, the Greeks, are cowardly, weak, and not very smart when it comes to strategy. Mardonios predicts that the Greeks will simply surrender once they realize the size and strength of the Persian army along with the reach and effectiveness of the navy.

“And even if I should be mistaken in this opinion,” says Mardonios, “and they [the Greeks], inspired by recklessness, should come out to do battle, they will find out that when it comes to war, we are the greatest people on earth.”

Mardonios’ speech was a classic case of telling the leader what they want to hear, and also a strong example of four predictable decision traps we dig into in Decision Mojo - the Confirming Evidence Trap, the Overconfidence Trap, the Self Interest Trap and the Anchoring Trap.

After Mardonios is done talking, Herodotus tell us: “The rest of the Persians remained silent and did not dare to express an opinion in opposition to the one that had been offered."

It seems the assembled advisors are on the verge of falling into another omnipresent decision trap, the Groupthink Trap – which often leads to suboptimal decisions. (Irving Janus first coined the name for this trap in his seminal book Victims of Groupthink published in 1972.)

How often have we found ourselves in a similar situation? We’re in a meeting and the CEO proposes a big plan to take on the competition, and a well-regarded senior vice president verbally endorses the plan. Even if we do harbor doubts or see risks that have been glossed over or avoided all together, it is often easier to remain silent and go along with the proposal.

Then something seemingly positive happens.  Artabanos, an uncle to Xerxes, breaks the silence and bravely points out a flaw in the decision process.

“Sire, if no opposing opinions are expressed in the course of a discussion, it becomes impossible to try to choose and to finally select the better one. Instead, one will have to make do with the one that is stated.”

Perhaps because he believed familial ties offered some protection, Artabanos dared to share an alternative viewpoint, warning Xerxes that the Greeks were not going to lay down their arms and meekly surrender as Mardonios predicts.

“You, Sire, are about to march against men who are said to be the best both at land and at sea.”  As evidence, he reminds Xerxes that just 10 years before, a small army from a single Greek city-state, Athens, defeated a much larger Persian army assembled by his father Darius. In other words, if Xerxes just looks to the recent past to inform his decision-making, he will find ample disconfirming evidence that a military victory is far from the certainty that Mardonios painted it to be.  (Key decision skills include Learning from Experience,  Seeking Disconfirming Evidence.)

And what if the Persians were to lose their fleet in a naval battle, asks Artabanos?  There would be nothing to prevent the Greek navy from sailing to the Hellespont and destroying the pontoon bridge, effectively stranding the Persian army in enemy territory. This is an excellent example of a technique we teach in Decision Mojo called Performing a Pre-mortem, where you identify what might go wrong before you make the decision.

Where Mardonios sees opportunity, Artabanos sees risk.  “Please don’t willfully incur such risks when nothing compels you to do so” Artabanos pleads with his nephew.

He’s effectively saying to Xerxes, look, there is no need to rush into war, and he recommends Xerxes dismiss the assembly and take time to consider the matter (key decision skills of Inserting a Reflection Pause, Buying Time).

Artabanos’ advice turns out to be both wise and prescient, but of course, Xerxes not only dismisses it, he accuses Artabanos of being a coward and lashes out at him for even bringing up such inconvenient facts and potential risks.

At the end of the day, despite Artabanos’ courageous attempt to influence a higher-quality decision process, Xerxes fails to give the process a chance.  Today we might say that Xerxes didn’t effectively use the key decision skill we call Welcome Contrarians and actively seek debate and counterposing viewpoints.

A more skilled decision-leader would have explored more options, asked more questions and pursued more different perspectives.  A more skilled decision-leader would have created an environment where people were comfortable challenging the dominant view -- what we now call creating psychological safety -- verses just going through the motions of doing so.

A more skilled decision-leader would have been aware of how they might be consciously or unconsciously signaling to others what they wanted to hear, and also have been open to the possibility that they might not have all the answers.  As the French philosopher Voltaire noted: “Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position. But certainty is an absurd one."

As you probably suspect by now, Xerxes moved forward with the invasion and the result was, as Herodotus recounts in his Histories, a complete and utter disaster.

Any leader today must continually seek to up- level their own decision-making capabilities and those of their team to avoid similar big and small disasters.  That includes learning specific skills and techniques for seeking out counter-factual perspectives, encouraging the honest sharing of opinions, identifying risks, embracing uncertainty, avoiding overconfidence, and also being especially on guard when there are strong emotions swirling around a decision.

Finally, we all should also seek out and celebrate an “Uncle Artabanos” in our decision-making -- someone who has the courage to raise valid concerns, surface issues, identify traps we might be falling into and serve as an insightful partner as we stress-test the important decisions in front of us.

The Landmark Herodotus, Chapter 7.8 - 7.10 (Edited by Robert B. Strassler)