A project manager continues to commit resources to a failing project after negative results are reported, citing the amount already been invested. Which bias is this?

A project manager continues to commit resources to a failing project after negative results are reported, citing the amount already been invested. Which bias is this?

• A. Escalation of commitment bias
• B. Sunk-cost bias
• C. Overconfidence bias
• D. Framing bias

Answer: (A)

Escalation of commitment bias shows up when someone keeps putting more resources into a failing project to justify the time and money already spent, rather than based on a rational assessment of future prospects. The core pull is not a belief the project will surely succeed, but a reluctance to admit that earlier decisions were wrong, which leads to pouring in more commitment to recover losses or save face. In this scenario, the manager continues funding despite negative results precisely because of the investments already made, which is the hallmark of escalating commitment. This differs from a simple sunk-cost bias, which is about being influenced by past costs; escalation emphasizes the ongoing decision to invest more despite evidence of failure. The other biases involve overconfidence or how information is framed, not the creeping tendency to keep funding a failing course of action. To counter it, set objective milestones and stop criteria, and use independent reviews to re-evaluate ongoing projects.

Escalation of commitment bias shows up when someone keeps putting more resources into a failing project to justify the time and money already spent, rather than based on a rational assessment of future prospects. The core pull is not a belief the project will surely succeed, but a reluctance to admit that earlier decisions were wrong, which leads to pouring in more commitment to recover losses or save face. In this scenario, the manager continues funding despite negative results precisely because of the investments already made, which is the hallmark of escalating commitment. This differs from a simple sunk-cost bias, which is about being influenced by past costs; escalation emphasizes the ongoing decision to invest more despite evidence of failure. The other biases involve overconfidence or how information is framed, not the creeping tendency to keep funding a failing course of action. To counter it, set objective milestones and stop criteria, and use independent reviews to re-evaluate ongoing projects.