# The Psychology of Compounding Bad Decisions How cognitive traps amplify mistakes in professional judgment - **Source:** [Seth Godin](https://seths.blog) - **Published:** 2026-09-18 - **Topic:** [Career Growth](https://brifing.si/c/growth) - **Original article:** - **On Brifing:** https://brifing.si/s/75437d98-dc75-44d0-b5c2-d515ce262f83 ## The compounding effect Poor decisions rarely occur in isolation. Professionals often compound initial mistakes through subsequent choices that attempt to justify rather than correct errors. This creates a downward spiral where each decision builds upon previous misjudgments, amplifying negative consequences across projects and timelines. The phenomenon particularly manifests during crisis management when pressure clouds objective analysis. ## Sunk cost fallacy A common trap involves continuing failing initiatives due to prior investments of time or resources. Professionals frequently double down on flawed strategies simply because they've already committed significant effort. This behavioral pattern appears across industries, from product development teams persisting with doomed features to executives prolonging unsuccessful market expansions despite clear signals to pivot. ## Victim mentality trap Some professionals externalize failures by adopting a victim mindset that attributes setbacks solely to external factors. This defensive posture prevents objective analysis of personal contribution to problems. In organizational contexts, such attitudes can spread through teams, creating cultures that focus on blame rather than solution-building after disappointments or market reversals. ## Misreading randomness Many professionals struggle to distinguish between bad luck and poor judgment. Temporary setbacks often trigger overreactions where individuals abandon fundamentally sound strategies. Conversely, some misinterpret genuine warning signs as random noise, causing them to repeat mistakes. This pattern appears frequently in investment decisions, hiring practices, and technology adoption timelines. ## Overcorrection dangers After experiencing failure, professionals sometimes swing to opposite extremes in subsequent decisions. A missed deadline might lead to unrealistic buffer times, or one overbudget project could trigger excessive cost-cutting. These overcorrections often create new problems while failing to address root causes. The phenomenon appears across financial planning, resource allocation, and risk management contexts. ## Breaking destructive patterns Effective professionals implement decision audits that separate outcomes from processes. They analyze whether good decisions had bad results versus flawed thinking that coincidentally succeeded. Many organizations benefit from formal reflection practices that identify repeating error patterns in strategic choices, particularly during quarterly planning cycles or post-mortem analyses. ## The growth mindset advantage High performers treat each decision as independent rather than chained to past outcomes. They bring fresh analysis to new situations without letting previous results dictate current choices. This approach requires conscious effort to avoid emotional anchoring while maintaining institutional memory about what actually worked versus what merely appeared successful temporarily. ## Organizational safeguards Progressive companies implement structural protections against decision cascades. These include mandatory cooling-off periods between major choices, devil's advocate roles in meetings, and quantitative decision frameworks that reduce emotional bias. Such systems prove particularly valuable during periods of stress or rapid change when cognitive traps multiply. ## Sources covering this story - https://seths.blog/2026/09/a-series-of-bad-decisions/ — --- _Summary written by Brifing from the original reporting. Copyright in the original article belongs to its publisher; read the full piece at the link above._