Remaining proactive regarding potential issues in planning and decision-making involves a strategy termed the premortem, introduced by psychologist Gary Klein. This method requires envisioning that a strategy has already failed and retracing steps to pinpoint possible causes of failure before they arise. A pivotal study conducted in 2010 by Beth Veinott, Gary Klein, and Sterling Wiggins examined this strategy by asking participants to assess a university’s response plan to the H1N1 flu outbreak, utilizing various critique approaches. The premortem group indicated a notable decline in confidence in the plan compared to other groups, underscoring the efficacy of conceptualizing failure in the past tense to reveal potential problems.
The fundamental idea of prospective hindsight, where known outcomes are articulated in greater detail, stems from a 1989 study by Deborah Mitchell, J. Edward Russo, and Nancy Pennington. This principle is employed in the premortem technique, making hypothetical failures appear more akin to past occurrences, thereby increasing explanatory detail.
Though the premortem technique enhances the detection of possible points of failure and lessens overconfidence, evidence regarding its influence on improving real-world results is sparse, with the main study not assessing the consequent success of plans. Additional literature, including Martin Seligman’s “Homo Prospectus,” supports the notion that visualizing future scenarios is essential to human cognition, which may explain the effectiveness of intentional exercises like premortems.
In summary, the premortem is appreciated for its capacity to moderate overconfidence and identify potential failure points rather than ensuring the elimination of failure. Nevertheless, it lacks a substantial collection of independent research, and its effectiveness in improving real-world scenarios is yet to be thoroughly validated.