In high-pressure environments, even the most skilled experts are not immune to errors in judgment.

A recent clinical study published in Pediatric Cardiology (“Cognitive Biases in High-Stakes Decision-Making,” Daily et al., 2024) sheds light on how cognitive biases influence decisions made during multidisciplinary conferences on pediatric cardiac surgery. 

While this clinical setting may seem far removed from the business world, the parallels are both profound and enlightening. In both arenas, decisions are made under uncertainty, with incomplete information, and in the presence of multiple stakeholders with varying levels of expertise and interests. The result? The same biases—confirmation, authority, overconfidence, or loss aversion—can distort strategic thinking. 

Lessons for the Corporate World 

🔹 Confirmation Bias: In strategic negotiations, leaders often seek evidence that supports their initial plan, ignoring data that contradicts it. The study shows how this can lead to clinical errors; in business, it can result in risky financial decisions or poor product positioning. 

🔹 Authority Bias: Executive teams frequently follow the opinions of high-ranking figures without independent critical analysis. In medicine, this leads to decisions that prioritize hierarchy over data. In corporations, it can stifle innovative thinking. 

🔹 Loss Aversion: During crises, the natural tendency is to avoid losses rather than pursue gains. This can drive conservative decisions that sacrifice strategic opportunities—just as, in clinical settings, it can lead to the choice of less invasive but potentially less effective treatments. 

🔹 Overconfidence: Experience does not guarantee immunity from error. The study highlights how clinical experts often overestimate their diagnostic abilities. Sound familiar in boardroom discussions? 

What Can We Do? 

Deliberately adopting practices to mitigate these biases is essential. From implementing “devil’s advocate” sessions in key meetings to fostering cultures that reward critical thinking over hierarchical consensus, organizations can learn from medicine how to design more resilient decision-making structures. 

The study by Daily et al. not only reveals how to improve clinical decision-making—it offers a roadmap for rethinking how we operate in boardrooms, negotiation rooms, and moments of strategic decision. Because at the end of the day, cognitive biases don’t distinguish between an operating room and a conference room. 

SOURCE

Daily JA, Dalby S, Greiten L. Cognitive Biases in High-Stakes Decision-Making: Implications for Joint Pediatric Cardiology and Cardiothoracic Surgery Conference. Pediatr Cardiol. 2025;46(3):536-543. doi:10.1007/s00246-024-03462-4. 

Link: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38522052/ 

Continue reading more articles: https://neurobusiness.us/blog/