by Daniel B. Griffith
chayanuphol/Shutterstock
When faced with inconvenient facts, evidence we are wrong or behaved badly, or clear indications our decisions require rethinking, we often become resistant and more deeply entrenched in the belief, action, or behavior being challenged. We “double down.”
“Double down” means “to become more tenacious, zealous, or resolute in a position or undertaking.” In popular usage, it refers to leaders and others who are confronted about statements, actions, or decisions they’ve made and who disregard the push-back to hold resolutely to their original, often ill-advised, course.
The term is not always pejorative. Consider principled leaders “doubling down” against unfounded, misguided, or ill-motivated allegations, such as:
- To correct misstatements and misunderstandings: “I see now where the confusion lies. When you understand what I know, you’ll understand why I’m holding firm. The facts are these . . .”
- To acknowledge legitimate concerns and move forward anyway: “I know this choice is risky, but I’ve determined we have to take it if we want to remain competitive in the market.”
- To hold to principle against naysayers: “I understand legal counsel is nervous, but they aren’t in the classroom. DEI is integral to the curriculum. I’m not changing a thing or how I teach.”
Doubling down in these instances may be considered admirable as these leaders also acknowledge concerns and provide explanations and transparency regarding their choices.
Less principled or self-aware leaders, on the other hand, double down despite clear evidence of untruthful statements, mistakes made, faulty beliefs held, significant opposition or risk, and past and likely imminent failure for holding the course. They have an entirely different, and often detrimental, agenda, often guided by immaturity, fear, and unchecked ego.
Leaders must understand the consequences of ill-advised “doubling down,” and for lacking the integrity, authenticity, and willingness to change when it is in their and others’ best interests to do so. Consider:
Why We “Double Down”
We often double down to manage cognitive dissonance, which occurs when we are confronted with information contrary to our beliefs. We then think and act in ways to reduce this dissonance. Rather than confront inconsistencies head-on, we engage in evasion, rationalization, and realignment to return to harmony in our thinking and how we feel about ourselves. We also tend toward confirmation bias in which we seek and interpret information that confirms our pre-existing beliefs and disregards contrary evidence. We also find validation of our beliefs and greater difficulty in changing them when others agree with us, so that our beliefs become entwined with our group identity.
What “Doubling Down” May Say About You
Though it is hard to admit we are wrong and change course in the wake of compelling evidence, it is what we must do if we are to be authentic. Failure to admit mistakes limits our growth, hinders our ability to engage in honest communication, and demonstrates weakness rather than strength. Yet, this proves difficult for those who never learned accountability. Psychologists offer different reasons for this based on an individual’s development, including learning that accepting blame diminishes their worth, an abiding sense of perfectionism, and a victim mentality resulting in blaming others. In other words, unrelenting doubling down suggests you are immature.
What “Doubling Down” May Say About Your Leadership
You could be charting a course for failure. In a Harvard Business Review article on “doubling down” on poor business decisions, Freek Vermeulen and Niro Sivanathan discuss “escalation of commitment.” Leaders hold to commitments already made if, among other reasons, they perceive there are sunk costs that they won’t get back, they are averse to loss resulting from the change, they overestimate their ability to control the future, they have a strong preference for completing what was started, and dissenting voices are silent. Leaders also perceive a loss of status and identity tied to their commitment if they reverse course. The authors note how the refusal to reverse course when warranted has led to the demise of industry leaders.
How Others Feel Treated and Respond
The traits discussed above are consistent with the behaviors of bullying and abrasive leaders. This includes gaslighting in which a perpetrator will “sow self-doubt and confusion” and seek to gain power over their victim “by distorting reality or forcing them to question their own judgment.” Like double-downers, they will deny a lie despite proof, deny an event or behavior claimed by another ever happened, claim others are overreacting, shift blame, and twist stories to minimize their negative behaviors.
In response, those subject to such behavior find themselves deciding whether they can deal with it or need to extricate themselves. Relationship advice recommends attempting to supportively call attention to the problematic behaviors, such as through “when-I” statements like:
“When I attempt to present this data and inquire about your decision, you dismiss me out of hand. I don’t feel trusted as one of your advisors.”
“When you say our proposal is a ‘non-starter,’ it feels like you’ve made your decision without consulting us. Yet, you say you only hire smart people and expect us to think.”
These are certainly better approaches than saying, “You’re blowing it,” “Your decision is disastrous,” or “You’re wrong.” Yet, leaders either have thick skins and the ability to accept challenges, engage in difficult conversations, and maturely process and arrive at sound decisions, or they don’t. Many individuals will ultimately decide their leader’s penchant for blame and failure to take responsibility is toxic and abusive and will move on.
It’s Time to Double Down on Doubling Down
If you see yourself doubling down when it is better to listen, consider, and possibly reverse course — or have an inkling this may explain some of your shortcomings — gain some conviction and start “doubling down” on your doubling down tendencies. For example:
- Check that enormous ego. Doubling down is human. It is hard to acknowledge our mistakes and reverse course. Yet, the most effective leaders endeavor to confront their fears, reactions, and counterproductive mindsets and behavior patterns that cause them to entrench rather than let go. It’s about becoming vulnerable and willing to tame your ego. I share my own journey and strategies for becoming “ego-free” in previous articles.
- Establish checks and balances. Vermeulen and Sivanathan offer suggestions for countering “escalation of commitment,” such as establishing rules beforehand for decision-making and voting, engaging and protecting dissenters, expressly considering alternatives, and separating advocacy and decision-making. Wise leaders will surround themselves with and trust many advisors, which helps guard against the natural tendency to engage in entrenched, “double down” thinking and action.
- Reverse course and admit you were wrong. If it is hard to reverse course, it is even harder to admit you were wrong and apologize. Deep contrition isn’t required in all instances. But, when warranted, realize your vulnerability is a sign of strength and an opportunity for improving relationships and your effectiveness as a leader.
