The data is clear. The analysis is complete. The strategic case for exit is overwhelming. And yet you find yourself defending the position with increasing creativity, finding new reasons to continue, dismissing contrary evidence as incomplete or biased.
You're not being irrational. You're being human. The position has become fused with your identity, and abandoning it would require abandoning part of how you understand yourself.
Festinger's Discovery
In 1954, social psychologist Leon Festinger infiltrated a doomsday cult that had predicted the world's end on a specific date. When the prophecy failed, Festinger expected the group to dissolve. Instead, they did something remarkable: they increased their commitment and began proselytising more aggressively.
The mechanism Festinger identified—cognitive dissonance—explains why: when beliefs and reality conflict, the psychological system resolves the tension by changing either the belief or the perception of reality. When the belief is tied to identity, reality gets reinterpreted.
The more publicly you've committed to a position, the more psychologically costly it becomes to abandon.
Exiting isn't just admitting error. It's admitting you were the kind of person who made that error.
The Identity-Strategy Fusion
For high-performing operators, professional identity often fuses with strategic positions. "I'm the person who championed this initiative." "I'm known for this particular approach." "My reputation is built on this thesis."
Once this fusion occurs, strategic evaluation becomes contaminated. You're no longer asking "Is this working?" You're asking "What does it mean about me if this isn't working?"
The answer to that question is always uncomfortable, so the evaluation gets distorted until continuing feels justified.
An executive championed an acquisition that has underperformed for three years. Objective assessment: divest and reallocate capital.
But the executive's identity includes "strategic acquisitions expert." Acknowledging failure threatens that identity. So each quarterly review produces new reasons to hold: "synergies are delayed but coming," "market conditions are temporary," "we just need one more integration push."
The analysis isn't dishonest—it's motivated. The executive genuinely believes the optimistic case because the alternative is intolerable.
Doubling Down as Defence
Dissonance resolution often manifests as escalation. If you've invested a lot and things aren't working, one way to resolve the tension is to invest more. Increased commitment retroactively justifies the initial decision.
This is the psychological mechanism behind escalation of commitment. It's not that operators can't do the math. It's that the math triggers identity threat, and the psyche responds by changing the inputs until the math comes out right.
"The hardest strategic pivots aren't the ones with unclear data. They're the ones where the data is clear but the implications are identity-threatening."
Separating Identity from Position
The solution isn't to eliminate identity investment—that's probably impossible for engaged operators. The solution is to build identity around decision quality rather than specific outcomes.
The Shift
- Fused identity: "I'm someone who succeeds at acquisitions."
- Process identity: "I'm someone who makes good decisions and corrects course when evidence warrants."
The second identity actually benefits from recognising and acting on exit signals. Continuing to hold a bad position threatens the identity; exiting reinforces it.
- Separate the decision from the decider: "Would I advocate this position if I hadn't championed it initially?"
- Future-self test: "Five years from now, what will I wish I had done? What would that person think of my current reasoning?"
- Outsider perspective: "What would an intelligent outside observer conclude from this data? What are they seeing that I'm not?"
- Explicit naming: "What identity threat am I experiencing right now? What exactly am I afraid admitting?"
Institutional Solutions
Individual awareness helps, but institutional design matters more. Some structural approaches:
Separated Advocacy and Evaluation
Don't let the person who championed an initiative be the sole evaluator of whether to continue. Build in independent assessment by parties without identity stake.
Normalised Exit Language
When killing projects is rare and dramatic, the identity threat is high. When it's routine and expected, the threat diminishes. Create cultural vocabulary that makes strategic exits normal rather than exceptional.
Precommitment Mechanisms
Kill criteria set before identity investment occurs are easier to honor than criteria established mid-course. The decision happens before dissonance is triggered.
Retrospective Dignity
How an organisation treats people who exit positions matters. If killing a project creates career risk, identity-protective reasoning will dominate. If it's treated as evidence of good judgment, the calculus changes.
Identity-threatening culture: "You killed the project you championed? That's a red flag for judgment."
Decision-quality culture: "You recognised the project wasn't working and reallocated resources? That's exactly what we want from leaders."
Same decision, radically different identity implications.
The Deeper Work
For individuals, the deeper work involves examining what identity is actually at stake. Often it's something like:
- "I'm someone who doesn't make mistakes"
- "I'm someone whose judgment is reliable"
- "I'm someone who finishes what I start"
These are impossible standards. Everyone makes mistakes. Judgment is always probabilistic. Some things shouldn't be finished. The identity needs updating, not the strategy analysis.
Previous: The Endowment Trap: Why We Overvalue What We Have
Next: The Trusted Advisor: Getting Honest Feedback
This article is for educational purposes and does not constitute business or professional advice. Strategic decisions should be made with appropriate professional counsel.