Complex Management training in Lucerne“We have already invested too much”: when should a project be stopped?
A disappointing project does not necessarily need to be abandoned, but its longevity is not sufficient reason to keep it running. For SHR’s “Management complexe” programme, this tension raises a specific question: what evidence should inform a decision to continue, redirect or stop?
1. What the literature establishes
Barry M. Staw (1976, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance) shows, in a resource allocation experiment, that responsibility for an initial choice can encourage further commitment after negative outcomes. Decision-makers therefore do not always reassess a case independently of their own previous involvement. In complex management situations, this invites scrutiny not only of a project's prospects but also of the position of the person defending its continuation.
2. The sunk cost mechanism
Hal R. Arkes and Catherine Blumer (1985, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes) describe the tendency to continue an activity after investing money, time or effort in it. Concern about appearing wasteful can give past expenditure weight in a decision that should primarily compare the future consequences of available options. Saying “we have already invested too much to stop” signals this possible mechanism, but does not establish a diagnosis.
3. The hasty conclusion: stop as soon as results disappoint
These studies do not demonstrate that persistence is always irrational. Future exit costs, contractual obligations or learning that can still be put to use may justify continuation. The useful distinction is between genuinely unrecoverable expenditure and the future consequences of stopping, redirecting or continuing. (our executive and employee training programmes)
4. The limits of the evidence and of project reviews
These studies draw in part on experimental situations and decision scenarios that do not reproduce all organisational interdependencies. They provide neither a universal stopping threshold nor proof that an outside perspective eliminates bias. A project review remains vulnerable if it merely asks the project owner to justify the current course without making the alternatives comparable.
5. A practical check in Lucerne
In the canton of Lucerne, tourism, hospitality, regional financial services and industrial SMEs operate alongside many family-run businesses with short decision paths and strong regional ties, so close relationships and personal responsibility can intersect in project decisions. Consider a hypothetical example in Lucerne: a hotel business continues a disappointing software rollout backed from the outset by its family management. An exercise proposed in the context of SHR’s “Management complexe” programme is to record, before the next review, the future costs and benefits of continuing, redirecting and stopping, together with an observable condition supporting each option. At the following review, counting continuation decisions documented with new information and a comparison of alternatives makes decision discipline verifiable, without claiming that this measure alone demonstrates the disappearance of bias. To go further: explore the Complex Management training in Lucerne in the canton of Lucerne, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.
In pictures: Complex Management in Lucerne
- complex management
- Lucerne
- research
- training lucerne