“We can’t simply work backward from the quality of the outcome to determine the quality of our beliefs or decisions. This makes learning from outcomes a pretty haphazard process.
A negative outcome could be a signal to go in and examine our decision-making. That outcome could also be due to bad luck, unrelated to our decision, in which case treating that outcome as a signal to change future decisions would be a mistake.
A good outcome could signal that we made a good decision. It could also mean that we got lucky, in which case we would be making a mistake to use that outcome as a signal to repeat that decision in the future.”

– Annie Duke

“Decisions are bets on the future, and they aren’t right or wrong based on whether they turn out well on any particular iteration. An unwanted result doesn’t make our decision wrong if we thought about the alternatives and probabilities in advance and allocated our resources accordingly… When we think probabilistically, we are less likely to use adverse results alone as proof that we made a decision error, because we recognize the possibility that the decision might have been good but luck and/or incomplete information intervened.”

– Annie Duke

“We would be better served as communicators and decision-makers if we thought less about whether we are confident in our beliefs and more about how confident we are. Instead of thinking of confidence as all-or-nothing (i.e. I’m confident or I’m not confident), our expression of our confidence would then capture all the shades of grey in between.”

– Annie Duke

“The world is now changing at a rate at which the basic systems, structures, and cultures built over the past century cannot keep up with the demands being placed on
them. Incremental adjustments to how you manage and strategize, no matter how clever, are not up to the job.You need something very new to stay ahead in an age of
tumultuous change and growing uncertainties.”

– John P. Kotter

“Most strategies are built on specific beliefs about the future. Unfortunately, the future is deeply unpredictable. Worse, the requirements of breakthrough success demand implementing strategy in ways that make it impossible to adapt should the future not turn out as expected.
The result is the Strategy Paradox: strategies with the greatest possibility of success also have the greatest possibility of failure. Resolving this paradox requires a new way of thinking about strategy and uncertainty.”

– Michael Raynor

“Success demands commitments to hard-to-copy, hard-to-reverse configurations of resources and capabilities that are aligned with the competitive conditions of a market.
These commitments take time to bear fruit and so they must be based on beliefs about the future. These beliefs can turn out to be wrong.
As a result, otherwise excellent strategies can fail simply because the conditions under which those commitments would have been appropriate did not materialize.”

– Michael Raynor