This last week Governor Christie made the news for probably his first scandal. Had it happened to any other governor it would not have been nearly as big a story. But after his 60% reelection victory and his lead in polls to be the next GOP nominee for president people are going to watching his every move. Whether he accepts bribes, or forgets to start the dishwasher, people are going to be watching his every move.
In my opinion I think this story highlights outcome bias. Outcome bias is evaluating the quality of decision making based on what happens as a result of the decision. Governor Christie may have hired a few staff members who did corrupt things. He has said that he takes responsibility for what has happened. I think this is sound logic but is it really his fault that this Lane closure incident happened. I think the only way to really give him fault is to suppose that he was so cocky and excited about winning that his staff members also got cocky and decided to play political retribution.
What could have stopped this from happening. Perhaps if he had already seen the email correspondence before everyone else did. So that's the scandal? Governor Christie is in trouble because he didn't spy on the correspondence between his staff members? Then why are we giving the NSA such a hard time?
Now back to outcome bias. Another way that Governor Christie could have prevented this from happening would be if he had never hired these staff members. One of them, ironically, was named Bridget. Should he have done more to know that these people would never harm his administration like this? I think he'll do more in the future and hopefully others will learn from his example. If he had increased the state revenue by buying a lottery ticket that so happened to be the winner would that have showed wise decision making and strong leadership? The answer is no, this is the textbook example of outcome bias.
Former Governor Barbour of Mississippi made some interesting comments about the incident that I recommend discussing. In essence he said that Governor Christie accepted responsibility for this incident whereas Hillary Clinton said "what difference, at this point, does it make" when asked if a phone call could shed light on whether or not the attacks in Benghazi were a planned attack or a protest.
Here's the article
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/01/haley_barbour_defends_christie_in_bridge_scandal_lashes_out_at_liberal_media.html
In my opinion I think this story highlights outcome bias. Outcome bias is evaluating the quality of decision making based on what happens as a result of the decision. Governor Christie may have hired a few staff members who did corrupt things. He has said that he takes responsibility for what has happened. I think this is sound logic but is it really his fault that this Lane closure incident happened. I think the only way to really give him fault is to suppose that he was so cocky and excited about winning that his staff members also got cocky and decided to play political retribution.
What could have stopped this from happening. Perhaps if he had already seen the email correspondence before everyone else did. So that's the scandal? Governor Christie is in trouble because he didn't spy on the correspondence between his staff members? Then why are we giving the NSA such a hard time?
Now back to outcome bias. Another way that Governor Christie could have prevented this from happening would be if he had never hired these staff members. One of them, ironically, was named Bridget. Should he have done more to know that these people would never harm his administration like this? I think he'll do more in the future and hopefully others will learn from his example. If he had increased the state revenue by buying a lottery ticket that so happened to be the winner would that have showed wise decision making and strong leadership? The answer is no, this is the textbook example of outcome bias.
Former Governor Barbour of Mississippi made some interesting comments about the incident that I recommend discussing. In essence he said that Governor Christie accepted responsibility for this incident whereas Hillary Clinton said "what difference, at this point, does it make" when asked if a phone call could shed light on whether or not the attacks in Benghazi were a planned attack or a protest.
Here's the article
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/01/haley_barbour_defends_christie_in_bridge_scandal_lashes_out_at_liberal_media.html
No comments:
Post a Comment