brain/
conceptpsychology

Pre-mortem analysis

Notes

Pre-mortem analysis

One-line summary: Podcast / speaker claim — gary-klein’s risk method assumes the plan has already failed, then gives the room two minutes to write why; “what could go wrong” is a different (weaker) exercise. Decision-science chip, not a trade.

The insight

Klein’s move is prospective hindsight at kickoff: treat the post-mortem as if the project already died, so people list causes instead of polite risks. Timing (about two minutes) and order (leader first, with a real undiscussed problem) are load-bearing. paul-johnson says the “what could go wrong” paraphrase kills the method. paul-sonkin says the reasons are already at the tip of the group’s tongue; the method plus psychological safety is what lets them be said.

This is adjacent to group-decision-hygiene (candor, leader infection, red teams) and to kill-criteria (imagine failure in advance) but is a distinct ritual: crystal-ball failure, timed writing, forced democracy of one idea each, then later mitigation/replan. Not a newsroom post-mortem and not a stock-market mechanism.

Evidence

Why it matters to psychology

A named group-judgment procedure with a falsifiable misuse mode (critiquing language) and a safety/leader-buy-in failure mode. Fits the thread’s decision-making subdomain next to Duke’s hygiene tools without collapsing into them.

Contradictions / tensions

  • Klein also introduces the method as anticipating “what could possibly go wrong,” then later forbids that phrasing in the facilitation script. Keep the script claim (crystal ball / has failed) as the load-bearing one.
  • Show notes say Klein found pre-mortems with fighter pilots; transcript color includes an Air Force / 486-vs-supercomputer story. Do not flatten those as independently verified history.
  • Do not mint a stock-market trade or tag this page project/stock-market. The same source is logged there as craft / zero-novelty only.

Open questions

  • How much of the effect is the crystal-ball frame versus forced writing versus leader-goes-first?
  • Does the 1989 prospective-hindsight paper (mentioned in-episode) still carry the method, or has practice drifted?

Related

Referenced by