Everyone Wants Reality. Until It Gets In The Way.

One of the more fascinating aspects of business and financial commentary is how frequently people explain unfavorable outcomes without considering whether their original assumptions were incorrect.

There’s almost always an explanation. Conditions changed unexpectedly. The timing was unfortunate. Some unforeseen development disrupted an otherwise sound strategy.

Any of these explanations might be legitimate. The problem begins when they become the standard response to every disappointing result, regardless of the evidence.

Years ago, Robert Ringer discussed the distinction between reality as people would prefer it to be and reality as it actually exists in his book Winning Through Intimidation. It’s an observation I’ve found particularly relevant when examining how businesses, institutions, and individuals respond when circumstances contradict their expectations.

Nearly everyone acknowledges the importance of understanding reality. Yet an astonishing number conduct themselves as though reality should somehow accommodate their preferences.

Consider an executive addressing investors about deteriorating margins, increasing competition, and unfavorable financing conditions. Management acknowledges these challenges, then confidently assures shareholders that revenue growth will accelerate and profitability will improve.

One might reasonably wonder whether management has reconsidered its strategy or merely updated the presentation describing it.

This isn’t an argument against optimism or conviction. The problem arises when those qualities become substitutes for judgment.

When Being Wrong Becomes Too Expensive

Business decisions rarely exist in isolation. Major initiatives involve substantial capital, organizational commitments, and professional reputations.

Suppose management spends years promoting an expansion strategy. Facilities are acquired, personnel hired, and considerable resources committed toward anticipated demand.

Then the results arrive, falling well short of expectations.

Initially, management explains that the initiative requires more time. Fair enough. Later, additional capital becomes necessary. Again, perhaps justified.

But eventually someone should ask: What evidence would convince management that the original strategy was wrong?

Not temporarily challenged. Fundamentally wrong.

Without a credible answer, distinguishing between legitimate perseverance and an expensive refusal to reconsider becomes difficult.

A flawed strategy can be corrected. One that management refuses to question may continue consuming resources long after its economic justification has deteriorated.

The distinction isn’t between perseverance and surrender. It’s between decisions governed by evidence and decisions governed by the need to defend an earlier judgment.

The Convenient Business of Explaining Everything

Financial markets provide another illustration.

A company announces disappointing earnings, yet its stock advances. Another reports record profitability, only to see its shares decline.

Both outcomes receive confident explanations from the financial media.

In one instance, investors are anticipating better conditions. In the other, they’re concerned about future prospects.

Of course, markets involve far more than reported earnings. Expectations, liquidity, positioning, and broader economic conditions all influence valuations.

But that complexity makes the quality of an explanation more important, not less.

When every conceivable outcome can be explained convincingly after it occurs, the usefulness of those explanations deserves scrutiny.

An explanation that sounds plausible may provide reassurance. One grounded in actual conditions can improve judgment.

Unfortunately, reassurance is often easier to sell, particularly when audiences prefer confirmation of their existing assumptions.

The Difference Between Being Wrong And Remaining Wrong

Anyone who has spent meaningful time operating a business or making consequential decisions has been wrong.

I certainly have.

But an incorrect outcome doesn’t automatically mean the original decision was unreasonable.

A business owner might invest in additional capacity based on credible expectations of demand. If conditions subsequently change, that original decision may still have been justified.

The more consequential question concerns what happens next.

Does management reassess its assumptions, distinguish temporary disruptions from permanent changes, and adjust accordingly?

Or does it become increasingly occupied with defending the original decision?

Resources continue flowing toward failing initiatives because substantial resources have already been committed. Strategies remain unchanged because reversing them invites uncomfortable questions.

Eventually, the commercial objective becomes inseparable from demonstrating that management was right all along.

And markets have little interest in rewarding that distinction.

They respond to conditions and consequences, regardless of how confidently someone explains their position.

When Agreement Becomes More Valuable Than Accuracy

These problems become particularly pronounced within large organizations.

When careers, compensation, budgets, and reputations depend on maintaining an established strategy, institutional incentives can gradually shift from identifying problems to defending conclusions.

An employee questions the original assumptions and is reminded of management’s commitment. Another highlights deteriorating results and is accused of negativity. A third suggests reconsidering resource allocation and finds the recommendation interpreted as disloyalty.

Eventually, agreement becomes commitment, while independent judgment becomes a professional liability.

The irony is difficult to overlook.

An institution can publicly celebrate innovation, accountability, and independent thinking while developing incentives that discourage precisely those qualities.

Then, when problems become impossible to ignore, leadership wonders why nobody raised the alarm sooner.

Perhaps someone did.

The organization simply made acknowledging those warnings professionally undesirable.

This needn’t involve malicious intent. Institutional incentives can produce these outcomes even when individuals sincerely believe they’re acting in everyone’s best interests.

That makes the problem considerably harder to recognize and correct.

Reality Doesn’t Require Our Approval

Recognizing reality doesn’t require pessimism, nor does responding to unfavorable conditions mean abandoning ambition.

Sometimes maintaining conviction despite considerable opposition is precisely the correct decision.

But there’s a fundamental difference between conviction supported by evidence and commitment sustained by an unwillingness to reconsider.

What evidence supports continuing? What would justify changing direction? Which assumptions have materially changed?

Without those questions, almost any decision can be defended indefinitely.

There will always be another explanation, another forecast, or another reason success supposedly remains just around the corner.

Meanwhile, reality continues developing regardless of the explanations offered.

We’ve developed a business and financial commentary culture where confidence is frequently mistaken for competence, explanations are confused with evidence, and the ability to defend a position is treated as proof that the position deserves defending.

It doesn’t.

An argument doesn’t become correct because it’s delivered confidently. A strategy doesn’t become sound because someone important approved it. And reality doesn’t change because acknowledging it would be inconvenient.

The question is whether we’re willing to adjust our decisions when the evidence no longer supports our assumptions.

Because acknowledging reality requires relatively little.

Allowing it to change what we do can require considerably more.

And regardless of which explanation we prefer, reality has a persistent habit of asserting itself.

With or without our approval.

Disclaimer: The content published across MYTR reflects opinions, analysis, and perspective.
It is offered to inform thinking and encourage consideration—not to provide instruction, direction, or individualized advice. How any idea is interpreted, evaluated, or applied remains the responsibility of the reader, listener, or viewer, as applicable.
Responsibility for decisions—and their outcomes—begins and ends with the individual making them. Please read, or re-read the “Policy Notes” page for any questions or clarifications.