Why "bias for action" is not good enough
And what to replace it with if you don't want to get yourself into sticky situations you can't get out of
Hey, it’s Irina! 👋 Welcome to another edition of The Caring Techie Newsletter. Today you’ll learn about how to have a bias for action, but in a safe way. Enjoy!
Reading time: 5 minutes
A word from this week’s sponsor, Jellyfish
Engineering leaders are trying to figure out:
If their team is using GitHub Copilot
How much they're using Copilot
Its impact on their work
That's why in 2024 Jellyfish introduced the Copilot Dashboard: to measure the impact of the most widely adopted genAI coding tool. They’ve since gathered data from over 4,200 developers at more than 200 companies and summarized the findings. Download the report to learn whether you're getting adequate returns on your AI investments.
Intro
In the software engineering world, “I have a bias towards action” is like a badge of honor that many proud adopters like to refer to, especially during interviews.
A “bias for action” has its merits. It signals decisiveness and initiative, all useful attributes, especially in teams that tend to get stuck in analysis paralysis and endless planning, but no action.
For software engineers, “bias for action” makes a lot of sense in many situations such as: rolling out urgent security patches, experimenting, or troubleshooting a sudden, widespread service outage.
However some situations require more analysis and strategy, and bias for action not only does not work, but it can also be very risky. In today’s article we’ll discuss:
The origins of “Bias for action”
The dangers of misusing “Bias for action”
When deliberate waiting is the better choice
When thoughtful action is the better approach
Conclusions
Where does “Bias For Action” come from
I first heard of this concept from Amazon’s leadership principles.
Bias for Action Speed matters in business. Many decisions and actions are reversible and do not need extensive study. We value calculated risk taking.
Before you, my amazonian readers, jump in the comments to clarify how this principle was intended to be used, I’ll tell you right off the bat that it’s not how I’ve seen most people use—or better said misuse it— it in their day-to-day.
The way people use it today is more like how it was defined in psychology:
Action bias is the psychological phenomenon where people tend to favor action over inaction, even when there is no indication that doing so would point towards a better result. It is an automatic response, similar to a reflex or an impulse and is not based on rational thinking.
“Bias for action” is leaning into decisions quickly, favoring movement over hesitation, doing something—anything—rather than standing still or getting stuck in analysis paralysis.
Are you enjoying this article? Hit the ❤️ button or share it with a friend or coworker. 🙏🏻
Dangers of misusing “bias for action”
In theory, “bias for action” sounds great. Who doesn’t want to move fast and avoid being bogged down by endless deliberation? But if we pause and unpack the concept, it becomes clear that action for action’s sake is not always the best course.
What if you're heading in the wrong direction? What if acting quickly means making avoidable mistakes that slow things down in the long run?
Some of the common dangers of taking action for the sake of it include:
Bypassing gathering necessary input from stakeholders may lead to poor decisions, misalignment, and resistance later on.
Skipping proper due diligence and wasting time on building the wrong thing - see more in my “Lessons from Projects That Didn’t See the Light of Day” article
Treating irreversible decisions as if they are reversible—some are, but some are not eg: schema changes with data loss, service migrations, replacing technology stacks, etc
Damaging user trust by hastily implementing changes that disrupt user experience and introduce unexpected bugs
And the list can go on.
So what can we do instead?
How to decide the right action depends on the problem type. More on this in an upcoming newsletter article. For now, I want to bring to your attention 2 alternatives:
Do nothing on purpose—or deliberate waiting
Stop, think, act—or have a bias for thoughtful action
When deliberate waiting is the better choice
“Irina, are you telling me to do nothing?” Yes, I am.
Sometimes, taking a step back is exactly what’s needed. I know inaction can feel deeply uncomfortable for some of us go-getters, but it could be the right thing to do in some situations. Here are some examples:
Example #1: You’re investigating a bug from an unfamiliar codebase.
Rushing to make changes without fully understanding the root issue is risky. In these cases, holding back—maybe collecting more logs, taking time to investigate them, and thinking through the options—is the right way forward.
Example #2: Some members of your team are having an argument
As a leader, jumping to resolve it right away might seem helpful, but giving people time to cool off and figure out a resolution on their own might be a better long-term solution. Sometimes problems do get solved on their own as mentioned in my “How to Pick Your Battles: A Simple Framework for Addressing Issues at Work” article.
When bias for thoughtful action is the better approach
Thoughtful action is not about moving fast or slow—it’s about moving with intention. It also means you intentionally pause to assess your options, evaluate your trade-offs, and don’t rush into anything.
I like this more than “bias for action” because I like to balance urgency with reflection—and act strategically with both speed and care.
Here’s what bias for thoughtful action might look like in practice:
Ask yourself if immediate action is truly needed and how much time you actually have. Take a moment to check your assumptions, confirm you’re solving the right problem, and consider your options and the associated risks. If possible, you get a second opinion from someone with more experience, gather more data, prototype a solution, and get feedback. If everything checks off, you're off to the races! If not, you should probably hold off.
Conclusion
Adopting catchy mantras like “bias toward action” without considering the nuances is easy. But not every situation calls for speed, and blindly charging ahead can lead to worse outcomes.
Doing something—even if it’s wrong—is not always better than doing nothing. Sometimes, the smartest move is to pause, think, and plan, then act.
Being deliberate about how and when we act makes all the difference. In engineering—and life—nuances matter.
So, next time someone tells you they have a bias for action, I encourage you to ask: Is it thoughtful action?
Until next time,
Irina Stanescu - Your Caring Techie
Did you enjoy this article? Hit the ❤️ button or share it with a friend or coworker. 🙏🏻
An ex-Amazonian once reminded me that Amazon values being “right a lot” along with having a “bias for action.” I think “a bias for thoughtful action” effectively combines both principles.
I love "bias for thoughtful action" and the reminder of "[thoughtfully] do nothing" as both a tactic and strategy.
I've heard this framed as instead of asking, "What should I do?" we should ask, "What needs to be done?"
The former framing bakes in two assumptions:
1) Something should be done, and
2) I am the one who should do it.
The latter framing makes it more clear that maybe I personally should not do anything, and maybe no-one else should either.