Right Attitudes

Ideas for Impact

Business Stories

The Safest Choice Is Rarely the Smartest, Yet Always the One That Shields You From Blame

By Leave a Comment

The Safest Choice Is Rarely the Smartest, Yet Always the One That Shields You From Blame

In 2009, British Airways launched one of the most distinctive routes in transatlantic travel. Its BA001/BA002 service connected London City Airport with New York JFK on the Airbus A318, nicknamed the “Baby Bus,” with just 48 all-business-class seats.

London City sits on the east side of the city, far closer to Canary Wharf and the financial district than Heathrow. Westbound, the plane stopped in Shannon, Ireland, where passengers cleared U.S. customs and continued to New York as domestic arrivals. The service debuted to considerable fanfare, and in 2010 BA added a second daily rotation.

The unraveling began quietly. By 2015, the twice-daily schedule had been cut to once. By 2020, COVID grounded it entirely, and British Airways never brought it back. The official explanation was falling demand, but the more telling question is why demand fell at all, given that the product itself hadn’t deteriorated. The answer lies less in aviation economics than in the psychology of corporate travel.

The travelers best served by the LCY route, senior executives, financiers, high-value business customers, weren’t the ones making the bookings. That fell to executive assistants, secretaries, and corporate travel agents. For them, booking LCY was a thankless risk: if the flight failed, blame was immediate; if it succeeded, recognition was absent.

The Tyranny of the Defensible Choice

Heathrow to JFK is one of the most heavily served transatlantic corridors in the world. British Airways alone runs multiple daily departures, with American Airlines, Virgin Atlantic, and Delta adding plenty more. A cancellation means another flight within hours and a ready explanation. Nobody gets blamed for choosing Heathrow.

LCY offered none of that cover. Once it dropped to a single daily departure, a cancellation left the traveler stranded and the person who’d made the booking exposed. Picture the call from the departure lounge: “If you hadn’t put me in this rinky-dink airport, I’d be in New York by now.” That call doesn’t get made from Heathrow.

The product was superior for the traveler. But the traveler wasn’t the buyer. The buyer was a risk-averse intermediary whose interest lay not in optimizing the passenger’s experience but in making a choice that couldn’t be questioned if things went sideways. Heathrow was always the rational option, not because it was better, but because it was defensible. This is the essense of the principal-agent problem.

Idea for Impact: The story of the JFK-LCY flight is really the story of how decisions get made in offices. Choices are shaped not for the person traveling, but for the person who’ll have to justify them when things go wrong. Convenience gets sacrificed to conformity. The safest course is rarely the wisest, but it’s the one least likely to get you blamed.

Wondering what to read next?

  1. The Biggest Disaster and Its Aftermath // Book Summary of Serhii Plokhy’s ‘Chernobyl: History of a Tragedy’
  2. Gut Instinct as Compressed Reason—Why Disney Walked Away from Twitter in 2016
  3. The Tyranny of Previous Success: How John Donahoe’s Tech Playbook Made Nike Uncool
  4. Why Major Projects Fail: Summary of Bent Flyvbjerg’s Book ‘How Big Things Get Done’
  5. The Inopportune Case of the Airbus A340 Aircraft: When Tomorrow Left Yesterday Behind

Gut Instinct as Compressed Reason—Why Disney Walked Away from Twitter in 2016

By Leave a Comment

'Ride of a Lifetime' by Robert Iger (ISBN 0399592091) In his memoir The Ride of a Lifetime (2019,) CEO Bob Iger recalls how close Disney came to buying Twitter in 2016. The deal had gone through months of preparation. The board had approved it. An announcement was days away. Then Iger pulled out.

His explanation was straightforward: the platform’s culture of abuse sat badly with him, and he couldn’t reconcile it with what Disney stood for. He knew it would disappoint stakeholders, including Jack Dorsey, and he knew the strategic logic was sound on paper. But the feeling that Disney and Twitter were fundamentally incompatible wouldn’t leave him. Years later, Elon Musk’s acquisition of the platform, and the brand-safety chaos that followed, made Iger’s hesitation look less like cold feet and more like foresight.

It’s tempting to frame a decision like that as purely emotional, a powerful executive overriding analysis with feeling. But Iger’s instinct wasn’t separate from his reasoning. It was the product of decades learning to read organizations, cultures, and risk, compressed into a judgment that no spreadsheet could have produced. The toxicity of the platform wasn’t a line item. It was the whole problem, and he recognized it as such.

Gut Instinct as Compressed Reason---Why Bob Iger of Disney Walked Away from Twitter in 2016 This is what gut feeling actually does in complex decisions. It doesn’t replace analysis; it registers when one factor has grown large enough to settle the question on its own. What starts as vague unease sharpens, over time, into something more precise: not this concerns me but this changes everything. For Disney, the threat wasn’t hypothetical brand friction. It was the possibility of something corrosive becoming permanently attached to the company’s identity.

In decision theory, a single catastrophic flaw can reduce an otherwise favorable equation to zero, regardless of how many advantages sit on the other side. Recognizing that isn’t a failure of rationality. It’s knowing that some trade-offs aren’t really trade-offs; they’re just losses in disguise.

Idea for Impact: The gut, at its most useful, is often pointing to exactly that: the moment when one concern stops being a consideration and becomes a constraint. It’s worth paying attention to, not because it’s always right, but because it tends to surface what the data obscures: the things that matter most to who you are and what you’re not willing to become.

Wondering what to read next?

  1. Making Tough Decisions with Scant Data
  2. When Bean Counters Turn Risk Managers: Lessons from the Ford Pinto Scandal
  3. The Inopportune Case of the Airbus A340 Aircraft: When Tomorrow Left Yesterday Behind
  4. Of Course Mask Mandates Didn’t ‘Work’—At Least Not for Definitive Proof
  5. The “Ashtray in the Sky” Mental Model: Idiot-Proofing by Design

The Truth About Work-Life Balance

By Leave a Comment


Bill Gates still doesn’t believe in taking breaks

This recent Bill Gates interview got a great deal of attention for what he considers his biggest regret—not working harder, and taking his eyes off the ball and allowing Google to develop Android, now the dominant phone operating system, which, according to Gates, “was a natural thing for Microsoft to win.”

Asked about work-life balance and if Gates’s opinions had changed from a past statement that he did not believe in holidays, Gates replied with a no. He reiterated that working without a vacation is one of the sacrifices a company has to make in its early years.

The vacation-free approach in Microsoft’s early years is legendary. In the memoir Idea Man (2011,) co-founder Paul Allen recalled,

Microsoft was a high-stress environment because Bill drove others as hard as he drove himself.

Bob Greenberg, a Harvard classmate of Bill’s whom we’d hired, once put in 81 hours in four days, Monday through Thursday. … When Bill touched base toward the end of Bob’s marathon, he asked him, “What are you working on tomorrow?”

Bob said, “I was planning to take the day off.”

And Bill said, “Why would you want to do that?” He genuinely couldn’t understand it; he never seemed to need to recharge.

In a 2016 interview for BBC’s The Desert Island Discs program, Gates revealed that he was so obsessed during the early years of Microsoft that he couldn’t help but keep tabs on which Microsoft troopers stayed vigilant along the frontlines and which ones had retired home for the night. “I knew everyone’s license plate so I could look out in the parking lot and see when did people come in, when were they leaving.”

For most overworked and overwhelmed people, life’s great tipping point is the moment they realize something’s got to give

Hear any successful executive talk about work-life balance and you’ll recognize a pattern—they had an epiphany about the need for work-life balance. They were totally driven and single-minded for a long time, had difficulties in their personal life, and ultimately realized that they needed to have more balance in their life.

While this always makes for a stimulating narrative, the one aspect that is less emphasized is how much of their success was a direct outcome of single-minded focus. The truth is, most workaholics are successful.

Balance is Bunk: You can’t have everything—even if you work really, really hard

Some things are tough hard, and require an absolute commitment and high-level performance for sustained periods. Achieving distinction in any field requires extreme dedication, drive, and commitment to success—this is true of scholarship, business, art, music, sport, or parenting.

While it’s nice to extol the virtues of work-life balance, it must be acknowledged that balancing personal life with a career will inevitably lead to forgoing some advancement in the latter. Balance is sometimes about choosing between the two and setting priorities—it’s not just a matter of juggling on the way to “having it all.” This “balance” is something that each person has to decide for himself/herself.

Wondering what to read next?

  1. Great Jobs are Overwhelming, and Not Everybody Wants Them
  2. The Champion Who Hated His Craft: Andre Agassi’s Raw Confession in ‘Open’
  3. Why You Can’t Relax on Your Next Vacation
  4. The #1 Warning Sign That You’re Burning Out at Work
  5. Hustle Culture is Losing Its Shine