Continue or stop a project: what should you reassess with your manager?
Asking your manager to reassess a project you have both contributed to can seem like questioning the work already done. The useful question is more specific: how can you assess the next allocation of resources without treating past investment as sufficient reason to continue?
What the literature establishes
Barry M. Staw (1976, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance) experimentally studied successive resource allocation decisions. When faced with unfavourable results, participants who were personally responsible for the initial decision committed more additional resources than those who were not responsible. This finding shows that responsibility for a past choice can influence the next decision beyond the results available.
The weight of what has already been invested
Hal R. Arkes and Catherine Blumer (1985, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes) describe the sunk cost effect: having already invested money, time or effort can increase the tendency to continue. Their research links this effect in particular to a concern about appearing wasteful. In a discussion with your manager, recalling everything already spent may therefore strengthen attachment to the project rather than clarify its future value.
The hasty conclusion
One might conclude that a project should be stopped as soon as its results disappoint; these studies do not justify that rule. A project may remain worthwhile if its expected future benefits justify the remaining costs and risks. The useful distinction is between costs that are already irrecoverable and consequences that can still be changed, rather than between perseverance and clear thinking. (our executive and employee training programmes)
What these studies cannot prescribe
These experiments do not directly measure how a conversation between an employee and their manager affects the termination of a real project. Regulatory obligations, exit costs and dependencies between activities can justify continuing, even after disappointing results. The findings therefore support neither diagnosing a manager's bias from a single refusal nor promising that a decision framework will eliminate escalation of commitment.
A practical check in Zurich
In Zurich's financial services, insurance, tech companies and European headquarters of international groups, the SHR programme “Building an effective relationship with your manager” can turn this distinction into a project review exercise. Before each additional funding decision, the employee and manager record sunk costs separately from the future costs and benefits of continuing, redirecting and stopping, specifying regulatory or contractual constraints. Over one month, measure the proportion of reviewed decisions whose records contain this comparison and an explicit condition for reassessment. This indicator checks decision-making discipline, not the absence of bias or the profitability of the choice. To go further: explore the Building an Effective Relationship with Your Manager training in Zurich in the canton of Zurich, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.
In pictures: Building an Effective Relationship with Your Manager in Zurich
- building an effective relationship with your manager
- Zurich
- research
- training zurich