What it is
Escalation of commitment goes beyond the sunk cost fallacy: it describes the active, often accelerating, increase in investment after negative feedback rather than simple continuation. It is driven not only by the reluctance to write off past investment but by ego protection, organisational face-saving, and the social cost of admitting that a decision was wrong. Leaders who championed a direction publicly face higher escalation pressure than those who did not - the identity cost of reversing is added to the financial cost.
Where it shows up
In large technology programmes, escalation of commitment is one of the most reliably destructive forces. A bespoke platform that is running late, over budget, and delivering below specification will often receive additional resource rather than a structured review. The leaders who commissioned and championed the programme have the most to lose from a public reassessment, so the programme absorbs more capital while the conditions for a genuine pivot or exit are never met. A structured exit gate, defined before the programme starts, is the most effective countermeasure.
What Rubicon Probity does
When Rubicon Probity reviews a decision record at the Execute stage where a programme is continuing despite documented delivery shortfalls, it raises a CAUTION flag and requires the team to complete a structured continuation review - distinct from the original approval process and with explicit criteria for exit or pivot documented alongside the criteria for continuation.
Detection questions
- Were exit criteria and pivot triggers defined before this programme started - and have they been applied consistently as the programme has progressed?
- Is the case for continuation being made primarily by the people who championed the original decision - and has independent review been sought?
- If this programme had been initiated by someone else and were in its current state, what recommendation would you make?