One of the things that differentiates humans from other animals is our ability to make sense of the environment. Because of this distinction, our species has developed technological tools of increasing complexity -- from sticks and stones to computers and cannons.

But our analytical nature also causes us to overinterpret events and situations that affect us and our livelihoods. Concocting false explanations for the unexplainable generates a cycle of self-deception. Innocent illusions gain credibility, growing into myths powerful enough to guide our behavior.

Keep your lucky penny in your wallet if you must, but beware of superstitions that cloud common sense and control critical business decisions.

You're the coach.

It's Game 5 of the 1998 NBA Championship. The Chicago Bulls are down by 1 point with 30 seconds to go. Chicago has the ball and calls a time-out to discuss the next play. Scotty Pippen, who typically shoots about 45 percent, has been on fire. He's 14 for 15 with 35 points for the night. Michael Jordan, on the other hand, is as cold as Pippen is hot. Usually a 50-percent shooter, at 3 for 12 Michael has chalked up just 10 points.

You're the coach. Should the ball go to Scotty or to Michael?

When athletes are performing extraordinarily well - as Scotty Pippen is -- they're said to be "in the zone." As a coach, you're likely to view Pippen as the man of the moment. Your instructions to the team? "Get the ball to Scotty; he's in the zone."

The myth of "hot-hands."

If that's your advice, you're in the Twilight Zone. You need to get the ball to Michael. You've bought in to what Thomas Gilovich calls "the Myth of Hot-Hands" - though most people, sports enthusiasts in particular, don't accept it as a myth. In fact, it's an excellent example of the human tendency to impose interpretations on a chance events. Don't just take my word for it -- the numbers tell the story.

One NBA team, the Philadelphia 76ers, keeps statistics for each player on the sequence of made and missed shots. According to the data, the odds of making a shot actually improve after a series of unsuccessful attempts - contrary to prevailing wisdom.

Are you seeing patterns in your business where none exist?

Executives, like everyone else, struggle to account for the unaccountable. They seek answers for investors, board members, and subordinates who turn to them for explanations. Why did sales plummet? If you know, you can fix it. When you understand how a situation evolved, you can take control of it.

Being a victim of something manageable (even your own blunders) is more comfortable than being a victim of fate. Conversely, it can be painful to accept something as a random occurrence when you've infused it with so much meaning and design.

What myths have you accepted as realities in your business? How have you rationalized chance events? Could your misguided explanations, if you act on them, bias your future decisions? Are you overreacting to recent changes in company performance? Might those changes be due largely to luck, either good or bad?

Are you seeing patterns where none exist?