Signed in as:
filler@godaddy.com
Signed in as:
filler@godaddy.com
Effective decisions require more than good information.
Teams must evaluate the situation clearly, create an environment where people feel safe to share ideas, and align on a course of action. Most organizations invest in the first. Few address the second or third.
The brain processes information and makes decisions using mental short cuts called cognitive bias. Cognitive bias developed as an evolutionary survival mechanism to predict and respond to threats. But in complex organizational decisions, it can skew evaluation of the situation.
Why cognitive bias exists and how it impacts decision making
Reduce Risk: The brain tends to prioritize safety over effectiveness. It feels loss more strongly than an equal gain, overly focuses on potential regret, and avoids disruption to normal routines and processes.
Act Fast: The brain tends to prioritize speed over accuracy. It defaults to what worked in the past, decides based on recent or memorable events, and filters information to support experience and memory.
Conserve Resources: The brain tends to prioritize efficiency over effectiveness. It over-emphasizes the first piece of information it receives, defers to others based on authority or status, and prefers options based on group preferences.
Expand Capacity: The brain tends to prioritize completion over value. It prioritizes immediate rewards over long-term benefits, assumes previous success will lead to future success, and prefers known options over unknown ones.
It is easier to see cognitive bias in others than it is to see it in ourselves, which is why socializing the RACE framework with teams increases the value of using it.
The brain generates emotional energy in response to a perceived threat or reward. When a threat response is triggered, it impairs rational thinking and engagement in productive dialogue.
The result: people disengage, withhold information, agree publicly and resist privately, or fight the decision through back channels.
The four domains of social threats and rewards.
Worth: People have a deep-seated emotional need to feel valued. A real or “perceived” reduction in their sense of worth within the organization will trigger emotional resistance.
Autonomy: People also have a fundamental need to feel like they have some input, choice, and control in what is happening. If people feel they can't speak freely, have no say, or are being coerced it will trigger emotional resistance.
Relationships: People are social creatures with a strong desire for connection and sense of belonging. If people feel like they are part of the out crowd, or speaking up will disruption work relationships it will trigger emotional resistance.
Equity: People have biological wiring that creates powerful emotional responses to fair and unfair treatment. A real or “perceived” action of unfairness will trigger emotional resistance.
Cognitive bias often misreads ambiguous situations and creates a social threat response. The two are intertwined.
It is easier to see threat response in others than it is to see it in ourselves, which is why socializing the frameworks with teams increases the value of using them.
The brain rarely evaluates decisions using facts alone. Stakeholders interpret facts to construct narratives shaped by multiple influences. Two people can look at the same data and reach opposite conclusions, not because one is wrong, but because their assumptions, biases, perceived threats, agendas, and narratives are different.
The result: people disengage, withhold information, agree publicly and resist privately, or fight the decision through back channels.
Getting to the best outcome.
Facts: Data we know is accurate. What facts do we have, and are they validated? What facts are we missing, and are they available? What facts are we omitting or deprioritizing in our decision?
Assumptions: Things we believe are true but can't prove. What assumptions are we making? How are the assumptions influencing the decision? What happens if we make different assumptions?
Biases: Cognitive bias as described in the RACE framework. What biases are being displayed by stakeholders? Where do stakeholders' biases align and conflict? Is there a cognitive bias that aligns to a particular stakeholder?
Threats/Rewards: Social threats and rewards as described in the WARE framework. What threats and/or rewards might be influencing stakeholders? Are stakeholders displaying a strong emotional reaction? Where do stakeholders' threats/rewards align and conflict?
Agendas: Preferred outcomes, often driven by social threats and rewards. What agendas do stakeholders have? What threats and/or rewards are influencing agendas? Where do stakeholders' agendas conflict and align?
Narratives: How facts and assumptions are assembled into stories to support or refute agendas. What stories are stakeholders telling? How are Bias, Threats/Rewards, and Agendas influencing the narratives? How are stakeholders using political capital to support or refute stories?
The path to success is not to win the argument. It's to address the underlying motivations driving behavior and negotiate toward the best outcome for the organization.
We use cookies to analyze website traffic and optimize your website experience. By accepting our use of cookies, your data will be aggregated with all other user data.