We often assume that people are motivated by rational self-interest. In this model of behavior, people make choices that they calculate will benefit them most, and most directly. If we want to predict behavior, or direct it, all we have to do is provide the right "incentives" or "disincentives" and we can get people to do what we need them to do.
If only Life were that simple.
Although predictions on the basis of the rational model can be successful, some have come to believe that strict adherence to the rational model is not only limiting, but often wrong.
The problem is that sometimes people don't choose rationally, and even when they do, they often choose differently from what we might expect if we consider only the content of the issue. Here are some reasons why.
- It's always a judgment call
- In the organizational context, the consequences of choices are rarely all good or all bad. People have to decide what they care about and how much, and people do differ.
- Some people react to the past
- Sometimes people don't
choose rationally. Even
when they do, they
apply their own judgment,
- Something about the situation might trigger responses from childhood, or from other experiences. People then react to those past experiences instead of reacting to the here-and-now.
- Some are overloaded
- Some people must choose quickly, because of real or perceived time pressure. In haste, they make choices that differ from those they would make if they felt they had more time.
- Some feel peer pressure
- Some make choices on the basis of the choices they perceive others making. They want either to be like others, or to be unlike others.
- Some fear imaginary consequences
- When they lack concrete knowledge, some people make up some pretty terrifying scenarios. Then they react to what they've imagined, instead of to what is.
- Some have wrong information
- The information on which they base choices can be wrong, out-of-date, or incomplete. Or they might have misunderstood or forgotten the information they did have.
- Some seek revenge
- Anger or thirst for revenge can cause some to make choices to harm others, ignoring (or blinded to) consequences that are seriously harmful to themselves.
- Some have received bad advice
- Even when people have all the facts right, some follow bad advice or misguided (or worse) leaders.
- Some have cut deals
- Sometimes people make choices that are counter to their own interests, because — rightly or otherwise — they expect someone else to intervene or to support them in another context.
Finally, some believe that the world consistently works in ways that it does not. This can cause them to make choices that might not be in their own self-interest — they might even choose to use the rational model to devise ways to influence the choices of others. Top Next Issue
The article you've been reading is an archived issue of Point Lookout, my weekly newsletter. I've been publishing it since January, 2001, free to all subscribers, over the Web, and via RSS. You can help keep it free by donating either as an individual or as an organization. You'll receive in return my sincere thanks — and the comfort of knowing that you've helped to propagate insights and perspectives that can help make our workplaces a little more human-friendly. More
For more on irrational decision-making, see the report by Paul Solman on the May 10, 2005, edition of the PBS program The News Hour with Jim Lehrer. The report is available in text, streaming audio, or streaming video. It emphasizes the work of Terry Burnham, author of Mean Markets and Lizard Brains: How to Profit from the New Science of Irrationality, published in 2005 by Wiley. Order from Amazon.com.
Your comments are welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenuQKLUMsVubCpqOpqner@ChacCCvpZbzKGsgliMGNoCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.
About Point Lookout
Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.
Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.
Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.
More articles on Emotions at Work:
- You Remind Me of Helen Hunt
- At a dinner party I attended recently, Kris said to Suzanne, "You remind me of Helen Hunt."
I looked at Suzanne, and sure enough, she did look like Helen Hunt. Later, I noticed that I
was seeing Suzanne a little differently. These are the effects of hat hanging. At work, it can damage
careers and even businesses.
- After the Accolades: You Are Still You
- Have you had a major success lately? Have you become a celebrity in your organization? Are people showering
you with accolades? When it happens, we feel great, and the elation does finally come to an end. What then?
- If You Weren't So Wrong So Often, I'd Agree with You
- Diversity of perspectives is one of the great strengths of teams. Ideas contend and through contending
they improve each other. In this process, criticism of ideas sometimes gets personal. How can we critique
ideas safely, without hurting each other, while keeping focused on the work?
- Scope Creep and the Planning Fallacy
- Much is known about scope creep, but it nevertheless occurs with such alarming frequency that in some
organizations, it's a certainty. Perhaps what keeps us from controlling it better is that its causes
can't be addressed with management methodology. Its causes might be, in part, psychological.
- On Differences and Disagreements
- When we disagree, it helps to remember that our differences often seem more marked than they really
are. Here are some hints for finding a path back to agreement.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming July 8: Multi-Expert Consensus
- Some working groups consist of experts from many fields. When they must reach a decision by consensus, members have several options. Defining those options in advance can help the group reach a decision with all its relationships intact. Available here and by RSS on July 8.
- And on July 15: Disjoint Concept Vocabularies
- In disputes or in problem solving sessions, when we can't seem to come to agreement, we often attribute the difficulty to miscommunication, histories of disagreements, hidden agendas, or "personality clashes." Sometimes the cause is much simpler. Sometimes the concept vocabularies of the parties don't overlap. Available here and by RSS on July 15.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenuQKLUMsVubCpqOpqner@ChacCCvpZbzKGsgliMGNoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.
Get the ebook!
Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:
- Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
- Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
- Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
- Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
- Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
- Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )
Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info
- The Power Affect: How We Express Our Personal Power
Many people who possess real organizational power have a characteristic demeanor. It's the way they project their presence. I call this the power affect. Some people — call them power pretenders — adopt the power affect well before they attain significant organizational power. Unfortunately for their colleagues, and for their organizations, power pretenders can attain organizational power out of proportion to their merit or abilities. Understanding the power affect is therefore important for anyone who aims to attain power, or anyone who works with power pretenders. Read more about this program.
- Bullet Points: Mastery or Madness?
Decision-makers in modern organizations commonly demand briefings in the form of bullet points or a series of series of bullet points. But this form of presentation has limited value for complex decisions. We need something more. We actually need to think. Briefers who combine the bullet-point format with a variety of persuasion techniques can mislead decision-makers, guiding them into making poor decisions. Read more about this program.