The Perils of Piecemeal Analysis: Content

You're in a meeting, with eight other anxious souls, discussing the latest burning issue. Dale has just presented a proposal that's innovative, elegant, and creative. One by one, people raise questions about the idea. Well, not questions…they're more like objections. "What if X happens?" or "Does it deal with the Y problem?" or "Is it compatible with Z?" or "Can we can get budget approval?" And so on.

Some objections have immediate answers. Most don't. Since the details are unknown, nobody has all the answers. Unanswered objections are added to a growing Issues List.

Eventually the list becomes intimidating enough that some lose faith, and the initial optimism starts to fade. With momentum dissipating, someone suggests another approach, and promises to have a proposal tomorrow. Dale's idea is abandoned.

Sometimes the opposite happens: we find answers to all the questions we can think of, and we think all is well when it isn't.

I call this pattern of group discussion piecemeal analysis. It can mean the end for perfectly fine proposals, and it can lead to a "go" for some truly dumb proposals. Why? In this first part, we approach the question from a content perspective. In the second part, we examine the group dynamics of piecemeal analysis. Here are five ways in which the reasoning of piecemeal analysis might go astray.

Objectors have an advantage

Since we see the objections as independent of each other, responding effectively to one objection leaves the credibility of the other objections intact. By contrast, because of the halo effect, flaws in one part of the proposal degrade the credibility of the whole.

Objections might not be logically consistent

Since objections are independent, they and their implications need not be mutually consistent. Moreover, some objections, taken together, might have subtly inconsistent implications that we miss in a fast-paced discussion. What might seem to be flaws in the proposal might not be, because the conditions of the objections cannot all be met.

Some objections are invalid

Some objections seem plausible, but their conditions cannot actually occur. Yet, in error, we add them to the Issues List. They become part of the case against the proposal, almost as if they were demonstrably valid.

Some of our answers to objections are incorrect

As the defenders of the proposal respond to the objections, the group assesses the validity of their responses. Sometimes both the response and the assessment are incorrect. The proposal moves ahead when it should not.Some objections might
seem plausible, but
cannot actually occur

We overlook some valid objections

When we rely only on the open discussion to analyze the proposal, we might overlook some material issues that are truly problematic, or we might reject them incorrectly. This is most likely when things are going well for the proposal.

But even if we could address these content issues of piecemeal analysis, issues related to the dynamics of the group remain. We'll look at that side of the question in two weeks.  Next in this series  Top    Next Issue

Are your projects always (or almost always) late and over budget? Are your project teams plagued by turnover, burnout, and high defect rates? Turn your culture around. Read 52 Tips for Leaders of Project-Oriented Organizations, filled with tips and techniques for organizational leaders. Order Now!

Your comments are welcome

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.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

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.

Related articles

More articles on Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness:

Heavy Burdens: Should, Always, Must, and Never

As a leader you carry a heavy burden. You're accountable for everything from employee development to meeting organizational objectives, and many of these responsibilities conflict. Life is tough enough, but most of us pile on a load of over-generalized rules of work life — a load too heavy for anyone to bear.

Critical Thinking and Midnight Pizza

When we notice patterns or coincidences, we draw conclusions about things we can't or didn't directly observe. Sometimes the conclusions are right, and sometimes not. When they're not, organizations, careers, and people can suffer. To be right more often, we must master critical thinking.

The Deck Chairs of the Titanic: Task Duration

Much of what we call work is as futile and irrelevant as rearranging the deck chairs of the Titanic. We continue our exploration of futile and irrelevant work, this time emphasizing behaviors that extend task duration.

Collaborations That Need to Be Cooperations

Modern products and services are so complex that many people cooperate and collaborate to produce them. When people are collaborating but the work actually requires merely cooperating, risks arise that can threaten the success of the group's efforts.

Top Ten Ways to Make Meetings More Effective

Meetings are just about everybody's least favorite part of working in organizations. We can do much better if only we take a few simple steps to improve them. The big one: publish the agenda in advance. Here are nine other steps to improve meetings.

See also Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness and Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming December 11: White Water Rafting as a Metaphor for Group Development

Tuckman's model of small group development, best known as "Forming-Storming-Norming-Performing," applies better to development of some groups than to others. We can use a metaphor to explore how the model applies to Storming in task-oriented work groups. Available here and by RSS on December 11.

And on December 18: Subgrouping and Conway's Law

When task-oriented work groups address complex tasks, they might form subgroups to address subtasks. The structure of the subgroups and the order in which they form depend on the structure of the group's task and the sequencing of the subtasks. Available here and by RSS on December 18.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenyrWpTxHuyCrjZbUpner@ChacnoFNuSyWlVzCaGfooCanyon.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 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info