How to Reject Expert Opinion: II

Rejecting advice from an expert in the domain in question can be tricky, especially if it was solicited. Tricky it may be, but human beings are oh so inventive. Here's a short catalog of techniques advice rejectors use to save themselves from victory and insert themselves between the jaws of defeat.

Assert that the problem at hand is unique

Assertions of uniqueness help rejectors by narrowing the field of qualified experts, potentially to zero. But even if all experts can't be eliminated, and advice cannot be avoided, asserting that the problem is unique can justify rejecting the advice.

Uniqueness claims can center on almost anything. Examples include technology, unusual group dynamics, physical or financial scale, legal or international political issues, cultural clashes, and complexity.

Sow suspicion of the motives of experts

This tactic is most useful with respect to a specific expert, because research about the character and past activities of the expert can reveal material that can discredit or disqualify him or her. It almost always works, because everyone has a past, and the past can be "spun."

Ruling out experts who have worked for competitors is a favored approach, because most have done so. Experts who have taken public positions on issues, and then changed those positions as they gained more experience, or as conditions evolved, might be doubted for having changed. Paradoxically, it is the expert who has never changed a public position who is the least likely to be able to adapt to changing conditions.

Attack the characters of the experts

Once the list of potential Rejecting advice from an expert
in the domain in question
can be tricky, especially if
it was solicitedexperts emerges, rejectors can begin to question the character and/or the expertise of the experts. Their goal is to disqualify any expert who might effectively threaten the rejectors' agenda.

Experts can be faulted for youth and lack of experience; for age and outmoded expertise; for excessive fame, fees, and caseload; for inadequate fame and inexperience; or for past forensic activity. Almost any charge is possible.

Seduce with simplicity

By claiming that the problem confronting the group is actually very simple, and susceptible to "common-sense approaches," the rejector attempts to seduce the group into believing that the expert's advice is at least unnecessary and possibly irrelevant.

Claims of simplicity often include ridicule of those who advocate more nuanced views of the problem. If solving the problem is actually beyond the group's abilities, claims of simplicity, asserted confidently enough, can be very effective because of the Dunning-Kruger Effect. [Kruger 1999]

Ironically, groups tend to be more susceptible to these tactics in the context of more difficult problems. The greater their dread of the problem, the more welcome is the rejector's message that experts are unnecessary, or that they have little to contribute. Rejection of advice is most likely when advice is needed most.   First issue 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!

For more about the Dunning-Kruger Effect, see "The Paradox of Confidence," Point Lookout for January 7, 2009; "Devious Political Tactics: More from the Field Manual," Point Lookout for August 29, 2012; "Overconfidence at Work," Point Lookout for April 15, 2015; "Wishful Thinking and Perception: II," Point Lookout for November 4, 2015; "Wishful Significance: II," Point Lookout for December 23, 2015; "Cognitive Biases and Influence: I," Point Lookout for July 6, 2016; "The Paradox of Carefully Chosen Words," Point Lookout for November 16, 2016; and "Risk Acceptance: One Path," Point Lookout for March 3, 2021.

Footnotes

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:

Poverty of Choice by Choice

Sometimes our own desire not to have choices prevents us from finding creative solutions. Life can be simpler (if less rich) when we have no choices to make. Why do we accept the same tired solutions, and how can we tell when we're doing it?

Pet Peeves About Work

Everybody has pet peeves about work. Here's a collection drawn from my own life, the lives of others, and my vivid imagination.

Wacky Words of Wisdom: III

Adages are so elegantly stated that we have difficulty doubting them. Here's Part III of a collection of often-misapplied adages.

Brain Clutter

The capacity of the human mind is astonishing. Our ability to accomplish great things while simultaneously fretting about mountains of trivia is perhaps among the best evidence of that capacity. Just imagine what we could accomplish if we could control the fretting…

Recapping Factioned Meetings

A factioned meeting is one in which participants identify more closely with their factions, rather than with the meeting as a whole. Agreements reached in such meetings are at risk of instability as participants maneuver for advantage after the meeting.

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