Because most decisions are easily made, we make many more decisions than we realize. For example, you decided to read this wherever you are now reading it. You can probably reconstruct the reasons for your decision, but you might have to think about it because the decision was so easy.
For difficult decisions, we have meetings. We debate back and forth. The debates can be long and heated. Sometimes we make the decision and then realize we need to rethink. Difficult decisions can be messy.
Some difficulties arise because the issues are complex, we lack important information, politics is involved, or goodness knows what else. But often, the content of the decision is only part of the problem. Difficulty can also arise from the psychology of deciding.
Here are five factors that can make deciding difficult.
- Reactance arises from rejecting options
- Psychological reactance is the human response to a loss of behavioral freedom, or to the perception of threats to behavioral freedom. Because choosing one option necessarily implies loss of freedom to choose the other options, making a decision can create reactance. See "Reactance and Micromanagement," Point Lookout for April 11, 2012, for more.
- To alleviate reactance, we sometimes avoid deciding, or we do what we can to delay.
- Reactance increases when time grows short
- When decisions have time limits — even self-imposed limits — we experience reactance because we perceive threats to our freedoms that increase as the time for decision draws near. The freedoms that are threatened include the freedom to choose any of the less-favored options, and the freedom not to choose at all.
- As time grows short, things can get tense.
- Less-favored options become more attractive
- One consequence To alleviate reactance, we
sometimes avoid deciding, or
we do what we can to delayof reactance is a phenomenon called convergence, in which the most favored options become less attractive, while the less-favored options become more attractive. Typically, the effect on the less-favored options is greater, with the effect on the most-favored of the less-favored being greatest.
- As we move closer to a decision, the differences between options can blur.
- Subversion of the process
- As the decision process proceeds, and reactance increases, we sometimes subvert the decision-making process. For example, we might suddenly question preliminary conclusions, such as the early elimination of some options. When this comes about as a consequence of reactance, it's more likely to occur as the field of choices narrows.
- Reactance can cause us to "unbutton" preliminary decisions that we thought we had agreed to.
- Reactance is enhanced by multiple attractive options
- When there are many attractive options, choosing one threatens the freedom to choose the others, which leads to reactance. The most attractive option tends to become less attractive than the second most attractive option.
- Inversions like this can occur when there are multiple options.
But there is some good news. Groups that understand the problems created by the psychology of deciding are much less likely to exhibit those problems. Understanding them makes them less difficult. 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 psychological reactance, see Psychological Reactance: A Theory of Freedom and Control, by Sharon S. Brehm and Jack W. Brehm. New York: Academic Press, 1981. Available from Amazon.
For more articles about reactance, see "Reactance and Micromanagement," Point Lookout for April 11, 2012, and "Cognitive Biases and Influence: II," Point Lookout for July 13, 2016.
Your comments are welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenHoWzUJVeioCfozEIner@ChacbnsTPttsdDaRAswloCanyon.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.
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.
More articles on Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness:
- Tactics for Asking for Volunteers: I
- CEOs, board chairs, department heads and team leads of all kinds sometimes seek people to handle specific,
time-limited tasks. Asking the group for volunteers works fine — usually. There are alternatives.
- Towards More Gracious Disagreement
- We spend a sizable chunk of time correcting each other. Some believe that we win points by being right,
or lose points by being wrong, but nobody seems to know who keeps the official score. Here are some
thoughts to help you kick the habit.
- Coping with Layoff Survival
- Your company has just done another round of layoffs, and you survived yet again. This time was the most
difficult, because your best pal was laid off, and you're even more fearful for your own job security.
How can you cope with survival?
- Creating Toxic Conflict: I
- Many managers seem to operate as if their primary goal is to create toxic conflict among their subordinates.
Here's a collection of methods for sowing toxic conflict that can help bad managers become worse managers.
- The Utility Pole Anti-Pattern: I
- Organizational processes can get so complicated that nobody actually knows how they work. If getting
something done takes too long, the organization can't lead its markets, or even catch up to the leaders.
Why does this happen?
See also Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness and Problem Solving and Creativity for more related articles.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming June 7: Toxic Disrupters: Tactics
- Some people tend to disrupt meetings. Their motives vary, but they use techniques drawn from a limited collection. Examples: they violate norms, demand attention, mess with the agenda, and sow distrust. Response begins with recognizing their tactics. Available here and by RSS on June 7.
- And on June 14: Pseudo-Collaborations
- Most workplace collaborations produce results of value. But some collaborations — pseudo-collaborations — are inherently incapable of producing value, due to performance management systems, or lack of authority, or lack of access to information. Available here and by RSS on June 14.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenHoWzUJVeioCfozEIner@ChacbnsTPttsdDaRAswloCanyon.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