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.
Your comments are welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenXAABcBQxKuTYrfWsner@ChachVWeePraxlBhniSooCanyon.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 Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness:
- Food for Thought
- Most companies have employee cafeterias, with the usual not-much-better-than-high-school food service.
By upgrading — and subsidizing — food service, these companies can reduce turnover and improve
- Have a Program, Not Just an Agenda
- In the modern organization, it's common to have meetings in which some people have never met —
and some never will. For these meetings, which are often telemeetings, an agenda isn't enough. You need
- 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.
- The Paradox of Confidence
- Most of us interpret a confident manner as evidence of competence, and a hesitant manner as evidence
of lesser ability. Recent research suggests that confidence and competence are inversely correlated.
If so, our assessments of credibility and competence are thrown into question.
- The Utility Pole Anti-Pattern: II
- Complex organizational processes can delay action. They can set people against one other and prevent
organizations from achieving their objectives. In this Part II of our examination of these complexities,
we look into what keeps processes complicated, and how to deal with them.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming October 17: Overt Belligerence in Meetings
- Some meetings lose their way in vain attempts to mollify a belligerent participant who simply will not be mollified. Here's one scenario that fits this pattern. Available here and by RSS on October 17.
- And on October 24: Conversation Irritants: I
- Conversations at work can be frustrating even when everyone tries to be polite, clear, and unambiguous. But some people actually try to be nasty, unclear, and ambiguous. Here's Part I of a small collection of their techniques. Available here and by RSS on October 24.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenXgcXHdqgfxwDsicRner@ChaclnJnQDiJSZFxMXlKoCanyon.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, USD 11.95)
- Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, USD 28.99)
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.