A view of the South Canyon Fire near Glenwood Springs, Colorado, at noon on July 4, 1994, when the fire covered only three acres. Lightning had ignited the fire on July 2. The fire would eventually claim 2117 acres. Tragically, on July 6, 1994, it claimed the lives of 14 wildland firefighters, as detailed in the Report of the South Canyon Fire Accident Investigation Team. Controversy about this incident, and others involving death and injury of wildland firefighters, persists. Among the factors cited is the framework known as the "10 Standard Firefighting Orders," eight of which were cited in the report as having been compromised.
Ted Putnam, a retired firefighter and firefighting leadership trainer, argues that these deaths, and other deaths and injuries, can be traced to the Standard Orders, and other practices of wildland firefighters. He asserts that the Standard Orders cannot actually be followed, and that they are designed to protect firefighting management, perhaps more than the firefighters themselves. He writes, "Notice that by identifying something, management is now off the hook." If Mr. Putnam is correct, he has identified a use of the Nominal Fallacy.
The Nominal Fallacy is usually an honest mistake. Except when it isn't. Photo courtesy of the U.S. Willdland Fire Leadership Development Program.
We're committing the logical error called the nominal fallacy when we believe that because we've given something a name, we've explained it. An example: "He doesn't get along with his teammates because he's difficult." Labeling him "difficult" doesn't explain the troubled relationships in the team. It leaves many questions unanswered. Why is he difficult? How is difficult defined? Is he the only team member who's difficult? Are all people who don't get along with their teammates difficult? Can there be other reasons for troubled relationships in this team?
We can extend the nominal fallacy concept slightly to an Attributes Fallacy, which is the logical error of believing that we've explained an entity — or elaborated an existing explanation — when we merely list some of the entity's attributes. If an entity's name is one of its attributes, then the Nominal Fallacy is a special case of the Attributes Fallacy.
For example, when we categorize defects in a software product as change-request, performance-severe, unclassified, and so on, we aren't resolving the defects. We're classifying them. Each defect had a name, and now we've given it a classification. Name and classification are two of its attributes.
Naming and classifying can be satisfying. They might even be steps necessary for achieving our goals. But in most cases in the workplace, naming or classifying isn't the goal. When we enjoy naming and classifying so much that our enjoyment interferes with actual goal achievement, we're in trouble.
This trouble can appear anywhere. When we design project plans, we name tasks. I've done it myself. It's fun. But naming tasks doesn't bring the project home. It's a necessary step toward the goal, but it's just a step.
Consider When we enjoy naming and
classifying so much that
our enjoyment interferes
with actual goal achievement,
we're in troublethe annual budget for your organization. Somebody decides how much to spend on each major organizational element. When they do, they're assigning a value to each organizational element's "budget" attribute. But that isn't the end of the budget process. Budgets must be monitored. When they prove to be too low, or too high, interventions are required. That's hard work. Setting the budget is just the beginning. The same can be said for schedules and strategies.
What's so seductive about naming things, or setting the values of their attributes, or even merely understanding the naming work someone else has done, is that when we do it, we do experience a disproportionate sense of getting something done, however illusory that sense might be. My hope is that your having read this little essay will help you recognize that sense of satisfaction as the joy that comes — in part — from the Nominal Fallacy.
Now, you might ask, how does all this help me? Why does the Nominal Fallacy work the way it does? Haven't I merely named it? Is the Nominal Fallacy an example of itself? Hmmm. 
Top 
Next Issue
Is every other day a tense, anxious, angry misery as you watch people around you, who couldn't even think their way through a game of Jacks, win at workplace politics and steal the credit and glory for just about everyone's best work including yours? Read 303 Secrets of Workplace Politics, filled with tips and techniques for succeeding in workplace politics. More info
Your comments are welcome
Would you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenDJpmhgyaDTwBQXkhner@ChacmGoYuzfZpOvDQdRkoCanyon.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.
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 Rhetorical Fallacies:
The Reification Error and Performance Management- Just as real concrete objects have attributes, so do abstract concepts, or constructs. But attempting
to measure the attributes of constructs as if they were the attributes of real objects is an example
of the reification error. In performance management, committing this error leads to unexpected and unwanted
results.
Apophenia at Work- The urge to identify as meaningful the patterns we see in winning streaks in sports, or streaks of successes
in business, can lead us to accept bogus explanations prematurely. It's a common human tendency that
can put people and organizations in desperate situations.
The Halo Effect- The Halo Effect is a cognitive bias that causes our evaluation of people, concepts, or objects to be
influenced by our perceptions of one attribute of those people, concepts, or objects. It can lead us
to make significant errors of judgment.
Workplace Politics and Integrity- Some see workplace politics and integrity as inherently opposed. One can participate in politics, or
one can have integrity — not both. This belief is a dangerous delusion.
Straw Man Variants- The Straw Man fallacy is a famous rhetorical fallacy. Using it distorts debate and can lead groups to
reach faulty conclusions. It's readily recognized, but it has some variants that are more difficult
to spot. When unnoticed, trouble looms.
See also Rhetorical Fallacies and Rhetorical Fallacies for more related articles.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
Coming May 14: Working with the Overconfident- A cognitive bias known as the Overconfidence Effect causes us to overestimate the reliability of our judgments. Decisions we make based on those judgments are therefore suspect. But there are steps we can take to make our confidence levels more realistic, and thus make our decisions more reliable. Available here and by RSS on May 14.
And on May 21: Mismanaging Project Managers- Most organizations hold project managers accountable for project performance. But they don't grant those project managers control of needed resources. Nor do they hold project sponsors or other senior managers accountable for the consequences of their actions when they interfere with project work. Here's a catalog of behaviors worth looking at. Available here and by RSS on May 21.
Coaching services
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenDJpmhgyaDTwBQXkhner@ChacmGoYuzfZpOvDQdRkoCanyon.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
Follow Rick
Recommend this issue to a friend
Send an email message to a friend
rbrenDJpmhgyaDTwBQXkhner@ChacmGoYuzfZpOvDQdRkoCanyon.comSend a message to Rick
A Tip A Day feed
Point Lookout weekly feed
My blog, Technical Debt for Policymakers, offers
resources, insights, and conversations of interest to policymakers who are concerned with managing
technical debt within their organizations. Get the millstone of technical debt off the neck of your
organization!
Bad boss, long commute, troubling ethical questions, hateful colleague? Learn what we can do when we
love the work but not the job.Learn how to make your virtual global team sing.Are you managing a change effort that faces rampant cynicism, passive non-cooperation, or
maybe even outright revolt?Learn how to make meetings more productive — and more rare.