A constancy assumption implies that what has been true in the past will be true in the future, or that what is true here, in this situation, is also true there, in the same situation. We tend to regard constancy assumptions as more factual when they've been valid for longer periods, or when they've been validated in more places. That is, the more examples we have of their validity, the more likely we are to regard them as facts, rather than assumptions.
And that's when we're at risk of making big mistakes. Constancy assumptions are usually subject to defects related to context. For example, when we apply the brakes on a bicycle, our experience is that the bicycle will slow and eventually stop. At least, this has happened so many times that we expect it will always happen. But on icy roads, or rainy days, or when the bicycle has just gone through a puddle, the brakes might not be so effective. Our constancy assumption might be violated.
Some constancy assumptions are more likely to be invalidated as the number of examples of validity increases. For example, when people are required to accept yet another year of inadequate pay raises, their tolerance is tested each year, but they generally accept paltry increases. Eventually, though, the level of pay falls far enough below their needs, or below what other employers offer, and their acquiescence ends. Those employees who are the most attractive to other employers then find employment elsewhere.
Here are some examples of constancy assumptions that are sometimes inappropriately regarded as facts.
- Productivity rates
- Estimating the person hours required to execute projects is a delicate art. We try to convert art into science by collecting and using experience data, but that data can be misleading. For example, when our workforce ages even by a few years, the demands of home life can change, and those changes affect productivity.
- Personal trustworthiness
- When personal circumstances change, people make different choices and change their alliances, We tend to regard constancy assumptions
as more factual when their pasts
are longer, or when they've been
validated in more placesnot because their values change, but because their goals and tactics do. Somebody you distrusted last year might be trustworthy this year, and vice versa. - Supervisory relationships
- Cultivating a strong relationship with your supervisor is almost always worthwhile, but reorganization or a change of supervisor can nearly erase that investment overnight.
- The value of annual compensation
- In most national economies, inflation is slow but steady, and it erodes everyone's compensation. Other sources of compensation erosion are pay cuts, layoffs, and benefits reductions. Assuming that compensation is constant or increasing is probably risky. Save.
Perhaps the most widespread constancy assumption concerns the possibility or necessity of finding a new job. People tend to assume that their current positions will endure. They stay in their jobs, often unhappy and underpaid, rather than exploring opportunities elsewhere, until too late. Are you among their number? Top Next Issue
Love the work but not the job? Bad boss, long commute, troubling ethical questions, hateful colleague? This ebook looks at what we can do to get more out of life at work. It helps you get moving again! Read Go For It! Sometimes It's Easier If You Run, filled with tips and techniques for putting zing into your work life. Order Now!
Your comments are welcome
Would you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenyrWpTxHuyCrjZbUpner@ChacnoFNuSyWlVzCaGfooCanyon.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 Critical Thinking at Work:
- Paths
- Most of us follow paths through our careers, or through life. We get nervous when we're off the path.
We feel better when we're doing what everyone else is doing. But is that sensible?
- Nine Project Management Fallacies: II
- Some of what we "know" about managing projects just isn't so. Identifying the fallacies of
project management reduces risk and enhances your ability to complete projects successfully.
- Bullet Point Madness: II
- Decision makers in many organizations commonly demand briefings in the form of a series of bullet points
or a series of series of bullet points. Briefers who combine this format with a variety of persuasion
techniques can mislead decision makers, guiding them into making poor decisions.
- Incompetence: Traps and Snares
- Sometimes people judge as incompetent colleagues who are unprepared to carry out their responsibilities.
Some of these "incompetents" are trapped or ensnared in incompetence, unable to acquire the
ability to do their jobs.
- Six More Insights About Workplace Bullying
- Some of the lore about dealing with bullies at work isn't just wrong — it's harmful. It's harmful
in the sense that applying it intensifies the bullying. Here are six insights that might help when devising
strategies for dealing with bullies at work. Example: Letting yourself be bullied is not a thing.
See also Critical Thinking at Work and Critical Thinking at Work 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
Follow Rick
Recommend this issue to a friend
Send an email message to a friend
rbrenyrWpTxHuyCrjZbUpner@ChacnoFNuSyWlVzCaGfooCanyon.comSend a message to Rick
A Tip A Day feed
Point Lookout weekly feed