Appearance Anti-patterns: II

The term often used to describe how our actions might be interpreted by others — as opposed to how we mean them or what our intentions are — is appearances. Some tend to pay little attention to appearances, preferring to focus entirely on the task at hand and their intentions relative to that task. Paying too little attention to appearances can lead to trouble, because it leaves space for others to make up what they don't know.

But paying too much attention to appearances is also problematic. When making decisions, factors related to appearances are generally less well correlated to outcome quality than are factors related to the substance of the decision. That's one reason why decisions made on the basis of appearances rather than substance are particularly vulnerable to error. This applies not only to the appearances of the people or things being judged, but also to the decision itself.

The inappropriate use of appearances is especially effective when deception is the intention. Here are four examples of deception — intentional or not — based on incongruence between appearance and substance.

Threats cloaked in humor

Some people use humor to cloak actual threats, in the hope that the humor might make the threats less obvious. Example: "If you get this work done by Friday, you can keep working here." Typically, when this technique is in use, the humor is weak. If the offender is called for threatening, the humor is strong enough to support a defense of I-was-only-joking.

In these situations, The inappropriate use of appearances
is especially effective when
deception is the intentionthe offender is creating a false appearance — a mask, in a sense — that can serve as a defense if needed. There is no place for threats like this in a healthy workplace. See "Responding to Threats: I," Point Lookout for February 20, 2008, for more.

Incongruous auxiliary design elegance

When the elegance of the design of some auxiliary aspect of a product surpasses the product's actual utility, or surpasses the quality of the user experience, the provider of the product has emphasized appearance in preference to value. The user might then feel frustrated or deceived.

The most obvious aspect of the product that can be exploited in this way is physical appearance or screen appearance. But also included are advertising, Web presence, packaging, demonstrations, try-before-you-buy programs, and almost any other attribute of the product. If the attributes prospective buyers use to make the purchasing decision are far more elegant than the product itself, appearance abuse might be afoot.

Hyper-elegant procedural forms

Many organizational procedures have forms associated with them — performance improvement plans, expense reports, nominations for commendations, applications for procedural waivers, and on and on. Some forms are components of software packages that support processes run by human resources, finance, customer relations, and facilities management, to name a few. And for the most part, these forms are serviceable if at times a little annoying. But there are other forms, usually created in-house, as word processor or spreadsheet documents. Some of these forms are appropriate and serviceable. But not all are.

The forms I have in mind are hyper-elegant. They're beautiful, but unserviceable in the extreme. Fundamentally, they're electronic analogs of printed forms, in the analog intended for the user to complete them on a (shudder) typewriter. For example, they rarely support automated capture of the data entered by the people using them. And even though the computer "knows" both the date and the name of the person using the computer to complete the form, the form requires that users type their own names and dates. Often the "tab order" of the blanks is confused. (If you don't know what that means, you're among the fortunate few) The annoyances continue from there. The form is pretty, but it meets the needs of neither the user nor the organization.

Overly polished proposals

Proposals that are more polished in their presentation than they are in their substance tend to be received with a latent message that they are more fully developed and free of inconsistencies than they actually are. The appearance doesn't match the reality.

After uncovering a number of objections that have inadequate answers, the recipients of these proposals begin to view the proposal as all flash and little substance. This perception might be accurate, but when it's inaccurate, the proposer can encounter insurmountable obstacles when trying to disabuse the recipient of this misperception. Prevent this problem by polishing the proposal's presentation to match the degree of finish in its substance.

Too little attention to appearances exposes you to the risk that your actions will be seen as unethical. Too much attention to appearances exposes you to the risk that the substance of your work will be assessed as less valuable than appearances would imply. Either error can lead to big trouble.   First issue in this series   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

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 Workplace Politics:

Is It Blame or Is It Accountability?

When we seek those accountable for a particular failure, we risk blaming them instead, because many of us confuse accountability with blame. What's the difference between them? How can we keep blame at bay?

Narcissistic Behavior at Work: I

Briefly, when people exhibit narcissistic behavior they're engaging in activity that systematically places their own interests and welfare ahead of the interests and welfare of anyone or anything else. It's behavior that threatens the welfare of the organization and everyone employed there.

Narcissistic Behavior at Work: VIII

Narcissistic behavior at work can have roots in attitudes and beliefs. Understanding which attitudes or beliefs underlie narcissistic behavior can sometimes have predictive value. Among such attitudes or beliefs are those related to envy.

Facts, Opinions, Estimates, and Desires

One reason why resource allocation debates can become so difficult is confusion about the differences among facts, opinions, estimates, and desires. Clarifying their differences can reduce the length and intensity of resource allocation debates.

Clouted Thinking

When we say that people have "clout" we mean that they have more organizational power or social influence than most others do. But when people with clout try to use it in realms beyond those in which they've earned it, trouble looms.

See also Workplace Politics and Ethics at Work for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming July 3: Additive bias…or Not: II

Additive bias is a cognitive bias that many believe contributes to bloat of commercial products. When we change products to make them more capable, additive bias might not play a role, because economic considerations sometimes favor additive approaches. Available here and by RSS on July 3.

And on July 10: On Delegating Accountability: I

As the saying goes, "You can't delegate your own accountability." Despite wide knowledge of this aphorism, people try it from time to time, especially when overcome by the temptation of a high-risk decision. What can you delegate, and how can you do it? Available here and by RSS on July 10.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrendPtoGuFOkTSMQOzxner@ChacEgGqaylUnkmwIkkwoCanyon.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