Perfectionism and Avoidance

Of the many obstacles to successful team collaborations, perfectionism and avoidance strike me as the most difficult to overcome or even control. At first thought they seem to be unrelated or even opposites of each other. But surprisingly, in some situations they're so closely tied together that we can justifiably regard them as two manifestations of the same dysfunction. Understanding their connection is most important when we're devising interventions. Let's consider how perfectionism and avoidance relate to each other using the planning activity to illustrate the connection.

"Analysis paralysis" is one of the best-known phrases identifying dysfunction associated with planning and analysis. [Brenner 2019] [McGlone 2000] It captures the idea that a team has devoted so much time and effort to analyzing a task that it can no longer make significant progress toward its objective. The analysis activity has paralyzed the team, blocking forward progress.

Although that scenario undoubtedly does occur, the phrase "analysis paralysis" suggests that the inability to make progress is due to excessive planning and analysis. To solve the problem all we need do is stop planning, and to prevent the problem, all we need do is limit planning.

But consider this alternative explanation of analysis paralysis. Suppose the team is intimidated by the prospect of actually executing any plan that might attain the objective. One way to avoid what the team fears to undertake is to keep on planning and keep on analyzing — to keep perfecting the plan and perfecting the analysis. In this way, perfectionism provides a means of avoiding executing the plan, when the prospect of executing the plan — any plan — terrifies the team.

In this alternative "Analysis paralysis" is one of the
best-known phrases identifying
dysfunction associated with
planning and analysisscenario, it isn't the analysis that paralyzes. Rather it is the paralysis that leads to excessive analysis. We can observe analogous interlocking patterns between risk planning and risk aversion, and between aversion to conflict resolution and persistence of toxic conflict. (I must admit I haven't been able to devise rhymes for these other interlocking patterns.)

As a team member or as a manager interested in the team's success, distinguishing between cause and symptom is important when devising an intervention. For example, with analysis paralysis, suppose that the alternative explanation is valid, and the team is using analysis to avoid executing the plan. And suppose we devise an intervention that focuses on ending the extended analysis activity. Such an intervention will likely yield disappointing results, because bringing the planning to an orderly close will only compel the team to find another way to delay execution.

Whenever forward progress slows, perfectionism and avoidance are potential contributing factors. Deciding which of the two is more nearly causal is rarely easy. But considering all possibilities is a necessary preliminary to devising effective interventions.  Top    Next Issue

Projects never go quite as planned. We expect that, but we don't expect disaster. How can we get better at spotting disaster when there's still time to prevent it? How to Spot a Troubled Project Before the Trouble Starts is filled with tips for executives, senior managers, managers of project managers, and sponsors of projects in project-oriented organizations. It helps readers learn the subtle cues that indicate that a project is at risk for wreckage in time to do something about it. It's an ebook, but it's about 15% larger than "Who Moved My Cheese?" Just . Order Now! .

Footnotes

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.

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 Cognitive Biases at Work:

Confirmation Bias: Workplace Consequences Part II

We continue our exploration of confirmation bias. In this Part II, we explore its effects in management processes.

Scope Creep and the Planning Fallacy

Much is known about scope creep, but it nevertheless occurs with such alarming frequency that in some organizations, it's a certainty. Perhaps what keeps us from controlling it better is that its causes can't be addressed with management methodology. Its causes might be, in part, psychological.

Be Choosier About Job Offers: I

A serious error some job seekers make is accepting an offer that isn't actually a good fit. We make this mistake for a variety of reasons, including hating the job-search process, desperation, and wishful thinking. How can we avoid the error?

Illusory Management: I

Many believe that managers control organizational performance, but a puzzle emerges when we consider the phenomena managers clearly cannot control. Why do we believe in Management control when the phenomena Management cannot control are so many and powerful?

Illusory Management: II

Many believe that managers control organizational performance more precisely than they actually do. This illusion might arise, in part, from a mechanism that causes leaders and the people they lead to tend to misattribute organizational success.

See also Cognitive Biases at Work and Effective Meetings for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming December 7: Reaching Agreements in Technological Contexts

Reaching consensus in technological contexts presents special challenges. Problems can arise from interactions between the technological elements of the issue at hand, and the social dynamics of the group addressing that issue. Here are three examples. Available here and by RSS on December 7.

And on December 14: 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 ad readily recognized, but it has some variants that are more difficult to spot. When unnoticed, trouble looms. Available here and by RSS on December 14.

Coaching services

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