Disjoint Awareness: Bias

Cognitive biases — by definition — systematically skew the way we think away from a rational, evidence-based mode that we like to believe we use. Under the influence of some cognitive biases, our decisions and choices are more likely to slant toward (away) from what attracts (repels) us. When we're trying to grasp or understand what our collaborators are doing or intending to do, cognitive biases can create or exacerbate disjoint awareness of what our collaborators are up to.

Not surprisingly, the effects of cognitive biases on disjoint awareness are more significant when the relationships among collaborators are weak or impersonal, or when they have histories of tense interactions. For example, in most organizations, Marketing and Product Engineering are engaged in a collaboration. In some organizations they do work closely together. But in many organizations the people involved don't regard each other as teammates. It is this latter case that would be more likely to exhibit the unwelcome effects of cognitive biases in creating or exacerbating disjoint awareness.

Here are examples of how two of the better-known cognitive biases might bring about disjoint awareness.

Confirmation bias

Briefly, confirmation bias is the tendency to search for or interpret information so as to confirm one's preconceptions. [Nickerson 1998] Confirmation bias can contribute to disjoint awareness by slanting the body of information we use to determine what our collaborators are doing, and by slanting how we interpret that information.

For example, suppose Quinn and Reggie lead two tasks of a large project. And suppose that Quinn distrusts Reggie. If an occasion arises that calls for Quinn to choose between negotiating with Reggie over a perceived transgression, or alternatively to take his complaint to the project leader for resolution, confirmation bias can make Quinn more likely to complain to the project leader. He does this because his perception of Reggie's transgression confirms his distrust of Reggie. Thus, confirmation bias tends to strengthen Quinn's disjoint awareness of what Reggie supposedly has done. The result might be enhanced risk that the project team might not achieve its objectives.

Self-serving bias

Self-serving bias is almost universally defined as the tendency of individuals to attribute success to their own abilities and efforts, but attribute failure to external factors or to the actions of others. [Campbell 1999] This pattern is obviously capable of distorting our views of reality, and in particular, our views of what our collaborators are doing or intending to do. That is, it can potentially contribute to disjoint awareness within collaborations.

For example, Some cognitive biases can
distort our views of what
our collaborators are doing
or intending to doconsider a group exercise commonly known as a retrospective — also known as a "post mortem," "after-action review," or a number of similar terms. The goal of these exercises is organizational learning. The collaborators want to know what went right and why it went right; what went wrong and why it went wrong; and what can be done differently to improve the outcome in similar future efforts. Self-serving bias reduces the chances of uncovering the truths about these questions, because it distorts participants' views of each other's actions — it exacerbates disjoint awareness.

Of the hundreds of identified cognitive biases, many undoubtedly contribute to disjoint awareness in collaborations. Strong candidates for further contemplation are the fundamental attribution error, the ultimate attribution error, the false consensus effect, the Semmelweis effect, and authority bias. Have a look at these or other biases you're curious about, and investigate how they might contribute to disjoint awareness. What you learn from such an exercise could help you mitigate risks in your collaborations.   First issue in this series   Top    Next Issue

Occasionally we have the experience of belonging to a great team. Thrilling as it is, the experience is rare. In part, it's rare because we usually strive only for adequacy, not for greatness. We do this because we don't fully appreciate the returns on greatness. Not only does it feel good to be part of great team — it pays off. Check out my Great Teams Workshop to lead your team onto the path toward greatness. More info

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.

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 Problem Solving and Creativity:

Poverty of Choice by Choice

Sometimes our own desire not to have choices prevents us from finding creative solutions. Life can be simpler (if less rich) when we have no choices to make. Why do we accept the same tired solutions, and how can we tell when we're doing it?

New Ideas: Judging

When groups work together to solve problems, they eventually evaluate the ideas they generate. They sometimes reject perfectly good ideas, while accepting some really boneheaded ones. How can we judge new ideas more effectively?

Problem Displacement and Technical Debt

The term problem displacement describes situations in which solving one problem creates another. It sometimes leads to incurring technical debt. How? What can we do about it?

Power Distance and Risk

Managing or responding to project risks is much easier when team culture encourages people to report problems and to question any plans they have reason to doubt. Here are five examples that show how such encouragement helps to manage risk.

Contrary Indicators of Psychological Safety: I

To take the risks that learning and practicing new ways require, we all need a sense that trial-and-error approaches are safe. Organizations seeking to improve processes would do well to begin by assessing their level of psychological safety.

See also Problem Solving and Creativity and Problem Solving and Creativity for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming February 26: Devious Political Tactics: Bad Decisions

When workplace politics influences the exchanges that lead to important organizational decisions, we sometimes make decisions for reasons other than the best interests of the organization. Recognizing these tactics can limit the risk of bad decisions. Available here and by RSS on February 26.

And on March 5: On Begging the Question

Some of our most expensive wrong decisions have come about because we've tricked ourselves as we debated our options. The tricks sometimes arise from rhetorical fallacies that tangle our thinking. One of the trickiest is called Begging the Question. Available here and by RSS on March 5.

Coaching services

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