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. 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 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.

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 Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness:

Inner Babble

It goes by various names — self-talk, inner dialog, or internal conversation. Because it is so often disorganized and illogical, I like to call it inner babble. But whatever you call it, it's often misleading, distracting, and unhelpful. How can you recognize inner babble?

How to Procrastinate

You probably know many techniques for procrastinating, and use them regularly, but vociferously deny doing so. That's what makes this such a delicate subject that I've been delaying writing this article. Well, those days are over.

The Good, the Bad, and the Complicated

In fiction and movies, the world is often simple. There's a protagonist, a goal, and a series of obstacles. The protagonists and goals are good, and the obstacles are bad. Real life is more complicated.

Remote Facilitation in Synchronous Contexts: II

Facilitators of synchronous distributed meetings — meetings that occur in real time, via telephone or video — encounter problems that facilitators of face-to-face meetings do not. Here's Part II of a little catalog of those problems, and some suggestions for addressing them.

Workplace Memes

Some patterns of workplace society reduce organizational effectiveness in ways that often escape our notice. Here are four examples.

See also Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness and Virtual and Global Teams for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming October 5: Downscoping Under Pressure: I

When projects overrun their budgets and/or schedules, we sometimes "downscope" to save time and money. The tactic can succeed — and fail. Three common anti-patterns involve politics, the sunk cost effect, and cognitive biases that distort estimates. Available here and by RSS on October 5.

And on October 12: Downscoping Under Pressure: II

We sometimes "downscope" projects to bring them back on budget and schedule when they're headed for overruns. Downscoping doesn't always work. Cognitive biases like the sunk cost effect and confirmation bias can distort decisions about how to downscope. Available here and by RSS on October 12.

Coaching services

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