Pre-Decision Discussions: Emotions

In the first part of this exploration of contributions to pre-decision discussions, I identified four of the more commonly recognized contributions — Facts, Opinions, Beliefs, and Hearsay. I explored how they relate to the factual basis of the issues at hand. But facts alone are rarely the sole foundation of any decision. Emotions usually play a role.

Because emotional decisions can lead to unpredictable and unwelcome results, we must manage the effects of emotions on our decisions. And managing emotion is a more achievable goal if we're familiar with the ways emotion can enter pre-decision discussions.

Following are descriptions of five patterns of pre-decision contributions selected for their connection to the emotions of the participants. Remaining for future posts is consideration of other factors, such as the misuse of reasoning, or the effects of cognitive biases.

Preferences

Preferences are the contributor's (or someone else's) personal likes and dislikes. Stating one's preference might seem relevant to the decision at hand, but rarely is it strong evidence that one option is more valid than another.

Although preferences might not be evidence relevant to determining validity of the issue, information about participants' preferences can be useful for evaluating information that might be evidence. For example, a participant might withhold information because it supports a position the participant opposes. Or a participant might offer support for another participant's contribution for a similar reason. When someone is silent unexpectedly, consider encouraging a comment.

Warnings and threats

A warning is a very strong suggestion that specific adverse events might occur or certainly will occur. A warning can be a simple contribution such as, "We'd best prepare for Hurricane Katrina." The strength of the suggestion derives from the basis for the warning, which the contributor regards as validated. Warnings might or might not be conditional. A conditional warning is one such as, "Unless we begin to retire some technical debt, costs for even simple modifications will grow."

A threat is a form of warning in which the author of the adverse event is either the person expressing the threat, or someone closely associated with the person expressing the threat.

Some threats are conditional. Because emotional decisions can lead
to unpredictable and unwelcome
results, we must manage the effects
of emotions on our decisions For example, "If you do X, I'll do Y." Issuing a threat is often a tactic for persuading a target to make a choice that favors the threatener.

Warnings and threats differ from other kinds of contributions in the intensity of the emotional responses they can elicit. Groups intent on making rational decisions need to be alert when warnings or threats become part of the pre-decision discussion. Until warnings and threats abate, decision quality is at risk.

Advice

A contribution can function as advice when it recommends a position or action on some basis less well validated than facts, such as an opinion, belief, or hearsay.

Because of differences in organizational status, some contributors offer advice instead of warnings even though they have a strong factual basis for their contributions. For this reason, some contributions that appear to be advice are actually "stealth warnings." And those listening to the contribution might respond to such "advice" as if it were a warning — that is, emotionally. When a contributor provides advice, it's best to determine whether the contribution should be taken as a warning. For example, one might inquire about the factual basis for the advice.

Examples

An example is an illustration of a point the contributor wants to make. A term often used instead of example is anecdote. Examples are usually helpful, but they come with some risks attached.

One risk associated with examples is mistaking examples for proof. For example, 2 is an even number, and it is also a prime number. This is not a proof that all prime numbers are even, nor is it a proof that all even numbers are prime. Actually, because 2 is the only number that is both even and prime, it is an example of how examples can be confused with proof.

A second risk associated with examples is their ability to evoke emotional responses. By choosing examples that might trigger memories of fraught situations, contributors can cause participants to accept propositions that they might easily reject if they were thinking more clearly.

Another risk of examples arises from the complexity of the issues some groups are compelled to consider. The space in which most pre-decision discussions occur is complicated. That's why examples that arise in pre-decision discussions can be unreliable. The examples chosen might have subtle, special properties that cause them not to be representative of the point the contributor wants to make.

Rhetorical fallacies

A contribution contains a rhetorical fallacy (other names are logical fallacy or formal fallacy) when it uses deceptive or flawed logic to gain acceptance for a proposition, whether or not the proposition is justifiable by legitimate means. Dozens of these fallacies have been identified. An example of a fallacy known as False Dichotomy is: "You're either part of the solution, or you're part of the problem, so get with the program." Because real life rarely provides such a clear delineation between positions, the False Dichotomy prevents discussion participants from considering more nuanced or practical alternatives.

Rhetorical fallacies use verbal tricks to evoke emotions that prevent people from considering alternatives to the positions the users of the fallacies prefer. But malice isn't necessarily the motive. Users of rhetorical fallacies may be unaware that they're transgressing; many mislead themselves with their own rhetoric.

To mitigate the risk of rhetorical fallacies, learn to identify those that are in use in your organization. Peruse a collection.

Certainly there are many more ways to offer contributions that evoke emotional responses stealthily. Observe your own pre-decision discussions and collect the more popular forms. Next time, I'll examine how reasoning (and its misuse) can mislead decision makers. First in this series  Next in this series  Top    Next Issue

Do you spend your days scurrying from meeting to meeting? Do you ever wonder if all these meetings are really necessary? (They aren't) Or whether there isn't some better way to get this work done? (There is) Read 101 Tips for Effective Meetings to learn how to make meetings much more productive and less stressful — and a lot more rare. Order Now!

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 Conflict Management:

How to Misunderstand Somebody Else

Misunderstandings are commonplace at work, as in most of the rest of Life. At work, they might be even more commonplace, because at work it sometimes seems that people are actually trying to misunderstand. Here's a handy guide for those who want to get better at misunderstanding others.

Recognizing Hurtful Dismissiveness

"Never mind" can mean anything from "Excuse me, I'm sorry," to, "You lame idiot, it's beyond you," and more. The former is apologetic and courteous. The latter is dismissive and hurtful. We have dozens of verbal tactics for hurting each other dismissively. How can we recognize them?

Agenda Despots: II

Some meeting chairs crave complete or near-complete control of their meeting agendas. In this Part II of our exploration of their techniques, we emphasize methods for managing unwanted topic contributions from attendees.

Covert Verbal Abuse at Work

Verbal abuse at work uses written or spoken language to disparage, disadvantage, or harm others. Perpetrators favor tactics they can subsequently deny having used. Even more favored are abusive tactics that are so subtle that others don't notice them.

Kerfuffles That Seem Like Something More

Much of what we regard as political conflict is a series of squabbles commonly called kerfuffles. They captivate us while they're underway, but after a month or two they're forgotten. Why do they happen? Why do they persist?

See also Conflict Management and Effective Meetings for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming September 27: On Working Breaks in Meetings

When we convene a meeting to work a problem, we sometimes find that progress is stalled. Taking a break to allow a subgroup to work part of the problem can be key to finding simple, elegant solutions rapidly. Choosing the subgroup is only the first step. Available here and by RSS on September 27.

And on October 4: Self-Importance and Conversational Narcissism at Work: I

Conversational narcissism is a set of behaviors that participants use to focus the exchange on their own self-interest rather than the shared objective. This post emphasizes the role of these behaviors in advancing a narcissist's sense of self-importance. Available here and by RSS on October 4.

Coaching services

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