The Fallacy of Division

The fallacy of division is an error of reasoning. It occurs when we conclude that entity A, which is a member of class B, must have attribute C solely because class B has attribute C. For example, "Last year, our IT project budget overran the plan by 13%. All of our access management projects are IT projects. Therefore all of our access management projects overran the plan by 13%." Most of us can easily identify this fallacy when it's applied in such an artificial example.

Examples of the Fallacy of Division

In real life, the fallacy of division can be difficult to spot. When it escapes notice, trouble lurks. Here are five examples.

Studies suggest that for software development projects, overall, Scrum has produced disappointing results

Translation: Since we do most of our work as projects, Scrum will produce disappointing results if we try it for our projects.

This line of reasoning ignores many possible conditions of the projects that were studied, including:

• Scrum might have been deployed in a defective manner
• The people using Scrum might not have been properly trained
• The people using Scrum might have opposed it and intentionally circumvented it

The conclusion might be valid, but any possible basis for that conclusion is absent.

Research has shown that in organizations generally, meetings are a wasteful way for teams to reach decisions

Translation: Because we are an organization, and we conduct meetings, they will be a wasteful way for us to reach decisions.

The problem here is that the reasoning fails to account for differences between the meetings as conducted in the studied organizations, and the meetings as conducted in "our" organization.

Because sales will decline by 15% over the next three quarters, we must curtail spending across the board

Translation: Every department, including the Sales Department, must reduce its spending by 15% over the next three quarters.

In this In real life, the fallacy of division
can be difficult to spot. When it
escapes notice, trouble lurks.example, there is a hidden assumption that operating expenses are directly proportional to sales, which is almost certainly invalid. But even if it were a valid assumption, across-the-board expense reductions are rarely justifiable. This example actually advocates "level" reductions in the Sales Department, which is most likely counter-effective.

Studies suggest that most corporate training is ineffective and wasteful

Translation: We must immediately review our training programs. Unless our metrics can show that a training program is producing added value, we must terminate that program.

This example shows how to avoid the Fallacy of Division by insisting that the problem of zero-value training be shown to be present in the organization before the training program is ended. However, it also illustrates the effect of succumbing to the fallacy, because the review of the training program suddenly appears on the organizational agenda. The hidden assumption is that if training programs are problematic elsewhere, they must be problematic here.

Employee compensation accounts for 80% of expenses

Translation: If we must reduce expenses by 10%, then 80% of that reduction must come from employee compensation.

The error here is the idea that since employee compensation accounts for 80% of expenses, it must bear its "fair share" of the overall reduction. This approach is erroneous for multiple reasons. Some examples:

• It's possible that reducing employee compensation could reduce revenue even more.
• Opportunities for improving efficiency might not be evenly distributed across expense categories.
• The real problem might be that employee compensation is too low, which has limited the organization's ability to recruit the people needed to compete more effectively in the market.

Last words

Instances of the use of the Fallacy of Division escape notice, in part, because they seem so reasonable. Devious actors can use this property of the fallacy to persuade others to adopt positions that might be favorable to the devious actor, while harming the organization.  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

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 Workplace Politics:

Illegal Dumping

To solve problems, we change existing policies or processes, or we create new ones. We try to make things better and sometimes we actually succeed. More often, we create new problems — typically, for someone else.

Some Hazards of Skip-Level Interviews: II

Skip-level interviews are dialogs between a subordinate and the subordinate's supervisor's supervisor. They can be both heplful and hazardous. Here's Part II of a little catalog of the hazards.

Yet More Obstacles to Finding the Reasons Why

Part III of our catalog of obstacles encountered in retrospectives, when we try to uncover why we succeeded — or failed.

Full Disclosure

The term "full disclosure" is now a fairly common phrase, especially in news interviews and in film and fiction thrillers involving government employees or attorneys. It also has relevance in the knowledge workplace, and nuances associated with it can affect your credibility.

On Ineffectual Leaders

When the leader of an important business unit is ineffectual, we need to make a change to protect the organization. Because termination can seem daunting, people often turn to one or more of a variety of other options. Those options have risks.

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

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming December 6: Off-Putting and Conversational Narcissism at Work: III

Having off-putting interactions is one of four themes of conversational narcissism. Here are seven behavioral patterns that relate to off-putting interactions and how abusers use them to control conversations. Available here and by RSS on December 6.

And on December 13: Contrary Indicators of Psychological Safety: I

To take the risks that learning and practicing new ways requires, 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. Available here and by RSS on December 13.

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