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:

More Indicators of Scopemonging

Scope creep — the tendency of some projects to expand their goals — is usually an unintended consequence of well-intentioned choices. But sometimes, it's part of a hidden agenda that some use to overcome budgetary and political obstacles.

What Do You Need?

When working issues jointly with others, especially with one other, we sometimes hear, "What do you need to make this work?" Your answers can doom your effort — or make it a smashing success.

Why Don't They Believe Me?

When we want people to believe us, and they don't, it just might be a result of our own actions or demeanor. How does this happen?

Suppressing Dissent: I

In some groups, disagreeing with the majority, or disagreeing with the Leader, can be a personally expensive act. Here is Part I of a set of tactics used by Leaders who choose not to tolerate dissent.

Columbo Tactics: II

This is Part II of a series showing how the less powerful can adapt the tactics of TV detective Lt. Columbo when they're interacting with the more powerful.

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

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming July 3: Additive bias…or Not: II

Additive bias is a cognitive bias that many believe contributes to bloat of commercial products. When we change products to make them more capable, additive bias might not play a role, because economic considerations sometimes favor additive approaches. Available here and by RSS on July 3.

And on July 10: On Delegating Accountability: I

As the saying goes, "You can't delegate your own accountability." Despite wide knowledge of this aphorism, people try it from time to time, especially when overcome by the temptation of a high-risk decision. What can you delegate, and how can you do it? Available here and by RSS on July 10.

Coaching services

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