Mistakes in thinking of you and me
How free are we in our thinking, and how does this 'freedom' relate to modern organizations? Overestimating ourselves is a systematic error in thinking, just like herd behavior. We owe these errors to our prehistoric brain. We do not provide solutions and advice to avoid these errors, because that is not what this book is about. What we do do is make you aware of a number of errors in thinking, so that you know that you have them. It cannot be otherwise, after all, we are human. We have to deal with this old-fashioned brain, and that is not so bad. But know your own errors in thinking. And regularly ask yourself: how free am I in my judgment?
We list a number of thinking errors. These were not chosen at random. They are the thinking errors that can most bother you in your work situation. Ten to one that you recognize them.
- Fallacy 1: The fundamental attribution. We humans tend to attribute successes and failures of organizations or groups to a face. Often that is the person who comes across as a leader. He or she is put on a pedestal, his or her position becomes unassailable. Or the other way around; Barbertje must hang. It is all his fault. Or hers.
- Fallacy 2: Group think. Especially under pressure from a strong leader, individuals will quickly conform to the majority opinion. In this way, decisions are made that each individual would have rejected under 'normal' circumstances.
- Fallacy 3: Availability bias. The threat comes with bombast. Everything that is silent and invisible seems to us too improbable for words. Death in a car crash we find more plausible than slowly fading away after a creeping pancreatic cancer. The downfall is noisy, we think. In short; we estimate the risks of life very poorly.
- Fallacy 4: Authority bias. In the presence of a strong personality, we tend to lower our own thinking. Even when the leader shows us rational or morally reprehensible behavior, we continue to watch like docile sheep. Or worse. Whatever we think of ourselves, we are horribly obedient.
- Fallacy 5: Conformation bias. We are masters at filtering out information that does not fit our views. Signs that indicate the success of a decision are celebrated exuberantly. We prefer not to see indications to the contrary. Or we serve them up as 'teething problems', 'special case' or 'unforeseen issue'.
- Fallacy 6: Trust. The basis of every society and organization. This will not surprise you. A team in which trust is lacking does not function well. A measure of a lack of trust is hiding mistakes and errors. Peer help back and forth is usually not the most normal thing in the world in such a team. It usually does not stop there.
- Fallacy 7: Gossip. “That Miranda has lost a lot of weight lately. But of course she is having a hard time, because her husband Wim is in a deep depression.”
We say it often enough to each other: gossiping is healthy. Gossiping is not bad. It even has a function. In societies, large and small, gossiping increases the mutual bond. “They are doing it wrong. We are doing it right.” So gossiping is allowed.
Gossiping is ingrained in our nature. Gossiping is like picking at fleas. Just as monkeys in groups pick at each other to make and keep friends, people in groups have conversations. And they are about others. About people of the same species who are not there, of course. And what they do wrong. “That doesn’t happen in our group, we don’t do that kind of thing,” we tell each other. And so we continue picking at fleas.
As a manager or hip scrum master, it is good to keep one thing in mind at all times: gossip in modern organizations is not healthy. It must be combated, because gossip on the work floor sooner or later creates distrust.
Generally, there are two types of gossip in organizations. The more or less 'unconscious slander' occurs most often. Socially adept men and women with a large informal network are successful in spreading 'news' and building different 'camps'. That is not so strange, they have the most allies. The gossiper really benefits from it, because by spreading slanderous gossip he or she creates loyal followers and new allies. In the 'home camp' his or her position becomes even stronger. Usually, this gossiper is a latently insecure and anxious person. He or she knows that the characteristic is unacceptable, but it is difficult to stop.
“I don't know if you noticed, but Ton and Miranda stayed together in the copy room for a very long time.”
This statement is not innocent, because something is insinuated. From now on, both Ton and Miranda are being closely watched. How much time do they spend together? Isn't Ton standing too close to Miranda? And did she also wear such tight blouses in the past? She has lost weight. Is she in love? In no time the colleagues agree: Ton and Miranda have something together. Everyone understands Miranda, her Wim has been overwrought for a long time. But that Ton, he is no good at all. His wife is a downright sweetheart.
This gossip must stop, and as soon as possible. Track down the source, speak to him or her about the behavior. Confront him or her with the consequences of the gossiping behavior. If there is an escalation, Miranda is fed up with the slander and calls in sick, then the gossiper is obliged to apologize and rectify the slander. If that is not the case, then we advise you to let the fire burn out in a controlled manner.
The strategic gossip is not only more malicious, but also more elusive.
A strategic gossip primarily aims to strengthen the position of the gossip and eliminate the competition. For reasons of credibility, the strategic gossip is usually a person with access to important information. This gossip moves between the various networks. A strategic gossip can be about Ton's task, which is actually being performed very poorly.
“I can't say who I got it from, but Van Trogt is also very dissatisfied with Ton's performance.”
Strategic gossip, also called 'intentionally manipulative behavior', tends towards a political game and is more difficult to combat.
In times of change and power conflicts, serious smear campaigns can arise. Slanderous gossip is like machine gun fire; an open attack. Slanderous gossip can go in all directions: horizontally between members of rival departments. Vertically or upwards: from the shop floor to management.
In the business world, where a flat organizational structure and teamwork are hot is, gossip and backbiting are counterproductive. In the long run, harsh gossip leads to poor cooperation between individuals and teams. You will heartily agree with that. The bad news: gossip is almost impossible to eradicate. As a manager, there is not much more you can do than be alert to small stinging hairs. To make employees aware of their talking behavior, a monthly 'no gossip-day' a good idea. It could look like this: on the first Monday of the month it is strictly forbidden to talk about others in their absence. The other days of the month it is allowed.