Why Meetings Go Down Rabbit Holes

When a meeting goes down the rabbit hole, nearly everyone in attendance plays a role. Even those who weren't speaking during the detour, but who failed to call "rabbit hole," are somewhat responsible if they were free to safely call "rabbit hole," but did not do so. But negligence rarely is the cause. In my experience, recognizing that we've made a trip down a rabbit hole happens only after we've been there for a while. Trips down rabbit holes are rarely intentional.

Understanding how these excursions come about is a useful step on the path to reducing the frequency of the occurrence. But before we examine possible causes, let's define carefully what we mean by "going down the rabbit hole" in the context of a meeting.

What a rabbit hole is

A meeting has wandered into a rabbit hole when it satisfies four conditions:

1. It has deviated from the intended purpose or scheduled agenda topic
2. The deviation wasn't intentional and wasn't explicitly announced
3. At least one "meta-deviation" has occurred; that is, the conversation has deviated from the original deviation
4. No participant has yet called attention to the deviation

By this definition, raising an irrelevant point that's immediately placed in the "parking lot" is not an excursion down a rabbit hole. Nor is asking a question that turns out to be unrelated to the matter at hand. But following these items because they're interesting for some reason could well qualify as a trip down a rabbit hole. Two more examples of phenomena that seem to be rabbit holes, but which probably are not, are confusion and lack of preparation.

Confusion

Some conversations seem to go on endlessly, twisting and turning and wandering. At times, the group startles itself by reaching a conclusion that directly contradicts a conclusion it reached hours ago.

When they notice this pattern, some groups call, "rabbit hole" and terminate the discussion. That can be a tragic error. These confusions can indicate not a rabbit hole, but faulty information, or a lack of information, or a lack of relevant expertise. Until the group addresses these deficiencies, the group is at risk of repeating the pattern.

Lack of preparation

If members of the group have a broad range of degrees of preparation for understanding the matter at hand, those less prepared might tend to raise questions that other group members regard as so fundamental as to be distracting. Nevertheless, these questions are both essential and constructive. The answers to these questions raise the general level of understanding for everyone.

But those who are relatively better prepared often find such questions wasteful and frustrating. They consider the portions of the discussion dedicated to responding to these questions irrelevant. Some feel that to deal with them is to descend into a rabbit hole. They are mistaken. Frequently, dealing with the basics is the key to resolving the issue.

Why we visit rabbit holes

When Understanding how excursions into
rabbit holes come about is a useful
step on the path to reducing
the frequency of the occurrencewe do visit rabbit holes, our own limitations are frequently the cause. Examples include shared information bias (a cognitive bias), information bias (another cognitive bias), and attraction to the delights of that particular rabbit hole.

Shared information bias

Shared information bias is a cognitive bias that manifests as the tendency of groups to spend time and energy discussing information that most group members already know. [Stasser & Titus 1985] [Van Swol 2007] [Forsyth 2010] This bias can cause groups to enter familiar rabbit holes, or to circle them repeatedly, avoiding exploration of the real problems they face.

To manage the effects of this bias, begin the conversation with a summary of known facts and phenomena. Such a summary can deter some participants from repeating what is known because it has already been presented.

Information bias

Information bias is the cognitive bias that causes us to value information for itself, rather than for its relevance to the matter at hand. That causes us to favor seeking information even if the information we seek could not possibly affect our choice of actions. When this bias takes hold, it appears as a belief that the more information we can gather before taking action, the better.

Information bias thus provides what seems to be a valid reason to defer deciding by endlessly seeking interesting information. And the information bias might itself be cover for something else, such as fear of, revulsion for, or boredom with the matter at hand.

Attraction to the rabbit hole

The topic that captured the group, and which pulled it into the rabbit hole, might be especially attractive to several members of the group. For example, consider a group that's stumped by some current issue. Suppose that the group is ensnared in a rabbit hole in the form of a topic that's irrelevant to the matter at hand, but closely related to a recent success the group had. The opportunity to relive that recent success can be far more attractive than puzzling through the current problem. That attractiveness exposes the group to a risk of multiple visits to that same rabbit hole.

Last words

Meetings can veer off course suddenly, repeatedly, and catastrophically. Prevention strategies include having an agenda with time boxes, appointing a "Designated Digression Detector," and inviting a professional facilitator. These strategies work well, but they aren't foolproof. The last defense, permitting anyone to call "rabbit hole" if needed, depends on developing the skills required to recognize rabbit holes. If your group visits rabbit holes too often, consider prevention strategies. Talk about them. And stay out of rabbit holes while you do.  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!

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 Conflict Management:

Discussus Interruptus

You're chairing a meeting, and to your dismay, things get out of hand. People interrupt each other so often that nobody can complete a thought, and some people dominate the meeting. What can you do?

Ending Conversations

At times, we need to end the current conversation. It's going nowhere, or we have something important to do, or we just don't want to deal with the other person. Here are some suggestions for ending conversations.

Rope-A-Dope in Organizational Politics

Mohammed Ali's strategy of "rope-a-dope" has wide application. Here's an example of applying it to workplace politics at the organizational scale.

How Targets of Bullies Can Use OODA: II

To make the bullying stop, many targets of bullies try to defend themselves. But defense alone is not sufficient — someone must make the bully stop. That's why counterattack is much more likely to work.

The Restructuring-Fear Cycle: II

When enterprises restructure, reorganize, downsize, outsource, lay off, or make other organizational adjustments, they usually focus on financial health. Here's Part II of an exploration of how the fear induced by these changes can lead to the need for further restructuring.

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

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming February 26: Devious Political Tactics: Bad Decisions

When workplace politics influences the exchanges that lead to important organizational decisions, we sometimes make decisions for reasons other than the best interests of the organization. Recognizing these tactics can limit the risk of bad decisions. Available here and by RSS on February 26.

And on March 5: On Begging the Question

Some of our most expensive wrong decisions have come about because we've tricked ourselves as we debated our options. The tricks sometimes arise from rhetorical fallacies that tangle our thinking. One of the trickiest is called Begging the Question. Available here and by RSS on March 5.

Coaching services

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