Fear/Anxiety Bias: II

When people are fearful or anxious, they sometimes manage those feelings by shading the truth in their reports to managers about the status of their work. In last week's post I began an exploration of behavioral patterns that can lead to a systematic bias in reporting the status of work underway. I described a pattern I call "too-mild objection." That pattern is one method some use to adapt their behavior to manage psychological risk.

Five patterns for misrepresenting status

Here are five more of those patterns. In what follows, I refer to the people providing Reports about obstacles using the names Rachel or Ronald.

Withholding

In this pattern, Rachel elects not to report the obstacle because she guesses (or knows) that news of the obstacle would be unwelcome. She fears that anyone who reports the obstacle might suffer unpleasant consequences, including, for example, being blamed for it. But since she does know about the obstacle, she wants to be certain that she can plausibly deny that she knew about it.

By withholding what she knows, Rachel increases the risk that decision-makers have an inaccurate view of the situation. To deal with this risk, conduct frequent open meetings to elevate the probability that everyone knows what's happening — good and bad.

Pretending to misunderstand

To pretend Fear/Anxiety Bias is what results when we elect
not to report the true status of a situation, and
instead shade the truth or spin it in some way
to protect against unwelcome repercussionsthat he doesn't understand the request for updated status, Ronald relies on a keen sense of what his audience will believe. For example, in response to a request for a list of all items remaining to be addressed, Ronald replies with a list of "all the items I'm working on right now." He believes his audience will accept this response, at least for a time. Because he has concealed the truth, the people who receive Ronald's reports labor under a misimpression of the true situation.

To deal with this pattern, make all requests ridiculously specific. For example, instead of "Please send me a list of all items remaining to be addressed," try, "Please send me a list of all items remaining to be addressed, whether or not you or anyone else is working on them and no matter how close they are to completion."

Allowing time for miracles

When Rachel wants time to allow for a miracle to occur, she stalls. She responds to no email message less than three days old. She rarely picks up the phone when someone calls. She responds only to voicemail, and then, only when it's at least a day old. She's a regular no-show at meetings, because she wants to avoid direct questions. When she is asked questions, her response is some form of "I'll have to get back to you." When pressed for an answer, she's vague. These tactics provide Rachel with delay. She's hoping that Fate will intervene and save her.

These delaying tactics also defer Rachel's audience's finally understanding the truth of their situation.

To deal with these tactics, include a deadline in every request. When you accumulate enough missed deadlines, you can initiate disciplinary action or if you can't do that, you can enlist the assistance of someone who can. As a last resort, you can find a way to reassign her. In the meantime, remove her from any critical path.

Reporting conditions that provide safety

Ronald is selective about the obstacles he reports. If he's responsible in any way for clearing an obstacle, he's reluctant to report it. But if the existence of a particular obstacle tends to relieve him of a responsibility, or makes it impossible for him to complete a task on time, he's more likely to report it. That is, he reports obstacles that tend to afford him some safety; he's less likely to report obstacles that create pressure on him.

This selective reporting practice conveys a misimpression of the situation for Ronald's audience. They are therefor more likely to allocate resources in ways that don't serve the organization as well as they might.

To deal with these tactics, distribute the responsibility for reporting obstacles. Relying on one individual to report all obstacles in a certain domain creates a risk that selective reporting will occur. By designating at least two people responsible for reporting a given class of obstacle, you create pressure on both to report on obstacles on an as-soon-as-you-know basis.

Deflecting attention

When all of Rachel's tactics have failed, and she finds it necessary to report an obstacle she'd rather not report, she can try deflecting attention. She can report the obstacle in a way that she believes will limit the risk of the consequences she fears. She can wait for a catastrophe to develop in some else's patch, or she can include her report within a larger report that covers a truly inflammatory situation. In this way, she can bury her bad news under something that will attract much more attention.

The covering story need be neither new nor true. Or if true, it need not be fully developed — speculation will suffice. It can be merely a reminder of a previously identified issue that hasn't fully materialized. But what it must do is attract attention away from the truth.

Watch for a pattern of these diversions in past reports. To avoid being taken in, be alert to the use of this tactic.

Last words

These tactics aren't the root cause of any organizational problem — they are symptoms. The root cause is that people don't feel psychologically safe. Work on creating safety, rather than addressing the tactics people feel compelled to use when they feel unsafe.   First issue in this series   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

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:

The High Cost of Low Trust: II

Truly paying attention to Trust at work is rare, in part, because we don't fully appreciate what distrust really costs. Here's Part II of a little catalog of how we cope with distrust, and how we pay for it.

Nasty Questions: I

Some of the questions we ask each other aren't intended to elicit information from the respondent. Rather, they're poorly disguised attacks intended to harm the respondent politically, and advance the questioner's political agenda. Here's part one a catalog of some favorite tactics.

Management Debt: I

Management debt, like technical debt, arises when we choose paths — usually the lowest-cost paths — that lead to recurring costs that are typically higher than alternatives. Why do we take on management debt? How can we pay it down?

Unanswerable Questions

Some questions are beyond our power to answer, but many of us try anyway. What are some of these unanswerable questions and how can we respond?

Cyber Rumors in Organizations

Rumor management practices in organizations haven't kept up with rumor propagation technology. Rumors that propagate by digital means — cyber rumors — have longer lifetimes, spread faster, are more credible, and are better able to reinforce each other.

See also Workplace Politics and Workplace Politics for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming January 22: Storming: Obstacle or Pathway?

The Storming stage of Tuckman's model of small group development is widely misunderstood. Fighting the storms, denying they exist, or bypassing them doesn't work. Letting them blow themselves out in a somewhat-controlled manner is the path to Norming and Performing. Available here and by RSS on January 22.

And on January 29: A Framework for Safe Storming

The Storming stage of Tuckman's development sequence for small groups is when the group explores its frustrations and degrees of disagreement about both structure and task. Only by understanding these misalignments is reaching alignment possible. Here is a framework for this exploration. Available here and by RSS on January 29.

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