Additive Bias…or Not: I

Additive bias is a cognitive bias. It's the tendency to identify or favor approaches to problem solving that add components to an existing solution rather than approaches that reduce the number of components. For example, when rewriting a definition of the additive bias to enhance its clarity, we would tend to produce revisions that have more words than did the original version.

Experiments that demonstrate additive bias, and the cognitive science literature about additive bias, agree: what matters is how the number of components N in the unaltered system compares to the number of components N' in the altered system. [Adams, et al. 2021][Stewart 2021][Neroni, et al. 2024] Because of the additive bias, people tend to favor solutions in which N' is greater than N.

In artificial experiment conditions, we observe that when people alter an existing system to meet new requirements, they tend to favor alterations that increase the number of system components as compared to alterations that reduce the number of system components.

The real world

The artificial Although additive bias is a real phenomenon,
in the real world, there are many possible
alternative explanations for asset bloatconditions of experiments leave little room for explanation of the results beyond the additive bias. I therefore have no doubt that it's a real effect. But in the conditions we find in the wild, there is an abundance of alternative explanations for the effects analogous to what we observe in the experiments that reveal an additive bias.

In the real world, we do observe a phenomenon we might call asset bloat — bloating of the assets that we subject to repeated incidents of maintenance or extension. And asset bloat could well be the result of additive bias. But are other explanations possible?

In what follows, I propose two possible phenomena that could lead to effects that would appear to be due to additive bias in a real-life situation, but which are unrelated to additive bias. Specifically, the situation is one in which a team has been tasked with extending the capabilities of a software system.

A capability extension scenario

The system in question is a portion of a familiar software product such as a word processor or spreadsheet application. The application has many commands, but in this scenario we are being asked to extend the capabilities of one class of these commands. We must do so in a way that avoids changing any existing capabilities. The task of the engineers is to add this capability to all commands that need it.

Two non-technical phenomena that can lead to asset bloat

Although additive bias can lead to asset bloat, other phenomena can do so as well. Let's begin with two effects that have roots in organizational politics.

As engineers go about their work of adding the new capability to the application, they have the usual technical concerns. The must identify what parts of the code need alteration, what parts need to be added, and what parts need to be removed. But in addition, there are nontechnical concerns that can be just as important, and which can affect the result in ways that can appear to be the result of additive bias. Here are examples of two such phenomena.

Rolling their own

When engineers identify an incumbent facility in the application that can provide support for what they're creating, they need not add to the system their own version of that facility. If they take that approach, they can save time and effort, and avoid adding components to the system. But they need assurance from the "owners" of that incumbent facility (a) that they can rely upon it and (b) that their intended use is and will be supported by the owners — that their use is consistent with the system architecture.

Sometimes, the owners do cooperate. They're willing to support this unintended use. But in other cases, the owners are unable to cooperate. They might have future plans that conflict with the use now being contemplated. The owners might not reject our engineers' request, because their plans aren't yet fully accepted by Governance, but they decline to support our engineers' request within the time window the engineers require. And so our engineers are compelled to "roll their own" version of what already exists. In this way, they build something that looks like the result of additive bias, but which is actually a result of unresolved political conflict.

Avoiding offense

In some cases, the new capability renders an incumbent capability unnecessary or duplicative. When this happens, responsible engineers would initiate a debate about the question of removing the incumbent capability. But if they know that advocates of the incumbent capability might take offense at such a debate, or if those advocates are politically powerful, the engineers are less likely to raise the issue.

The incumbent capability then remains in place. The end result might seem to be consistent with the result of an additive bias, but it is not. It's a result of politics.

Last words

Next time I'll examine two more mechanisms that can produce results consistent with additive bias. These mechanisms also appear to lead to asset bloat, but they actually arise from attempts to limit the total effort invested.   Next 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

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:

Scopemonging: When Scope Creep Is Intentional

Scope creep is the tendency of some projects to expand their goals. Usually, we think of scope creep as an unintended consequence of a series of well-intentioned choices. But sometimes, it's much more than that.

On the Appearance of Impropriety

Avoiding the appearance of impropriety is a frequent basis of business decisions. What does this mean, what are the consequences of such avoiding, and when is it an appropriate choice?

Stalking the Elephant in the Room: I

The expression "the elephant in the room" describes the thought that most of us are thinking, and none of us dare discuss. Usually, we believe that in avoidance lies personal safety. But free-ranging elephants present intolerable risks to both the organization and its people.

Durable Agreements

People at work often make agreements in which they commit to cooperate — to share resources, to assist each other, or not to harm each other. Some agreements work. Some don't. What makes agreements durable?

Three Levels of Deception at Work

Deception in workplace politics is probably less common than many believe. Still, being ensnared in a deception can be a costly and upsetting experience. A valuable skill is recognizing the three types of deceptions: strategic, operational, and tactical.

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