While the macro “industry trends” are all towards Big Data and Intelligent Systems as the force multipliers that will drive the greatest growth over the next decade, it's actually the Human side of the equation that many of us struggle most greatly to reconcile in business and in life. One of the most basic areas of struggle is in the realm of Biases.
While there are literally dozens of types of Biases, the one that I want to focus on in this post is a False Dichotomy. (In a later post, I will talk a bit about its sibling bias, the False Equivalency.)
False Dichotomies manifest when (biased) analysis and decision-making yields black and white conclusions on topics that have clear dynamism or nuance.
Consider a topic such as product segmentation; namely, how much functionality to add to service what specific outcomes, and what types of users relative to market needs, at what pricing and support level.
The above example might reasonably support dozens of different narratives around what the right solution buckets are for the various addressable segments of the market.
But, specifically because such analysis can yield different assessments, it’s ripe for biases – good and bad – to shape the discussion.
When the internal back and forth falls into an all-or-none dialog, such as “We can either be a client focused company, or a money focused company,” that is a false dichotomy at work.
So how do you counter a false dichotomy? Three principal ways are through effective countering, introspection and teaching.
Effective countering in the above example might lead to a discussion of the different types of users being served, and what their needs and constraints are.
Sometimes, more isn’t better. It might add complexity, it might impact speed, it might lose 90% of the target users, who don’t want a Swiss army knife solution, and just need one or two really specific, highly optimized capabilities.
Introspection might treat the topic as an opportunity to surface externalities that drive the biases. “Josh, do you think we have a culture of placing dollars above the need of clients? Is there a specific decision we’ve made in the past few months that you think is reflective of compromised values?”
The point here is two-fold. One, light is the best antiseptic when it comes to getting to the right outcome and surfacing the sub-narratives that trigger such biases.
Two, is that getting to specificity is the best way to get past black and white narratives.
Related to this is the notion of teaching. When I find myself getting sucked into a false dichotomy with a co-worker or a personal relationship, I specifically call it out as a false dichotomy, explain what a false dichotomy is, point out the gradations of analysis, and shine a light on this as a point of emphasis with the individual until the topic is internalized.
Always be teaching, as making people better is the ultimate force multiplier, but that’s a post for another day.
