Inconvenient Metrics – Part 1 – The 5 Psychological Coping Mechanisms

In a Lean-Agile environment, we're continuously trying to improve the product development and delivery processes, and, to that end, as William Edwards Deming once famously quipped:

"Without data, you're just another person with an opinion."

So, one might imagine that most fair-minded people would be only too happy to inform their judgement by means of empirical evidence (especially since Lean-Agile provides us with so much of it!). But, in truth, when sub-par statistics, metrics or KPIs are presented to an uninitiated audience, the resulting levels of 'Cognitive Dissonance' and 'Mental Gymnastics' can sometimes be quite surprising!

In my experience - ignoring complete 'non-sequiturs' - there is usually a retort which takes the form of 1 of  5 Psychological 'Coping Mechanisms':

1. A claim of Inaccuracy
2. A claim of Unrepresentativeness.
3. A claim of External fault.
4. A claim of Irrelevance.
5. Or a claim of Sheer hopelessness.

Tactic #1 – The flat denial – "That's wrong!"

The recipient attempts to dismiss the report by disputing the style of presentation and accuracy of the data, or the skill, knowledge, understanding – or even the character – of the assessor/presenter.

Tactic #2 – Rejection – "We're not normally like that!"

The recipient accepts the accuracy of the data but then explains away the results as unrepresentative of the norm (i.e. it's a freakish result that can be safely ignored, since it won't ever happen again).

Tactic #3 – Projection – "It's not our fault!"

A stalling technique. The recipient accepts the accuracy and the representativeness of the data but then projects the blame onto some external '3rd Party' (who, rather conveniently, isn't there to defend themselves).

Tactic #4 – Diminution – "Who cares?"

The recipient accepts the accuracy, the representativeness, and their part in the results, but then simply suggest that the results are irrelevant to the Business' overall well-being (i.e. that there are more pressing matters to attend to).

Tactic #5 – Learned helplessness – "It's nobody's fault!"

The recipient accepts the accuracy, the representativeness, and their part in these relevant results, but externalises the blame by rationalising that the situation was totally impossible (i.e. there were extenuating circumstances).

Why do people do this?

Look no further than Einstein’s definition of Common Sense:

“The collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.”

We all have our little biases, and those learned long ago are harder to shift. So, I think this avoidance of accountability has a lot to do with what Psychologists call "Cognitive Bias" and "Loss Aversion."

These little, behavioural shortcuts save us time and energy, helping us to comprehend the world and navigate our way through it. So, when confronted with evidence that our existing Mental Model can't explain, our Mind steps in to protect us...

But there's also our "Loss Aversion"!

Realising the implications of a challenging piece of information, a Team or Manager fully invested in their existing approach (especially one of their own making) might feel not only that they are going to lose 'their baby' but with it their perceived levels of competence, good judgement, esteem, self-importance and social standing!

Instinctively, then, it feels safer to resist the new information which caused the change, fear and upset. Furthermore, since staying the same requires no extra effort, it also feels more efficient. And since nothing new need be learned, we can kid ourselves that we're already smarter, more efficient and better-informed than the situation requires.

So, what can be done?

Rather than apportioning blame, Lean-Agile is all about Continuous Improvement ('Kaizen') - lots and lots of tiny, little, good changes.

Join me in Part 2, and I'll attempt to share with you some more of my insight and, I hope, some helpful, little techniques...