13 cognitive traps in change management: the art of changing clearly

I’m not sure many books have changed my life, but the works of Rolf Dobelli are ones I return to again and again. I love the author’s unapologetically dispassionate, logical style; his deconstruction of the folly of voluntary work is something to behold.

Dobelli’s excellent The Art of Thinking Clearly lists 99 thinking errors that disrupt or derail our work and lives. My latest rereading led me to think about how such fallacious thinking can sabotage our best efforts at managing change.

Any one of the 99 cognitive traps could snap shut on the wary change manager, but I’ve pulled out a baker’s dozen for consideration here.

1. Survivorship Bias

History is written by the winners. Survivorship Bias lures managers into overvaluing the success stories of companies that thrived through change, neglecting those that failed. For every Branson, Musk or Xin, there are thousands of others who followed similar strategies and failed.

This bias can skew perception, making success appear more attainable than it is. In change management, it’s crucial to examine both successes and failures to obtain a balanced view of the strategies that genuinely contribute to effective change.

2. Swimmer’s Body Illusion

We mistakenly believe that if we take up swimming, we will develop a body shape to rival Ledecky, Phelps or Spitz. The reality is the best swimmers naturally have the body shape that helps to make them ideally suited to the sport.

The illusion leads to mistaking correlation for causation, assuming that adopting the practices of successful companies will guarantee success. Change management requires a deeper analysis to identify which practices are effective and how they can be adapted to fit the unique context of your organisation.

3. Confirmation Bias

Perhaps one of the most widely known cognitive errors, Confirmation Bias is the tendency to seek out information that confirms our preconceived notions, ignoring evidence to the contrary. I see examples of confirmation bias everywhere I look…

In change initiatives, this bias can cause managers to overlook critical data that challenges their plans, leading to flawed decision-making. It’s essential to actively seek out dissenting opinions and contradictory evidence to ensure a well-rounded approach to change.

Devil’s Advocates may be a pain, but they are a necessary evil.

4. Authority Bias

People are remarkably compliant if the person who is telling them what to do wears a white coat.

Authority Bias can unduly influence change initiatives, with decisions overly swayed by senior leaders or (yes) external consultants. While respect for authority is natural, successful change management involves valuing input from all levels, ensuring a diversity of perspectives is considered. Indeed, it is positively dangerous to have senior leaders with little or no ‘coal face’ experience making decisions affecting changes to operational processes.

5, Loss Aversion

As a rough guide, we are twice as motivated by the fear of loss than the potential for gain. That is, the possibility of losing £200 is as motivating as the possibility of gaining £100.

In the context of organisational change, loss aversion results in resistance from employees apprehensive about what they might lose during the change. Addressing these concerns openly and empathetically is crucial for overcoming resistance and fostering a positive attitude towards change.

Demonstrating the benefits of change will help; especially if they are twice as powerful as the potential loss.

6. Outcome Bias

Assessing the quality of a decision based solely on its outcome can lead to misjudgement. Successful outcomes can undeservedly validate all decisions made during a change initiative, while failures can unjustly discredit them.

Successful projects will always have points of failure in them, just as failed projects will include many moments of success.

As Alan Partridge famously put it,

“People forget that on the Titanic’s maiden voyage, there were over 1000 miles of uneventful, very pleasurable cruising before it hit the iceberg.”

Analysing the decision-making process itself, regardless of outcome, is key to learning and improvement in change management.

7. Overconfidence Effect

Overconfidence in predicting and managing change can result in unrealistic expectations.

Donald Rumsfeld’s description of ‘unknown unknowns’ is a lesson to all change managers. Acknowledging the inherent uncertainties in change initiatives and preparing for various outcomes can help mitigate this bias.

8. Bandwagon Effect

If everyone around us does something, we naturally assume it’s the right thing to do. That instinct helped keep our ancestors alive, but it can lead to thinking errors in the modern world.

The Bandwagon Effect can stifle innovation and critical thinking as individuals adopt beliefs or behaviours because many others do the same. Encouraging questioning and critical evaluation of prevailing trends is essential to foster innovation in change management.

9. Neglect of Probability

It is astonishing how ignorant we can be of statistical probability, often wildly under or overestimating the likelihood of events and completely ignoring the possibility of others.

An optimistic approach might cause change leaders to plan based on the best-case scenario, ignoring the real probability of less favourable outcomes. A pessimistic view, on the other hand, can lead to overpreparation for unlikely worst-case scenarios, diverting resources that could be used more effectively elsewhere. See Bristol City Council’s contingency plan for surviving a zombie apocalypse. 

Ignoring the probability of various outcomes can lead to poor decision-making. Effective change management requires a careful assessment of the likelihood of different scenarios and planning accordingly.

10. Contrast Effect

This effect occurs when the perception of an option is influenced by its comparison with others when presented sequentially.

For instance, a company is evaluating two new platforms to support its digital transformation efforts. If the first platform presented is significantly cheaper but less feature-rich than the second, stakeholders might view the second, more expensive option as overly extravagant, regardless of its potential to deliver greater long-term value.

Conversely, if the more feature-rich platform is presented first, the cheaper option might then seem inadequately equipped by comparison, even if it meets the company’s needs at a better cost.

Presenting options simultaneously can help ensure a more objective evaluation in change initiatives.

11. Anchoring Effect

The Contrast Effect’s close cousin is the anchoring effect.

The first piece of information provided tends to disproportionately influence decision-making. Once an anchor is set, subsequent judgments are made by adjusting away from that anchor rather than radically rethinking.

For example, if the first proposal for a change project budget is significantly high, any subsequent budgets might be judged as reasonable or cheap by comparison, even if they are still way above the average cost.

In change management, ensuring that all options are considered equally, without undue weight to the first presented, can help avoid this bias.

12. Availability Heuristic

Heuristics – decision-making shortcuts – are essential in business and life, but like many shortcuts, used in the wrong way, they can result in you getting lost.

Decisions based on the most readily available information rather than a comprehensive analysis lead to skewed outcomes. Ensuring that decision-making in change management is informed by a full spectrum of relevant data is crucial for accuracy.

Note, however, that Dobelli also makes the point that gathering too much information can overwhelm the decision-maker and result in a myriad of other problems. In the end it’s about balance.

13. Fallacy of the Single Cause

Attributing the success or failure of change initiatives to a single factor simplifies the complex reality of organisational change.

Acknowledging that multiple factors, both internal and external (and including luck), contribute to the outcomes of change efforts is vital for a nuanced understanding and effective strategy formulation.