Avoid the “post hoc fallacy” of your daily work life
There was once a wise man named Nasreddin, who had a wicked sense of humor. One day, he was observed in his garden sprinkling bread crumbs. A servant asked him what he was doing. He replied, “I am sprinkling bread crumbs to keep the tigers away.” The servant replied, “But there are no tigers within 1000 miles!” Nasreddin smiled and said, “See? It is working!”
Nasreddin was poking fun at our propensity to believe the results which follow our actions are caused by our actions. This is called a “post hoc fallacy” which comes from the Latin phrase post hoc ergo propter hoc, meaning “after this, therefore because of this.” From an evolutionary biology perspective, this thinking makes a lot of sense. Maybe, millions of years ago, an ancestor of yours thought, “If I wander off from my tribe, the thing with the big teeth will sneak up on me and eat me just like it did my cousin the other day.” So the maxim, “don’t wander off from the tribe or bad things will happen” stuck, and your ancestor’s genes continued to be viable and propagate (but not his cousin’s).
Sometimes we do this in the opposite way. David McRaney in his very good book “You Are Now Less Dumb,” describes how we used to dance before planting and if we got a good crop, we thought our dance pleased the gods. We believed the dance caused the good harvest. (I’m hoping you’re with me that it didn’t.)
How does this show up at work? We have an amazing ability to persuade ourselves things are different from what they really are in an effort to get along with others. We juggle, manipulate, arrange and cajole, believing our efforts cause others to behave in a certain way. Maybe sometimes they even do. But sometimes they don’t and then we react as though the other person has violated some kind of contract with us — because we believe we’d had a pact: “I do this, then you do that.” But there never was a pact. There was only the post hoc fallacy.
For example, two employees from different racial backgrounds believe they are engaging in behavior to promote camaraderie and teamwork. The resultant working environment appears peaceful on the surface. They believe their own behaviors have contributed to the peace. Yet, both perceive the other as engaging in socially awkward behavior but they put up with it, not realizing they are both perceiving the same thing due to misunderstandings about each other. In fact, the workplace peace is due to everyone privately and silently forgiving the transgressions of the other, not because they are behaving in a way that promotes teamwork and creativity.
This is, by the way, one of the wonderful things about us and one which we continually underestimate: our willingness to proffer goodwill to others in a work group for the sake of the team. It takes a bit of work to undermine that goodwill — like killing a plant. It’s actually hard to kill a plant because plants want to live. You have to actively work at it. The same is true of a work group. People want to do a good job and be successful. People usually understand the work group as a whole needs to do well for that to happen.
The way we discover there isn’t peace in the work group is when something stressful or beyond the boundaries of what has come to be acceptable occurs — then someone reaches a tipping point and cries foul. Then management has to respond. Quite often, the response is amazement that the person is turning against the group after all that has been done “for” him or her. After all, we’ve been sprinkling bread crumbs, so how come there’s a tiger in our midst?
There are two things going on here. First, those for whom the environment has been working well are nonplussed — because the work environment works for them. They simply don’t understand that it doesn’t work for others. This is not intentional behavior on their part, they just don’t understand.
Second, those for whom the environment has not been working haven’t been speaking up authentically and saying so. Why not? Lots of reasons, including that there might not be a culture of authentic communication. Authentic communication means we can disagree or suggest an alternate view openly — with tact, kindness and trust — but fail to agree with another nonetheless. Obviously, this has to start at the top. No one is going to speak up authentically if their boss’s ability to hear dissenting views is fragile. (Another example of a post hoc fallacy: “One time I spoke up and she snapped at me. I’ll never do that again because speaking up made her snap at me” — even if it was only a one time thing or a bad day.)
Even if the boss isn’t fragile in this way, no one is going to speak up if they don’t have the skills to do so. The skills for authentic communication are surprisingly simple.
First, understand whatever you are thinking about the other person and yourself is probably not true. William James once said, “Whenever two people meet there are really six present. There is each man as he sees himself, each as the other sees him and each man as he really is.” Despite the fact this quote assumes all people are men, it is true with respect to all of us. We never see ourselves exactly like we are and neither do others. So, hold your views with humility, flexibility and a little humor — not rigidity.
Second, take this understanding into your body. By this I mean, relax and breathe. People get very worried and anxious about the smallest of confrontations, causing them to embody rigidity and forget to breathe. Then, the other person perceives the tense body posture and subconsciously reads “aggression.” I am constantly reminding people to breathe in mediations. Breathing relaxes your body and sends a message that there is no immediate reason to be anxious.
Third, approach the other as though there were trust between you and simply say what is true for you on a basic factual or data level (not grand overarching conclusions). For example, “I noticed when I disagreed with you today that it might have distressed you. Did I get that right?”
Fourth, let go of trying to control the other person’s reaction. That’s up to them, not you. You can only do your best (meaning using tact and kindness in your communication) and be authentic.
We make many maneuvers in the workplace that really have no effect at all on making things go right simply because we’re so worried about direct, authentic communication. But it’s the only thing that really works. Instead of sprinkling breadcrumbs, question if breadcrumbs are what is needed!
JAN