At SWOOP Analytics we pride ourselves on identifying evidence on the need to make behavioural changes in the way we interact with each other. But is evidence enough to influence change? 

Apparently not, according to organisational psychologist Adam Grant. We need to look no further than arguments on climate change and vaccinations to appreciate not all “evidence” is equal in the eyes of the beholder. According to Grant, when arguments are preached with passion and conviction we create a “binary bias” of strongly polarised believers and non-believers. While we might not compare digital collaboration habits with issues like vaccination or climate change, the desired outcome is the same; a change in behaviour is needed. 

Have we reached a “peak influencer” point? 

Have you noticed an increase in “binary bias”? Climate change proponents and deniers, COVID-19 vaxxers and anti-vaxxers, Democrats and Republicans etc.. The internet has provided us with a proliferation of arguments and “evidence” for both sides of the arguments. Do you find yourself taking one side and only listening to the evidence that supports your stance? This is called confirmation bias. In order to avoid confirmation bias you need to be able to think like a scientist, applying equal and objective attention to all available evidence. The problem is that when the evidence comes via the internet, with all shades of truthful and fake news, the task quickly becomes overwhelming. It’s easier to go with what you believe and ignore potential counter-evidence.  

Are we getting to the point when even well researched and argued positions, made by highly credentialed individuals are presented, there will still be a significant proportion of the audience that will remained unconvinced? This is certainly what it appears like in the case of both climate change and COVID-19 vaccinations. Better arguments, more evidence, more credentialed proponents no longer appear the answer. Perhaps we have gone past the point where rational augments and evidence can hold sway? 

The power of “grey” 

The field of behavioural economics was founded on the premise that economics is not really rational. Herbert Simon’s concepts of “Bounded Rationality”, Kahneman and Tversky’s Prospect Theory of human biases and the Thaler and Sunstein Nudge theory all point to humans not acting in rational ways. We should, therefore, not be surprised when our carefully crafted and evidenced cases for change are less successful than we’d hoped for. But inevitably we are surprised and often disappointed. How could it be that global warming can be doubted? How can it be that so many smart people refuse to get vaccinated against COVID-19? 

In Grant’s latest book “Think Again: The Power of Knowing What You Don’t Know”, Grant urges us to act like a scientist, when presenting a case for change. Scientists will create hypotheses, collect evidence to test these hypotheses, and importantly, be transparent about the limitations of their studies, identifying caveats to the tentative conclusions made. Grant suggests that when a claim is made that does not align with your own beliefs, we are inclined to ignore it. However, if the claim is made along with the “shades of grey” that exist, we are more inclined to be less polarised in our judgments and open to further discussion. This openness is the signal for a potential for real behavioural change. 

Grant is both an academic and consultant, and openly admits to regretting the way he’s written for public forums, without adequately exposing his studies’ limitations and/or caveats. With good reason though, it risks confusing his audience. Grant is not alone. It’s fair to say that virtually anyone who has written for a business publication, blog or website is guilty of the same. If you take the time to research your favourite academic contributors to the Harvard Business Review, MIT Sloan Review, Forbes etc. and then look for the academic publications behind them, you will find a much more humble and cautionary tone. This is the power of academia. Promote an argument without sufficient evidence, method or logic; be prepared to be shot down. The downside is such papers are generally unintelligible to the general public. Grant, however, perseveres, citing research that science reports included caveats succeeded in capturing the readers’ interest, and keeping their minds open. In other words, invoking “the power of grey”. 

Well, here it goes – adding grey to the black & white 

I’m a self-confessed researcher that suffers from confirmation bias. I have worked in commercial research laboratories and spent many years as a management consultant. My current role at SWOOP Analytics blends the two. Other than for the time I spent completing my PhD, I haven’t spent a lot of time or energy trying to prove my hypotheses wrong. So it’s a big thing for me to take arguments I have recently made on a blog post on the (bad)  digital working habits, I called the “7 deadly sins”,  and actively look for strong arguments and evidence to the contrary. The arguments are presented here without judgment. 

A new “complexified” view of the 7 deadly sins for digital work habits 

I have to admit to learning about potential barriers to change that I wasn’t even aware of. This has allowed me to provide this more nuanced view of the 7 deadly sins of digital working: 

Well there it is; a more complexified and nuanced response to the 7 deadly digital working sins. How did I go?