Top Tags

Disconfirming evidence

 

 One of my clients recently attended a course urging him to listen for and be attentive to “disconfirming information.” He was struck by that phrase, probably because the head of his organization operates at the other end of the continuum: she only wants to hear evidence that supports her current point of view.

I first learned about disconfirming evidence from Meg Wheatley, author of Leadership and the New Science, who talks about how living systems grow and change as a result of disequilibrium, not equilibrium. Think about it. When are you more likely to grow: when everything you encounter is just mirroring what you already know, like the woman my client reports to, or when something new and different drops into your world?

How we respond to being thrown off balance varies with how much is at risk. When we’ve got nothing to lose, ‘disequilibrium’ can be exciting and even entertaining [think suspenseful or scary movies or roller coasters]. When we’ve put our competence or reputation or worth as a human being on the line, then being off balance feels much more threatening.

When we ignore disconfirming information—information that’s not consistent with our “reality”—we deprive ourselves of important moments: flashes of insight, opportunities to learn, breath-taking aha’s that open us to a bigger reality. When we’re in leadership roles and ignore disconfirming evidence, we have the double risk of both becoming and being surrounded by head nodders. We don’t have to reach far to find organizations that collapsed as a result of executives who rejected disconfirming information—even ones that we all thought were “too big to fail” [see Andrew Sorkin’s book or the film version airing right now on HBO…].

Our capacity to adapt—to grow and evolve—comes from being open and receptive to whatever life’s throwing at us, whether we like it or not. And we can’t be open if our minds are locked in a set of beliefs or expectations that we never examine. How do we know when we’re staring at disconfirming evidence?

  • We feel surprised
  • We feel frustrated or angry
  • We feel compelled to explain or justify our position
  • We go for the messenger.

Surprise is an attention getter. What you got wasn’t what you expected. So the next time you’re surprised, notice whether you get curious and want to expand … or get scared and want to contract.

If you’re feeling frustrated or angry, then you also didn’t LIKE what you got. Something about it challenged something you value. So you can stay frustrated and angry, or you can say, “Wait a minute. What’s on the line for me here? What don’t I like about this? What’s at risk?”

If you find yourself trying to explain or justify yourself, or wanting to lynch the messenger, you’re on the defense. Yea, it doesn’t FEEL that way; it feels like other people don’t understand. Trust me. From their perspective, you sound defensive.

People only defend when something they value is under attack. So ask yourself, “What am I so deeply invested in here? What would I lose if I quit talking and started listening instead?”

Your answers might surprise you.