The Positivity Trap: When Project Decisions Get Sugarcoated

When we communicate decisions that need to be made on our projects, our stakeholders often hear something different than we intend. When we intend to signal that there are compromises that need to be made, our stakeholders often hear that they have choices.

How does this happen?

We have a deliverable in front of us, which is technically challenging. We’re pushing the envelope of what our technology can do. There are 3 different ways we can go and we need some guidance. The decision is framed up.

• Option A. Deliver the full scope, but in a way that will mean it takes about a month longer than planned.

• Option B. Deliver the full scope, but in a way that will mean it costs about 30% more than expected.

• Option C. Deliver a lesser scope, but it will fit into our original intent for timeline and budget.

The human brain is wired to focus on the positive. This is because positive emotions are associated with pleasure and reward, while negative emotions are associated with pain and danger. As a result, we are more likely to remember and focus on positive experiences, as they are more likely to lead to positive outcomes.

The time and cost compromise barely registers. The stakeholders hear “choices”.

This phenomenon is known as the positivity bias

The positivity bias is the tendency to focus on the positive aspects of life, while downplaying the negative aspects. This bias is thought to be adaptive, as it helps us to maintain a positive outlook and avoid dwelling on negative experiences.

There are a number of psychological studies that have explored the positivity bias. One study, for example, found that people are more likely to remember positive words than negative words. Another study found that people are more likely to rate positive events as more likely to occur than negative events.

The positivity bias, particularly in key project decisions, can have negative consequences. It can lead us to underestimate the risks of negative events. It can also lead us to make poor decisions, by ignoring the negative aspects of a situation.

Deliberately interrupt the bias

In order to get the negative fully considered, there is a need to interrupt the bias. To do this, when presenting any key decisions that have compromises.

• Start with the presentation of the negative

• Be explicit about what the negative consequence will be

• Put metrics to it, to make it seem more real (to disrupt the bias)

• Then present the positives

Tell them what they’re not going to get, before you tell them what you are going to get.

If we were to re-write Option A, we might now say “Option A will mean the project will finish a minimum of one month later than required. Rather than delivering in August, the earliest we will be able to deliver is September. Adding more resources or costs will not change this. Option A will mean we deliver late. Option A does deliver the full scope of the requirement.”

Try it the next time you have a compromise decision to make. Start with a clear description of what is not being delivered, before you talk about what is.