Need to feel important: Cognitive Biases and the Sense of Significance in Workplace Engagement

When we strongly believe that our actions matter and can create meaningful change, we're motivated to act.

This mindset is especially relevant in the workplace, where our decisions can shape the success of our organizations. How we perceive our own importance and impact influences our decision-making. This need for personal significance can lead to various cognitive biases that have detrimental effects. Rushing into decisions without considering alternative perspectives, overlooking crucial information, and relying on our own biases are some examples. These biases can result in poor outcomes, such as ineffective strategies, damaged relationships, or missed opportunities. It's important to balance our sense of importance with critical thinking to make well-informed decisions and avoid the pitfalls of cognitive biases.

Let's explore some examples of cognitive biases in the work environment that stem from our need to feel that what we do matters, that we are significant, and have the power to make an impact.

• Effort justification: A tendency to assign greater value to a task or goal that required significant effort to achieve. In the marketing field, professionals may overemphasize the effectiveness of a marketing campaign they worked hard on, even if the actual results are not as remarkable.

• Social desirability bias: Responding in a manner that is socially acceptable or perceived favourably by others. For instance, in a project update meeting, a manager may feel the urge to present a more positive picture: inflate progress, downplay challenges or overlook potential risks. This inclination stems from the desire to please stakeholders and maintain a positive image.

• Egocentric bias: An inclination to rely heavily on one's own perspective and experiences when interpreting or recalling information. In the IT industry, when discussing a technical issue, a programmer may assume that everyone involved possesses the same level of technical knowledge and may struggle to explain the problem in simpler terms for non-technical colleagues.

• Barnum-Forer effect: A tendency to accept vague or general statements as accurate descriptions of ourselves, even though they could apply to almost anyone. In the field of HR, during performance evaluations, employees may find themselves agreeing with generic feedback like "you have great potential for growth" without realizing it lacks specific details that could help them improve.

• Lake Wobegon effect: A bias for individuals to overestimate their own abilities or performance in relation to others. In the field of accounting, an accountant may believe they are the most efficient and accurate employee in the department, assuming that their work is consistently better than their colleagues', despite the lack of objective evidence to support this belief.

• Self-serving bias: An inclination to attribute personal successes to internal factors, such as abilities or efforts, while attributing failures to external factors. In the accounting field, if an accountant discovers an error in their own work, they may blame it on a lack of clear instructions from a supervisor rather than admitting their own oversight.

• Optimism bias: Optimism bias refers to the tendency for individuals to underestimate the likelihood of negative events happening to them and overestimate the likelihood of positive events. In the finance industry, traders may display optimism bias by focusing excessively on the potential profitability of a new investment, overlooking potential risks or market volatility that could affect its success. This bias can lead to overconfidence and a failure to adequately consider potential downsides, ultimately impacting decision-making and risk management.

• The hard-easy effect: A bias where individuals tend to overestimate their likelihood of success in complex tasks and underestimate it in easy tasks. For example, in a work environment, a marketing team may exhibit overconfidence when dealing with a complex campaign, but underconfidence when assigned a simple task like creating a social media post.

Having distorted thinking regarding our own significance can lead to negative consequences. These biases gradually undermine trust, collaboration, and team cohesion. Decision-making becomes compromised, resulting in missed deadlines and subpar project outcomes. It is of utmost importance for employees to acknowledge and confront these biases. By doing so, they can cultivate a healthier work environment, enhance communication, and elevate the likelihood of successful project delivery.

Read more and explore captivating real-life anecdotes that vividly illustrate how these biases come to life and influence our actions and judgments in the work environment.

Meet Alex, a senior project manager in a corporate IT department. Alex possesses a blend of cognitive biases that unknowingly impact his team's dynamics and project success. Let's delve into a specific situation where these biases play out.

In a high-stakes project involving the implementation of a complex software system, Alex exhibits the tendency to heavily rely on his technical expertise and assumes that everyone on the team possesses the same level of knowledge (Egocentric bias). This bias hampers effective communication, as Alex struggles to simplify complex technical concepts for his non-technical colleagues. As a result, team members may feel left out of important discussions and experience difficulties understanding their roles in the project. Misunderstandings and a lack of collaboration ensue, hindering the project's progress. Compounding the issue, Alex also overestimates his own abilities and efficiency compared to his team members (Lake Wobegon effect). Believing that his work surpasses his colleagues', he fails to recognize their valuable contributions and diminishes the spirit of teamwork and camaraderie.This attitude creates an environment of resentment and demotivation among team members, leading to decreased collaboration, knowledge sharing, and overall project synergy. Furthermore, Alex displays overconfidence when dealing with the complex aspects of the project but underconfidence when assigned seemingly simple tasks (Hard-easy effect). When faced with complex challenges, Alex may make rushed decisions or overlook critical details due to his overconfidence. On the other hand, when assigned simpler tasks, his underconfidence may lead to a lack of motivation or a tendency to delegate them to others, causing delays in project milestones. Additionally, Alex attributes his successes to his own abilities and efforts while blaming external factors, such as unclear instructions, for any errors or setbacks (Self-serving bias).

Instead of learning from mistakes or seeking areas of improvement, Alex may repeat similar errors and fail to address underlying issues. This lack of accountability can result in a stagnant work environment and a negative impact on the project's progress. As the project progresses, Alex's biases fuel the tendency to provide responses and feedback he believes others want to hear, potentially inflating progress reports or overlooking critical issues during status updates (Social Desirability bias). This bias obstructs open and honest communication, preventing the team from proactively addressing challenges. During a team meeting, when discussing individual strengths and weaknesses, Alex readily agrees with generic feedback like "you have great potential for growth," without realizing its lack of specificity (Barnum-Forer effect). This bias clouds Alex's perception of personalized feedback and prevents him from identifying areas of improvement. Moreover, Alex remains overly optimistic about the project's success, overlooking potential pitfalls and not adequately planning for contingencies (Optimism bias). This bias blinds him to potential risks and impacts the project's overall risk management strategy. Without considering potential challenges or developing backup plans, the project becomes vulnerable to unexpected obstacles, leading to delays, increased costs, or even failure to meet project objectives.

Additionally, after implementing advanced risk management tools, Alex becomes more willing to take higher risks, assuming the tools will protect him from significant losses (Risk compensation). This behavior can lead to undue risk-taking and potential negative consequences for the project. In an effort to justify the time and effort spent on a particular feature, Alex may overestimate its impact and prioritize it over other essential project aspects (Effort justification). This bias skews resource allocation and can lead to inefficiencies in project management.

As the project progresses, these biases continue to impact Alex's decision-making and behavior, hindering effective communication, proper risk management, and resource allocation.