additional content
pure logic underlying it, but not both.
It is often a cognitive distortion to
split reason from emotion; the most
effective, long-lasting decisions bring
together the two types of validity.
Messages with the cognitive distortion
called “emotional reasoning” suggest
that if you and your colleagues have
the sensation that something is true, it
must be true. We feel good about this;
therefore, we expect no problems. Or,
conversely, It doesn’t feel right; there
is a problem here. When you base the
logic of a decision on how it makes you
and your colleagues feel, you may be
led astray. This pattern often affects
deals, because people tend to evaluate
investments with their emotional
impression of past transactions. We
were stung by our last deal in this
region. Never again.
Emotional reasoning often leads to self-
fulfilling prophecies. For example, if your
company is acquired, you may recall a
similar experience from the past. This
is just what happened when that other
company laid me off. Whether or not
you are actually marked for dismissal
this time, you feel the same mistrust,
fear, and lack of commitment that you
would feel if you were. Naturally, you
are self-conscious, stiff, and resentful,
thereby making leaders more likely to
ask you to depart.
The flip side of emotional reasoning
is rigid rationalism: We came to this
decision logically, so there will be
no disagreement with it. This is the
misperception underlying the “economic
rationalism fallacy,” or the idea that
a rationally defensible outcome will
automatically be persuasive. Everyone
supports this downsizing because they
have heard the rationale; they know
it will make us a higher-performance
company. The layoffs may be necessary
and justified, but they will not
necessarily spark the emotions you think
92
world monitor
executive function, broader aspirations,
and greater long-term awareness.
(See “The Neuroscience of Strategic
Leadership,” by Jeffrey Schwartz,
Josie Thomson, and Art Kleiner, s+b,
December 5, 2016.)
they will, any more than people have
proven to be purely rational actors in
economic situations.
Relabeling Deceptive
Messages
The first step in dealing with deceptive
organizational messages — or deceptive
messages of any sort — is to recognize
them for what they are. We call this step
relabeling rather than labeling because
deceptive organizational messages
already have an implicit label: “the way
things are.” As a business leader, you
raise collective awareness of them,
under the new label of artifacts. These
messages are not reality. They don’t
represent us. They are simply things we
tell ourselves, and the more clearly we
see them as such, the more capable we
are of changing them.
The simple act of relabeling may not
seem like much in itself, but it is, in fact,
one of the most powerful things you
can do as a leader. By abandoning the
automatic assumption that deceptive
messages are accurate, you assert
the agency of the mind. This helps you
and others in your organization detach
from the automatic churn of messages
supporting expedience and short-term
solutions, and move closer to more
Inquiry, not preachiness, is the key to
effective relabeling. Don’t say, “This
message is wrong,” or, “Why do we even
believe this?” Instead, engage in open-
ended inquiry, for example, “How did
this message become part of our way
of life? What problem were we trying
to solve?” If no one has questioned the
concept, the strategy, or the approach
in years, simply asking questions like
this will make it clear that these are not
unchangeable precepts. They’re ideas
and practices that were adopted in the
past, and that can be reconsidered, once
they are recognized for what they are.
Reframing the Message
Keith Bailey’s turnaround of Transpacific
Industries went beyond raising
awareness of existing deceptive
messages. It also involved reframing,
that is, replacing the old messages with
a new conception of the company’s
potential value.
Late in 2011, on the second day of his
assignment, Bailey brought together
the top 14 managers of his division.
Seven were in a conference room, and
the other seven dialed in from far-flung
cities. He summarized his thinking on a
mind-map document, a single schematic
page laying out all elements of the
turnaround strategy in graphic form.
The map was simple and clear enough
to be shared with everyone in the
company, from the senior-most levels
to the factory staff. It provided the
context for a new narrative: Yes, these
problems are serious, but we are
capable of fixing them ourselves, if we
overcome our internal difficulties and
change our practices. During the next