Last month in this space, Harvard’s “happiness” expert sparked a reflection on complementary “pillars” of faith, family, friends and work that support deeper human connection in our lives. I was encouraged by its potential to spur truer alignment of one’s personal values with expectations of the job.
This same interplay of attitudes and responsibilities at home, school, workplace and marketplace is playing out in the closing weeks of my online course on “behavioral” ethics at work. Students are warming to their agency, their potential to diminish, if not overcome, disharmony in group effort.
Granted, educators meet impatience with too much theory. Students reasonably anticipate practical, proven steps to put their learning into action. Who would knowingly prefer more awkward cycles of shortsighted, simplistic, counterproductive behavior over efficacy?
Surely, “walking the talk” is a worthy aim, necessary to become the best version of ourselves — perhaps that of a servant leader?
In my teaching, writing and fellowship, I often look to Richard Rohr, a deep-thinking Franciscan friar prone to meditation, and Brian McLaren, former evangelical pastor who considers himself a “public theologian.” Both are gifted counselors and prolific authors, mainstays of the multi-faith Center for Action and Contemplation in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
In recent subscriber links, Rohr and McLaren address hidden biases — mental shortcuts that filter reality, shape worldview and drive our behavior without our deliberate consent. Such “unconscious” leanings, while not necessarily malicious, nonetheless impede rational thinking. For example:
• Confirmation bias, favoring evidence that supports what we already believe and devaluing information from dissenting or “untrustworthy” sources.
• Confidence and complexity biases, favoring the bold lie confidently expressed over the hesitant truth — preferring a “simple falsehood” to a complex truth.”
They wish to awaken searchers to the depth of their “blind spots” in pursuit of a more exciting and “truthful” image of self, of God, and of the world.
In the secular world, philosophers (and college professors) warn of a parallel danger: logical fallacies. These are the flawed arguments to defend those filtered views, the rhetorical shortcuts to justify our positions. A couple may be familiar:
• The straw man fallacy, which misrepresents an opponent’s view to make it easier to attack or dismiss … a tactic to win by deception.
• The false dichotomy fallacy which reduces a complex issue to two stark choices … a further obstacle to collaboration.
Taken together, biases and fallacies become parallel lens that distort clarity. Leaders who do not recognize them risk mistaking partial truths for whole. They confuse popularity for wisdom, uncertainty for understanding.
Consider the pairing of confirmation bias and the straw man fallacy. A leader convinced of a particular strategy may unconsciously look for only the data that supports it. When challenged, he or she might caricature the opposing view as extreme or naïve.
Absent any serious engagement, the group is left with a decision made in an echo chamber, defended by rhetoric rather than reality.
Ponder for a moment the “confidence” and “complexity” logical fallacies in tandem. Within organizations, consensus comforts. If “everyone” in the room agrees, it must be right! And yet, must popularity necessarily equal truth? A project leader who equates majority opinion with wisdom may well miss critical insight left unexpressed for want of encouragement.
These and similar distortions play out in studied reflection of one’s personal as well as observed experience. A recent class discussion on how we “rationalize” questionable decision making was rich with nuance and self-discovery. It was backstopped by an excellent video series on behavioral ethics developed by the McCombs School of Business, University of Texas at Austin.
Can leaders at every level do more to banish biases, fallacies, inconvenient memories and long held beliefs in themselves and those given to their stewardship? Perhaps. However, a better challenge may be to recognize our blind spots and ask: Am I seeing clearly or am I trapped in a shortcut?
Rohr and McLaren frame such effort as spiritual discipline: humility in the face of complexity. My colleagues in philosophy would likely home in on the intellectual rigor of one’s logic. Ask your friendly AI robot and you may find both perspectives converging on the same truth:
“People can’t see what they can’t see.” Clarity calls for self-awareness.
For me, providing space for nuance, dissent and deeper understanding is paramount. Naming and unpacking biases and fallacies that cloud our vision and impair productive interaction with key stakeholders opens the door to wiser decisions.
Cartier has enjoyed a 55-year career in journalism, educational advancement, and teaching. Still short of “real” retirement, he values opportunities to explore ethical leadership and personal behavior that underlie success at home, in school, and at work.
Hence then, the article about opinion lou cartier overcoming blind spots at work was published today ( ) and is available on GreeleyTribune ( Saudi Arabia ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( (Opinion) Lou Cartier: Overcoming blind spots at work )
Also on site :
- The End of FaZe Clan? Mass Creator Exodus Rocks Legendary Org
- The hypocritical NFL really doesn’t care about its viewers — even on the holidays
- PUBG Mobile 4.2 Update Release Date And Weapon Balance Changes