Andrea May has identified ten cognitive biases and we have considered the first six: Confirmation, Anchoring, Curse of Knowledge, the Dunning-Kruger Effect, Functional Fixation, and Mere Exposure Effect in previous articles.

We will now look at the next two cognitive biases and discuss how we can counteract their effect through our training design and delivery. Bias titles and descriptions are from Ms. May. The comment is mine.

1. Bias of Not Invented Here: The tendency to discard information, ideas, standards or products developed outside of a certain group.

I have encountered this bias with respect to case studies. It’s always best to have case studies that are as realistic and true to the industry as possible. This will allow participants to get the most benefit from your assessment and findings.

However, if you draw case studies from real situations that some of the participants may be familiar with (or may even have been involved with), they will spend so much time explaining the situation that the group will rarely come to an assessment. Or worse yet, they will automatically refer to how the situation was actually handled, instead of objectively assessing the situation and coming up with creative solutions, which is why you chose to use the case study activity in the first place.

Selecting case studies can be a minefield, because you can never please everyone. For example, when designing a class to teach supervisors how to motivate their employees, I asked for examples from their managers. It was not possible to incorporate all of their examples, so I had to select those that referred to different motivational challenges.

Feedback from some of the participants revealed their dissatisfaction with the case study options as they did not see their particular area of ​​work represented.

I often use general case studies because the situations are common to many organizations, the strategies for handling them are easily transferable, and I will not meet participants who were involved in the situation. However, even when you present the case study from this perspective, there will be participants who complain. Sigh…

2. Reactance: The urge to do the opposite of what you are asked to do in order to preserve your freedom of choice.

I try to minimize the possibility of this bias by giving participants options.

Participants can choose where to sit, who to partner with, and how they want to participate. If there are case studies, they can choose which case studies are most relevant to them and work on them. If there are worksheets, I let the participants decide if they want to write down their answers or just remember them when it’s time to discuss them.

To the extent possible, I do my best to create and maintain a collaborative environment.

I even make sure to say “Please” when giving instructions (both verbally and in the participant manual) to soften their impact.

If you have recognized and addressed these biases, it would be wonderful to know what you did.