Facts vs. ”fake news”; a lesson for change management

Ever since the dawn of the “Age of Reason” during the 18th century science has become the foundation of human society. It has shaped our beliefs and the way we analyse facts and solve problems. As a result humankind has made spectacular progress in e.g. the field of medical care, which has led to a doubling of life expectancy. In other words, the objective, scientific approach that we have adopted works pretty well. Therefore, it might come as a surprise that our brain still seems to have an inkling for "fake news". Human opinion, decision making and behavior are apparently not solely based on “facts”. The way people view the world is clearly more complex than the study of hard facts and figures.

In their daily work managers are also faced with this challenging dynamic. For example it is relatively easy to develop a new strategy purely based on facts, but a smooth implementation, where people’s own views come into play, is quite a different story. Understanding the apparent contradiction between people response to “facts” vs “fake news” holds some lessons which can help managers to implement change processes in their organizations.

Our brain likes to be fooled

Whether we like it or not, our brain likes to be fooled. It starts with the way we perceive the world around us. A nice example of our limitations are the optical illusions which play tricks with our brain. Take a look at “exhibit A”: even when we know that there are white dots between the rectangles we still perceive many black ones instead. 

And what to think about “selective perception”, our tendency to remember the things which suit us whilst blocking out any opposing views? Like Peter, a fanatic sports nut, who goes to the gym twice a week, but at the same time smokes as many packs of cigarettes every week? It seems illogical that humans should select, categorize, and analyze stimuli from our environment which appear favorable while blocking out anything else. However, we have this capability for a reason. It is a critical “survival” technique to help us deal with the overload of data in today’s highly connected world and it makes it easier for us to “fit in”. Selective perception allows us to filter out what is different and to (re-) confirm what binds us and what we have chosen to believe. Is that a bad thing? Not really, but it is another example that we cannot always blindly trust our brain and opinions.

We are only human

Recent neurological research published by Nature at the end of 2016 demonstrates that our brains are even “hard-wired” to resist the facts that don’t support our strong held beliefs. Kaplan a.o. used neuroimaging to investigate the reaction of the brain of 40 liberals. When presented with arguments which contradicted their strongly held political and non-political views the parts of the brain which triggered immediately are associated with self-representation and disengagement from the external world. Simply put: the defensive mechanisms of our brain kick in to block out what doesn’t “seem right”.

Experts are not always believed anymore

If we cannot always trust our own brain, for sure we should be able to trust the opinion of true experts, right? Actually we currently experience a wave of the contrary. Whilst the number of professionals with an academic degree has increased we see paradoxically that the distance between “experts” and “non-experts” has only increased. Most people actually consider themselves bigger experts than the scholars they read about in the newspapers. E.g. “I know much better what is going on around me compared to some professor who sits in a nice office at a university”. This is a cognitive bias known as the Dunning-Kruger effect which was studied by the Cornell University as early as 1999. With the current overload of information it’s easier than ever to believe the news and experts we like and to decide to distrust the facts and experts that don't support the perception of our own reality.

Strategies to combat the lack of faith in the facts

Where does this leave us if we can’t always trust our own brain to accept the facts and are faced with a world where a significant number of people tend to distrust experts? The first reaction is to throw even more facts at the disbelievers. And related to this: to continuously fact-check any bold statement which is published. But clearly this strategy is not sufficient. As Henry Ford famously said “If you always do what you've always done, you will always get what you've always got”.

A better strategy is to complement the facts with an appeal to the emotional side of the issue. Effective communication is a matter of appealing not only to the mind, but especially to the heart. Emotional engagement is actually more powerful than a rational engagement as the recent wave of “fake news” demonstrates.

Effective change-management requires story-telling

Modern science might be hundreds of year’s old, storytelling goes back to the beginning of human kind itself. As a Native American saying goes “those who tell the stories rule the world”. Good leaders use stories almost on a daily basis. At our company we do the same. For example: instead of just presenting statistics on our safety performance we engage with colleagues by telling the stories of incidents, near misses and the findings of behavior based observations. In this case the message is: “this could happen to you and me and it is in our hands to avoid it”. It ensures that the audience identifies with the challenges and becomes an agent of change, rather than a defender of the status quo. A purposeful story is remembered and inspires. As Anette Simmons puts it in “The Story Factor”: “stories let people decide for themselves; one of the great secrets of true influence. Compared to other methods of influence - persuasion, bribery or charismatic appeal are push strategies- stories are a pull strategy”. Facts are usually not remembered anyway; a compelling story is the most effective way to get the message across and to drive change.

Conclusion

Only too often we gravitate to the people whose beliefs we share and pick up the news which suits our existing believes. Whether it is in society or at work, facts often get drowned in an overload of information and opinions. Managers who think that presenting facts alone will persuade their employees face an uphill battle. To effectively implement change managers need to engage with their teams both rationally with the proper facts, and emotionally with a purposeful -preferably personal- story. Driving change depends primarily on the latter.

@OscarWezenbeek

Opinions expressed are solely my own and do not express the views or opinions of my employer.