Jenny had heard about the upcoming changes in her organization and found herself satisfied with the details she had received. For her, they made sense and were aligned with her views on the organization.
There were a few nagging details, notably that some of her colleagues seemed to worry about these changes. She tried to reassure them but to no real effect. They were a bit more silent than before, but Jenny could sense that they were still anxious about something.
Based on her understanding of the situation and her natural optimism, she felt that there her hopes for the organization were realistic. Despite the fact, that she couldn’t change her colleagues’ minds, she stayed with her conclusions.
What helped her to stick to them was her analysis that there was a lack of communication from those having more authority than herself. Would they step in and communicate, then her colleagues would certainly accept the explanations.
Lack of communication is one of the most common assumptions when something doesn’t happen as expected.
That Jenny might have been subject to a cognitive bias in relying on her understanding of the situation and the logic it required didn’t occur to her. It also didn’t occur to her to think about her relationship and her trust in those implementing the change. She was committed to them and their objectives and appreciated the relationship enough to believe that they had thought it through and would be able to implement it. This meant, that she was relying on the individuals and their values, leaving issues about status, power, or other relational dynamics aside.
She had everything she needed to stay optimistic and hope for a good future. Looking at her colleagues she assessed them as more pessimistic than herself.
The future will tell who was right.
But there is a high probability that more curiosity and inquiry in the reasoning of the more pessimistic group could have impacted Jenny’s hope and optimism. That is, what she was relying on to keep her relationship with her leadership intact.
