The false consensus trap
Mini-musing #3
As a PM, there is a big difference between being a good communicator and an influential communicator. Good communication is a tablestakes expectation of the PM role, whereas influential communication is a skill level that must be developed and attained. Not all PMs, even very smart and talented and motivated ones, are make that leap.
Being a good communicator is mostly within your control. It is a skill you can develop and master if you are intentional about it, give yourself maximum reps & practice, and solicit feedback to understand and address your gaps. If you stick to it, you’ll naturally see your verbal comms become more succinct, your docs becoming more impactful, your presentations getting sharper, and so on.
Influential communications is different, because it is both personal and contextual in nature. To be a more influential communicator, you need to approach every communication you are a party to - whether initiated by you or others - as an opportunity for bridge-building between you and ‘them’. A bridge towards better understanding, deeper trust or stronger alignment.
When I mentor PMs who seek to become more influential communications, I frequently point them to the most common barrier & blind spot that I see - falling prey to the false consensus effect1. The false consensus effect is a cognitive bias wherein we overestimate the degree to which others around us share our beliefs, traits and principles. When we operate with this implicit bias, our ability to be influential at communication suffers because:
We assume there’s a single, ‘correct’ worldview - and that it’s ours.
“This decision feels like a no-brainer. Not sure why they’re focused on that other/specific angle so much; it doesn’t seem that important”.
We diagnose gaps in alignment as primarily gaps in information.
“It’s all just a misunderstanding. If only they knew what I knew…”
We deprive ourselves of the gift of broader context.
“I’m confident we have this one figured out. Trying to get more alignment is only going to slow us down2”.
Perhaps these situations and common traps feel familiar to you. But perhaps it is not obvious that they are often derivative of a cognitive bias on our parts. In fact, I’d argue that as PMs, we are more susceptible to this bias too, largely because of the central nature of the PM role in context-sharing and decision-making. To a large degree, our job is to share and scale our worldviews on the product more widely - up, and down, and sideways through the organization. But the key is to do this in a way that is collectively productive3, where each communication activity can strengthen both the context being shared, and the decisions being made. This is influential communications, as opposed to one-way projection.
Don’t assume false consensus. Build true convergence.
Wrap
Have a question or musing of your own?
Feel free to drop a comment below, or DM me.
Enjoyed today’s musing?
Consider sharing with a colleague or friend who may benefit too.
Interested in more of Waqas’ Musings?
Find all my past essays at https://waqas-sheikh.com, and subscribe below.
More about the false consensus effect (from wikipedia).
I find that “more alignment = slow” is often used as an excuse to rush ideas/opinions that would wither under scrutiny from a wider group of stakeholders, one step removed. There is a real balance to be struck here; read Beyond binary, the four faces of alignment for better ways.
In the past, I’ve heard this simplified down to “stop talking at stakeholders, start talking as them” - useful pointer!