#36 - Weighting Principles
What do you do when principles conflict?
The world is rarely neat and orderly. One concept rarely can explain an event. And one principle can rarely be applied without regard to any others.
So what is one to do?
With our bias toward simplicity, it’s tempting (consciously or not) to reduce a decision down to the most important principle.
Generally, that’ll work, but it also may not even be clear what the primary factor is or should be.
In these, as in many cases, it’s helpful to create a mental simulation of the subject. This has pitfalls too, but enables you to consider many possible outcomes to better consider what really matters.
Let’s use a concrete example.
Imagine you are a team lead at a company, and you have a colleague, Tim, who is consistently underperforming and causing friction within the team. You need to decide how to address this situation, considering several principles:
Team Morale: Addressing the issue might improve overall team morale if others see that underperformance is not tolerated.
Fairness: It’s important to be fair to Tim and give them a chance to improve.
Productivity: The team's productivity could be affected by Tim’s continued underperformance.
Conflict Avoidance: Confronting Tim might lead to direct conflict, which could have immediate negative effects on team dynamics.
Company Policy: You’ll need to follow company policy and consider potential outcomes.
If you were to focus solely on productivity, you might decide to recommend Tim for termination to quickly resolve the issue. However, this could negatively impact team morale if others feel the decision was too harsh or unfair.
Similarly, focusing only on principles will bias one toward only considering the first-order effects of the action: in this case, the immediate response between yourself and Tim. A simulation helps us consider second- and third-order effects: how the team will react, what impacts that’ll have on the broader culture and long-term outcomes.
By creating a mental simulation of different scenarios, you can weigh these principles against each other and consider second and third-order effects. Let’s consider two scenarios:
Scenario 1: Recommending Termination
First-Order Effect: Immediate removal of underperformance, possibly boosting short-term productivity.
Second-Order Effects:
Team Morale: Some team members may feel relieved, while others might feel anxious about job security.
Workload Distribution: Remaining team members might face an increased workload until a replacement is found.
Third-Order Effects:
Reputation: The company might gain a reputation for being quick to terminate employees, which could affect future hiring.
Long-Term Team Dynamics: Frequent turnover could disrupt team cohesion and trust.
Scenario 2: Offering Support and Development
First-Order Effect: Immediate efforts to support Tim, which might temporarily slow down productivity.
Second-Order Effects:
Team Morale: Demonstrating a commitment to employee development can boost morale, but prolonged underperformance might frustrate others.
Resource Allocation: Time and resources spent on supporting Tim might strain other team functions.
Third-Order Effects:
Team Culture: A supportive culture might attract talent who value development opportunities, but could also attract individuals less driven to perform.
Tim’s Future: If Tim improves, it could lead to a highly motivated and loyal employee. If not, it might necessitate future difficult decisions.
Through this simulation, you can see how the decision's impact extends beyond immediate outcomes, influencing broader team dynamics and company culture. While no single principle dictates the best choice, considering multiple factors and their second and third-order effects allows for a more nuanced and strategic approach.
Of course, the answer to the above scenario will almost certainly depend on the specifics, both of the scenario and your own values/principles. But a mental simulation will normally surface which ones you need to stack against each other.
Assessing the scenarios via mental simulation is also critical to gauge the 2nd- and 3rd-order effects. These are often much more meaningful in the long-run than the 1st-order effects.
While this scenario is interpersonal, the same dynamics apply to political scenarios. Almost all policies end up being judged by the “unintended” 2nd- and 3rd-order consequences, which actually can be predicted by individuals smarter than our political system behaves.
When it comes to groups and societies, there’s a lot more we can say about this. 2nd- and 3rd-order effects are very often due to how people respond to incentives, which is a remarkably stable aspect of human psychology. But more on that another time!