A Good Ring or a Bad Ring

Two weeks ago, a friend asked me to join her in a community project. She eagerly awaited my answer. I called her back the next day.

‘Hi, Andrew,’ she whispered. ‘Sorry I can’t talk right now – I’m in a meeting.’

‘Ring me back when you can,’ I said quickly.

‘Is it a good ring or a bad ring?’ my friend asked.

I laughed and said, ‘A good ring!’

In this brief exchange, especially the punchline of ‘good ring or bad ring’, my friend has revealed a key element of human nature; my friend had a need to classify as to whether my answer was good news or bad news. And knowing that it’s good news, for the next little while until we can talk, she doesn’t have to worry and probably convince herself that my answer will be ‘bad news’.

This need of humans to classify shows itself often and in varied ways. On TV shows such as MasterChef, the judges often string along a contestant – and hence the audience – delaying the moment when the judge reveals whether they like or dislike the dish prepared by the contestant. We wait in suspense until we have enough information to be able to classify the judge’s opinion.

In workplaces, our manager might ask us to meet with them later in the day. If we have no information from the manager allowing us to classify whether the meeting is for a good reason or a bad reason, then we are inclined to worry on the side of ‘bad’. A friend recently told me of a time when she had a call from the CEO’s executive assistant setting up a meeting of my friend with the CEO for later that day. My friend, who had no cause for worry, was still anxious as to the reason for the sudden meeting. Thoughtfully, shortly after the EA’s call, the CEO called my friend to let her know the reason for the meeting (a positive reason). The CEO told my friend he called so that she did not worry (a thoughtful CEO).

This need to classify, and for people to worry if they don’t have enough information allowing them to classify, often occurs with change management. If staff hear about a change on the grapevine, or hear about a change via an email, or hear about a change at an all-hands briefing where little real information is shared, then staff invariably don’t have enough information in order to know how the change might affect them; they are unable to classify. If unable to classify, invariably people err on the negative. Weeks and perhaps months might go by until people can accurately classify how the change will affect them. And in the meantime, there has been lots of anxiety and distraction from productive work. That state could have been avoided with real information from the leaders. And providing ‘real information’ means information that makes sense and fits reality – no spin. Even if for a few people the change does have a negative outcome, there’s often less anxiety for those people if they have the facts, and certainly better than the majority unnecessarily being anxious and distracted.

If a leader has at the top of their mind this compulsive need of humans to classify in order to make sense of information, then the leader will be more empathetic towards people and a better communicator.

?