The changes you don’t see

The ultimate test of how well you work together as a team is reflected in how well you handle the changes that catch you off guard. It might be an IT crash, sick leave, bad press, political U-turns, mass layoffs or even a financial crisis that takes you by surprise. When your teamwork is under pressure, two kinds of blindness can easily arise: change blindness and tunnel vision (D. Simons, 1999). It can have fatal consequences.

 

“What’s happening!?” were the last words of pilot Pierre-Cédric Bonin before his plane, Air France Flight 447, crashed off the coast of Brazil on 9 June 2009, killing all 228 on board. The accident was a great mystery, as the Airbus A330 was considered one of the world’s safest aircraft. Suddenly it had vanished from radar with no distress call. People wondered whether it could be terrorism, but after analysing the plane’s black box, the French aviation authorities concluded that the accident was caused by human error, including change blindness (BEA, 2012).

 

Bonin and his co-pilot had flown into a storm, which caused the plane’s airspeed sensors to ice over and stop working. That made the plane switch off the autopilot, and although the situation was difficult, it could well have been saved. The plane gave off a string of important information that the pilots missed. With the airspeed sensors no longer working, the pilots thought they were flying too fast, and so they slowed down. That made the plane lose altitude, which created a sound from the wind outside. The pilots read this as still flying too fast, so they slowed down further. By now the plane was close to free fall, but the accident could still have been avoided. Unfortunately, the pilots missed a string of important information and failed to hear the plane’s signals. Bonin never got an answer to his final question: “What’s happening!?”

 

After analysing the plane’s black box, the French aviation authorities concluded that the accident was caused by human error, including change blindness.

 

 

Change blindness — you don’t see the change right in front of you

The report from the French aviation authorities pointed out that the pilots had not noticed the information from their instruments, even though the instruments were right in front of them. This is called change blindness (C. Wickens, 2010), and you know it from everyday life, when a colleague asks whether you can see what’s changed about him. Even though you look closely, it’s not until he says “I’ve had a haircut!” that you notice the change. Change blindness happens when you can’t remember how it was before. So even when the change happens right in front of you, you don’t always notice it.

 

At work, change blindness is like not noticing how a process has silted up. And that’s despite it happening right in front of you. Even though your pace is high, your efficiency is low.

 

Tunnel vision — you look at one thing and leave out everything else

The French aviation authorities also concluded that the pilots had failed to hear the plane’s alarms. This kind of blindness is called inattentional blindness (D. Simons, 1999), or tunnel vision in plain terms. You focus on one thing and leave out everything else. In a team, tunnel vision can arise when you’re so focused on the result that you, say, miss your colleague’s stress signals. Studies with test subjects show that when they’re put under pressure, they experience tunnel vision about 50% of the time.

 

You and your colleague can both experience both kinds of blindness, and that’s completely normal. It’s because our human focus is a limited resource. The more you focus on one thing, the less you can focus on something else.

 

 

At work, change blindness is like not noticing how a process has silted up. And that’s despite it happening right in front of you. Even though your pace is high, your efficiency is low.

 

 

Over the past 50 years, aviation safety has improved considerably. But when accidents do happen, the cause is still the same. In the 1950s, 57% of all plane crashes were due to crew error, and in the 2000s the figure was 54% (PlaneCrashInfo.com, 2013). Research into team blindness is a new field, but it has quickly been able to conclude that more eyes don’t necessarily create a better overview than few (M. Riley, 2010).

 

Experience change blindness in practice

Test here whether you and your colleague experience blindness:

 

Even when you’re aware of what you shouldn’t miss, change blindness still happens. See it here:

 

In my work with teams, a large part of the job is often about giving the team an overview and spotting the warning lights it otherwise doesn’t see. Again and again I find that when the team communicates and gets a fresh pair of eyes on things, they’re better able to solve their challenge.

 

 

How you reduce the risk of blindness in the team

 

  1. Keep communicating — it creates clarity
    Research shows that teams that don’t communicate under pressure experience just as much blindness as individuals (M. Riley, 2010). I often find that when a team comes under pressure, there’s a tendency for colleagues to drift away from each other. They do it to get the quiet to think over ideas — rather than getting into dialogue and finding solutions together. It’s understandable that we want quiet when there’s a lot on our plate, but it has a downside too. In a football match, you can tell when the player with the ball has tunnel vision. He doesn’t pass the ball and loses it, even though there are free teammates right around him. That’s why players communicate constantly during a match — waving their arms, shouting and calling to each other. Next time you’re under pressure, think of the footballers. Don’t isolate yourself; keep communicating with the team. It makes you better able to hold on to the overview. Footballers like Michael Laudrup and David Beckham didn’t become legends because they were top scorers. They became legends because of their unique ability to see where teammates were, communicate effectively and make phenomenal passes — and that wins trophies.
  2. Get a fresh pair of eyes on things
    When you’re working under pressure, one remedy against change blindness and tunnel vision is to get someone else’s view of things — ideally someone with different opinions from your own. Research shows that when we’re under pressure, we tend to seek out the views of others that lie closer to our own than we do when we have spare capacity (M. McDonald, 2003). That means that under pressure, it’s easier for us to spiral downwards and become even more change-blind and more tunnel-visioned. I see the same tendency for teams that are stretched to seek recognition and reassurance, while teams with more spare capacity are more willing to be confronted with a new view of things. Other people’s opinions and any conflicting views give you a wider overview. Maybe you’ll spot something you weren’t looking for.

 

Footballers like Michael Laudrup and David Beckham didn’t become legends because they were top scorers. They became legends because of their unique ability to see where teammates were, communicate effectively and make phenomenal passes — and that wins trophies.

 

An exercise for you and your colleague

At your next meeting, try answering three questions to become more aware of whether you’ve become change-blind and tunnel-visioned:

  1. In what situation do you think the team has experienced change blindness or tunnel vision?
  2. What does effective communication look like for us when we’re under pressure?
  3. Who could give us a challenging view of things?

 

 

Sources and inspiration

 

Final Report

2012, BEA (Bureau d’Enquêtes et d’Analyses)

 

Gorillas in Our Midst

D. Simons & C. Chabris, 1999, Perception

 

The Psychology of Aviation Surprise

C. Wickens, 2010, University of Illinois

 

Causes of Fatal Accidents by Decade

2013, PlaneCrashInfo.com

 

Individual and Team Susceptibility to Change Blindness

M. Riley, A. Tollner-Burngasser & W. Nelson, 2010, Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine

 

Getting by with the Advice of Their Friends

M. McDonald & J. Westphal, 2003, Administrative Science Quarterly