Did you know that what you listen to or reject depends on who is speaking much more than the actual content of what is shared?

For example, you might:

• Dismiss suggestions from a junior team member simply because they lack experience.
• Undermine external experts because you think they don’t understand the company’s history, culture or norms.
• Ignore internal experts because you believe they do not have broader expertise on the topic.
• Interpret ideas of someone you dislike as being bad ideas, even if the ideas have nothing to do with what you dislike about the person.
• Not listen to someone who does not appear ‘leader-like’ or confident, even if the content they are sharing is of high quality.
• Reject a competitor’s strategy outright because of animosity rather than critically assessing its potential merits.

Ad hominem, Latin for “to the person,” occurs when an argument is rejected based on an individual’s character, background, or perceived flaws instead of evaluating it on the merits of their ideas.

There is also the opposite problem of listening and agreeing with someone because of the person rather than the content of their ideas. For example:

• Agreeing with the senior leader without questioning, assuming that they know better than you do.
• Following external expert advice, again without questioning, because of their ‘expert’ status.
• Listening to charismatic and charming speakers, without critically and rationally thinking about the content. This is also called the ‘awestruck effect’.
• Getting caught up in groupthink because you like the people with certain views, whether it’s a leader or colleague you like, a friend, a celebrity, or a social influencer.

While it may seem like a minor flaw in reasoning, succumbing to this bias can have significant consequences for teams, organisations, and leadership effectiveness. Not only does the ad hominem fallacy result in poor judgement, but it can also erode trust, stifle innovation, and hinder collaboration. At its worst, the ad hominem fallacy contributes to division, polarisation, and toxicity.

The Risks of Ad Hominem Thinking

One of the big dangers is that we don’t even realise that our thinking and listening are affected in this way. In leadership, organisational culture, and decision-making, cognitive biases can quietly influence judgments and actions, with serious consequences such as:

1. Reinforcement of Echo Chambers with a tendency to surround yourself with like-minded individuals who affirm your views rather than challenge them. This creates an echo chamber where dissenting opinions are stifled, leading to a lack of critical thinking and resistance to learning and change.
2. Missed Opportunities as ideas are dismissed based on the person presenting them rather than their intrinsic value. Organisations risk missing out on game-changing innovations and people may hesitate to share valuable insights if they feel their voices will be ignored due to personal biases against them. Opportunities to prevent costly mistakes can also be missed if leaders’ ideas are accepted without question and if more junior staff don’t feel safe speaking up.
3. Toxic Work Cultures may result because of individuals focusing on attacking each other rather than engaging in constructive conversations to work through differences. This erodes trust, reduces collaboration, and fosters a negative work environment. Over time, toxicity can lead to increased employee disengagement and higher turnover rates.

While it takes more effort and thinking, the best leaders assess arguments based on their merits and welcome people who challenge their thinking. Leaders who are unaware of their ad hominem thinking may engage in personal attacks rather than address ideas, make poor decisions and lose credibility over time, undermining their leadership authority and influence.

Overcoming the Ad Hominem Bias

Avoiding the pitfalls of ad hominem thinking requires conscious effort and self-awareness. Here are some strategies to mitigate its impact:

1. Develop Self-Awareness: We should regularly reflect on our own biases and be mindful of how we react and listen to different individuals. Seeking feedback from peers, including those who have different perspectives, can help uncover hidden biases.
2. Maintain a Level of Uncertainty: It is impossible to listen when you are 100% certain of your ideas. “Argue as if you’re right, listen as if you’re wrong” is good advice when listening to people, especially if you have a positive or negative view of them.
3. Focus on the Ideas, Not the Person: When assessing an idea, separate the person presenting it from the content itself. Ask: “Is this idea valuable regardless of who is presenting it?”
4. Strengthen Psychological Safety: Actively build an environment where people feel safe sharing their thoughts without fear of personal attack. Encourage healthy disagreements and ensure discussions remain focused on ideas rather than individuals.
5. Engage with Diverse Perspectives: Actively seek out and listen to voices from different backgrounds, experiences, and viewpoints. This practice helps break down biases, reminds us that we don’t always know everything, and ensures a well-rounded decision-making process.
6. Model Constructive Discourse: Set the tone for respectful and productive disagreements within the organisation. Demonstrate a commitment to fair evaluation of ideas and discourage personal attacks in meetings, emails, and other communications.

The cognitive bias of ad hominem fallacy can quietly infiltrate decision-making and workplace interactions, leading to missed opportunities, toxic cultures, and poor leadership credibility. Only by recognising and addressing this bias, can organisations truly evaluate ideas on their merits, promote inclusivity, and drive innovation.

What examples of the Ad Hominem Fallacy have you seen?

Suggested reading:

“Quietly Powerful: How your quiet nature is your hidden leadership strength” Megumi Miki

“You are not so smart” David McRaney

“The Authority Gap: Why women are still taken less seriously than men” Mary Ann Sieghart

“Why do so many incompetent men become leaders? (and how to fix it)” Dr Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic

Written by Megumi Miki, with Anna Reeve and Leigh Gassner, co-founders of Leaders who Listen. We aim to develop leaders who create a listening environment of safety and space within their organisations to enable better decision making, drive growth and innovation, enhance collaboration and inclusion, and manage risk. If you’d like to understand how your leadership team can engage in productive disagreements, contact us about our Leaders who Listen assessment tools, presentations, masterclasses and development programs.