Ugh, we didn't think about that: cognitive dissonance in litigation

Litigation is hard, complicated, and always surprising. It can be very difficult for an organization to plan for the business issues that litigation brings. But no matter how many times you have dealt with litigation, some things seem to take businesses by surprise every time. These are all issues that are worth discussing with your manager, board, and other stakeholders to make sure you are prepared for some of the more jarring cognitive dissonance moments we will find in litigation.

The truth is stable, but perception is fluid

A lot of people involved in litigation, whether they are witnesses or parties, feel that once the truth is told, the issues will be resolved because the truth is, of course, a stable concept. However, what you discover during the process of litigation is that perception is completely fluid.

An employee may perceive your inquiry as to how their child, mother, son, or dog is doing to be invasive while you meant it exclusively as a simple, “How are you doing?” While participants are always encouraged to tell the truth, we all see truth slightly differently, and it is the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s attorney’s job to present the circumstances in a way that supports their case. This can be a particularly difficult concept when you are working through various issues with decision-makers or maybe the next step up the food chain, where you are justifying certain decisions that have been made. Objective truth is important, however, perceptional belief and emotion always come into play, particularly in employment law cases.