At work, in our communities, and among friends and family, we often make decisions in groups. From major business decisions to what to do on a Saturday night, in groups, we make decisions big and small. What is the quality of those decisions? Sometimes we need to make the best decision possible. Other times, we just need a decision that works. In group decisions, there are two concepts that can affect the quality of those decisions. One is groupthink, a word often used but not necessarily understood. The other, the Abilene paradox, is lesser known.
In healthy group decision-making, two social psychological processes are ongoing. First, the group seeks to make a decision, find a solution, resolve some issue, make a determination, find an answer. This is the process of integration—that is, bringing together diverse ideas and information to make a good decision. That good decision usually involves critical discussion of alternatives, looking at pros and cons of various options. This is the process of differentiation. If integration and/or differentiation break down in a group discussion, the odds are the decision will not be as good as it might have been.
Groupthink
Groupthink is the inability to manage disagreement. William H. Whyte coined this term in a 1952 Fortune magazine article. Later, in 1971, in a Psychology Today article and then a 1972 book, Irving Janis elaborated on this concept, creating a diagnostic framework. Among the symptoms of groupthink he identified were applying pressure on dissenters, people not sharing their ideas (self-censorship), and “a shared illusion of unanimity.” Consider this tale:
A decision is needed. The boss convenes a meeting of the six supervisors.
The boss says, “We have a problem. To save money, we need to start laying off people.”
One supervisor follows, “Seems like that’s what we need to do. I agree, Taylor.”
Someone else: “Yeah, Taylor. I think that is the way to go.”
Another: “Tough decision, but we have to do what we have to do.”
The other supervisors say nothing. One supervisor thinks there are lots of ways to save money without laying off employees. Another sees this as a bad decision. Good employees are just hard to find. A third supervisor thinks they ought to brainstorm other solutions.
“Well, it looks like we are in agreement. We’ll start layoffs in two weeks.”
The boss didn’t try to hear from three of the supervisors. She could have solicited their input. Were layoffs the best solution? The only solution? There was no differentiation, no discussion of pros and cons. The boss failed to get everyone’s input. Three of the supervisors failed to express their views. They may have thought the decision was already made or speaking up might cost them some social capital.
So what to do? As a leader, be open to other ideas and solicit them. Another approach is to appoint someone or several people to express any reservations or comment critically about the possible solutions presented. This is called appointing a “devil’s advocate” or “disrupters.”
The Abilene Paradox
The Abilene paradox is the inability to manage agreement. Jerry Harvey introduced this concept in 1974 in an article in Organizational Dynamics. He told a story about a family with visiting in-laws. They decided to take a trip, hot and dusty, to Abilene to eat a meal when, in fact, that is not what any of them actually wanted to do. Although they did not know it, they all were in agreement about just staying at home. No one had expressed their true opinion.
Harry and four of his friends enjoyed doing things together. He was extroverted and usually the one who suggested activities. He was satisfied with golfing occasionally and poker nights, but he thought his buddies might like to do something different.
One weekend when they were hanging out, Harry said, “I’ve been thinking. How would you guys like for us to form a bowling team and join a league? Might be fun.” Harry actually didn’t enjoy bowling much but thought his friends might, so he just tossed out the idea.
Steve replied, “Why not, Harry. I haven’t tried bowling, but I could learn.” Truthfully, Steve had no interest in a bowling team. One by one, all supported the idea and concealed how they really felt about a bowling team. No one was really interested, but since Harry proposed it, they didn’t want to let him down. They ended up joining a league but quit at their first opportunity.
Decision-Making Essential Reads
They had just done something that no one, not even Harry, really wanted to do, something about which they were in total agreement. They ended up doing it because nobody would say what they really thought. There was no differentiation.
For groups to come to the best decisions, everyone needs to be involved, stating opinions and discussing pros and cons. Understanding the problems inherent in groupthink and the Abilene paradox can improve group decision-making and help groups of which we are part make better decisions.
