Abilene Paradox. Group members adopt a position because they feel that other group members desire it Team members do not challenge suggestion because they want to avoid conflict or achieve consensus
An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Group members adopt a position because they feel that other group members desire it
Team members do not challenge suggestion because they want to avoid conflict or achieve consensus
They have a set of expectations about the other group member’s expectations (how they feel). With one challenge it would burst the bubble.
Avoid the Abilene Paradox
People that propose a solution to the problem state it and then be open to feedback
Conduct a private vote—less pressure to conform
Frame the proposal as a decision to be made not as a solution
Definition - a mode of thinking in cohesive groups where striving for unanimity override the motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action.
Consequences --A decline of mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral reasoning.
President Kennedy invasion of Cuba—despite much information it would not be successful
Escalation of war in Vietnam by President Johnson despite fact that information would not defeat Viet Cong and increasing dissent at home
Enron- board aware of risky accounting practices, conflict of interest, hiding of debt
NASA shuttle disaster 1986—Challenger Disaster
*High cohesiveness - desire to remain a member of group, and person is uncertain of group approval of him/herself.
Overestimation of the group—members of the group see themselves as morally correct, and invulnerable, excessive optimism- We know the right way, we can’t fail.
Stereotyping of out-group members—people who do not agree with us are ill informed, stupid. They want what we want they want freedom. –makes other responses to conflict seem unnecessary and justify extreme measures.
Illusions of Unanimity—people suppress their doubts, don’t want to rock the boat.
fearful of saying something contrary to group.
Isolation of the group - group homogeneity in attitudes, values, opinions
Lack of methodological procedures for search and appraisal
Directive (charismatic) leadership
A crisis situation, an external threat
Decision Making Effects
Few alternatives generated
Lack of understanding of potential rewards and costs of each alternative
Lack of a workable contingency plan
Poor decision quality
Preventing Group Think
Team size may increase groupthink—less personal responsibility for team outcomes, harder to counter group majority, all these people can’t be wrong.
Leader should be impartial, not endorse a position
Everyone should critically evaluate—make it a norm—make it easy privately express doubts.
Use a form of Devil's Advocate—structure problem solving situation to legitimize debate
Encourage input of outside experts –bring in critical outsides. Not have the board of director a rubber stamp for the CEO—reduce the situation where the same people sit on multiple boards
Keep a log of all suggestions and review them before deciding