Groupthink and the Abilene Paradox

by Philip Balliet, Douglas Hiner, Tim O‘Brien, and Sean Scheiderer, M.A.,

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, 2014

Groupthink is a theory coined by Irving Janis in 1972.? Groupthink “occurs when a group makes faulty decisions because group pressures lead to a deterioration of mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment.? Groups affected by groupthink ignore alternatives and tend to take irrational actions that dehumanize other groups” (Janis, 1972, p.9).? Groups are particularly vulnerable to Groupthink when there is no clear standard for decision-making; when the group is isolated from exterior opinion; and, when group members come from similar backgrounds.? It is often more comfortable for a group member to agree with the consensus than to “go against the grain”, “ruffle feathers”, and otherwise express original thought.? This can be detrimental to the outcome of any decision(s) the group makes.? This section discusses Groupthink in more detail, as well as describes the negatives and positives associated with groupthink.

??????????? Groupthink tends to occur to groups under extreme pressure to make a quick decision.? Some may prefer to make a bad decision than no decision at all, but that is not always wise.? “When pressures of unanimity seem overwhelming, members are less motivated to realistically appraise the available alternative courses of action.? Group pressures lead to carelessness and irrational thinking.? Decisions shaped by groupthink have low probability of achieving successful outcomes” (PsySR, 2014).? Moreover, Groupthink can be detrimental to even the smallest projects, all the way up to significant government and military decisions.?? For instance, many people believe the actions leading up to the invasion of Iraq were the result of significant Groupthink.? As a result, the Army came up with Red Teams to combat this phenomenon.? “The Red Teamers' job involves questioning prevailing assumptions to avoid ‘getting sucked into that groupthink’.? This is having someone inside that says, ‘Wait a minute, not so fast’.? U.S. headquarters in Baghdad, for example, recently asked its Red Team to investigate the impact of using dogs in U.S. military operations in Iraq, among citizens who generally regard dogs as unclean and, occasionally, evil” (Mulrine, 2008).? Hence, by harnessing or even eliminating Groupthink, original thought may prevail, thereby allowing for wiser decision-making.

??????????? As such, although Groupthink is mostly associated with negativity, there can be some positives to Groupthink as well.? As long as groups are managed properly, Groupthink provides the “more is better” mentality.? Thus, two advantages to Groupthink are combined mind bank, and (good) peer pressure.? First, Groupthink provides a mind bank that allows a manager to have all their experts in one location at one time.? This is especially handy when briefing senior management.? Although a manager is in charge, they do not necessarily have the expertise in all aspects of a project.? Therefore, by having the group together, the manager is able to utilize all employees to provide the best information for high-level executives.? Second, Groupthink is good peer pressure.? Although peer pressure is generally associated with negative outcomes, however, when employed appropriately, peer pressure can keep people honest when conveying information.? For instance, “group diversity and decentralization help to assure that an issue is examined from a diverse set of perspectives.? When setting corporate strategy, for example, it's best to involve people in the process from several levels of the company, and from all of the major functional areas.? People at the top of any organization tend to get information that has already been filtered and organized to fit a set of assumptions” (McFarland, 2007).? Therefore, peer pressure fosters the thinking of people to speak up for what they believe, rather than just being a team player.

?The Abilene Paradox

The Abilene Paradox is derived from a parable told by Jerry Harvey, in which a married couple and the wife’s parents are sitting on the porch at a house in Coleman Texas.? While playing dominos and attempting to survive the Texas heat the wife’s father suggests they make the 53-mile drive to Abilene to eat at a cafeteria.? No one really wants to go, but they all go along with the suggestion to make everyone else happy.? Nonetheless, when they get back from Abilene, they are all tired and irritable.? They then discover that nobody really wanted to go, but they all agreed because they thought it was what each other desired; and thus, went anyway.

“This parable is a great example of how we often ‘go along to get along’” (Ziegenhals, 2013).? The website BusinessDictionary.com defines the Abilene Paradox as:

A circumstance where a group of individuals agree to a course of action based on the theory it is best for the group, despite going against the preferences of the members of the group. This occurs when individuals feel their objections are not strong enough to support changing the minds of others in their group. (2014)

In other words, “simply stated, the Abilene Paradox is as follows: Organizations frequently take actions in contradiction to what they really want to do and therefore defeat the very purposes they are trying to achieve” (Harvey, 1988).? In the end, these actions or non-actions often cause organizations to waste time, effort, and money.

Furthermore, Harvey explains that we are often willing to go to Abilene because of our fear of being left out or ostracized.? So how can these trips be avoided?? One simple method is to be clear upon a group consensus by asking the question: ?Are we all in agreement or are we going to Abilene?? Thus, Harvey proposes that people should choose to actively confront the situation – by calling a meeting and gathering all the individuals involved, then own up to your position first, and be open to the feedback you receive.? Principally then, “the owning up process lets the others know that [he/she] is concerned lest the organization may be making a decision contrary to the desires of any of its members” (Harvey, 1988).? In short, the best way to avoid the Abilene Paradox is to speak up and voice your true concerns, and do not “just go with it” so as not to “rock the boat.”

Comparative Analysis

There is of course a basic similarity between Groupthink and The Abilene Paradox, and even researchers sometimes confuse the two (Kim, 2001).? Both are psychological phenomena involving group dynamics which produce less-than-optimal decisions – often patently irrational ones – and both are ultimately motivated by group members’ desires to minimize conflict and create (or sustain) collective harmony; leading to a group-wide suppression of (open) dissent.? However, there are several (nine according to Kim) important differences between Groupthink and The Abilene Paradox, in etiology, prognosis, and prevention (2001).

During Groupthink, members of a group are no longer mentally able to critically evaluate alternatives, as esprit de corps (Kim’s “group illusion”) has compromised each individual’s ability for independent thought, affecting judgment of morality and even reality (2001).? Specifically, members do not realize that a poor decision is being agreed upon.? Groupthink feels right – at least in the moment, “individuals in groupthink were often described as ‘euphoric,’ enjoying high morale and a heightened sense of efficiency” (Kim, 2001, para. 4).? Afterwards, however, members may recognize that “they all got caught up together” in an irresistible momentum (Kim’s “high energy” state), yet their role is usually perceived as active, and there is minimal finger pointing or self-loathing involved.? Still, managers trained to recognize and curb Groupthink may feel negligent in their duties (2001).

Conversely, in the Abilene Paradox, group members are quite able to internally evaluate alternatives and identify a more favorable course of action (Kim’s “private view”), but then nevertheless choose to quietly go along with a poor choice in a misguided attempt to appease other group members; leading Abilene Paradox coiner Jerry B. Harvey to talk about “neurotic organizations” (2001).? Thus, the Abilene Paradox can be harrowing in the moment insofar as those involved feel passive, compelled to do something they do not want to do, and humiliating afterwards because it was all based on mistaken suppositions (and arguably cowardice), comprising Kim’s “low energy” state (2001).? Yet, ironically, this may ultimately result in conflict for the group, in which the very thing its members tried so desperately to avoid, as members they blame one another and/or themselves.

Groupthink works even with – perhaps best with – groups of strangers, largely because it involves a surrender of one’s own individual identity to the supposed wisdom of the group, a subconscious relegation of self that may be easier when the actual attributes and qualifications of other constituents of the group are not well known and must be extrapolated from limited evidence or made up “the whole cloth”.? Kim likens Groupthink to a single organism, which is greater than the sum of its parts (2001).? For instance, external threats often facilitate almost immediate group cohesion, forming an “us-versus-them” schematic (Kim, 20001).

Whereas, the Abilene Paradox may be stronger amongst familiars, as its conscious (or at least semi-conscious) suppression of true desires can be motivated by affection or supposed kindness towards others (and/or fear of separation from them), in which an external force is rarely necessary.? Kim calls Abilene groups less than the sum of their parts, since all the maneuvering occurs silently within the individual and is not shared with the others until it is too late (2001).

While both Groupthink and the Abilene Paradox are generally considered negative occurrences, they equally may result in positive net effects; especially if the undesired outcomes are more inconvenient than devastating, e.g., more like the eponymous trip to Abilene and less like the failure to foresee the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941.? Loss (or at least diminishment) of oneself in a group can be helpful – or even essential – to group cohesion and bonding between members, and arguably, a defective decision from a newly-tight-knit group might be worth it overall, e.g., in a corporate or sports team environment.? In a similar fashion, the confused concessions silently granted to one another in the Abilene Paradox may (further) endear group members to each other, if and when they are discovered or admitted, particularly if all can see the “sweet humor” in the situation, as in O. Henry’s “Gift of the Magi” (1992).? However, it seems at just as likely that discovering that nobody really wanted the “bad thing” that happened to happen at all, would eventually lead to frustration or resentment.

Conclusion

Poignantly stated in the aforementioned, both Janus’ Groupthink, and Harvey’s Abilene Paradox, when in the context to Peng’s Global Business (2014), educates managers in the international business environment about the psychology of policy decisions and fiascos, and appropriate meditations on management, by mitigating and/or avoiding Groupthink and the Abilene Paradox; as a method to circumvent the pitfalls with managing agreements.? Decisively then, by preventing the failure to recognize and take corrective action as a result of incorrect decisions within organizations due to these phenomenon, will ultimately avert flawed international business decision-making, and thus, provide continued management opportunity through the appreciation of the benefits in the group process.

References

BusinessDictionary.com (2014). Definition: Abilene Paradox. Retrieved from www.businessdictionary.com/definition/Abilene-paradox.html

Harvey, J. (1988). The Abilene Paradox: The Management of Agreement.

Henry, O. (1992). Gift of the Magi and Other Short Stories. Mineola, New York: Dover

Publications.

Janis, Irving (1972). Victims of Groupthink. New York, NY: Houghton-Mifflin.

Kim, Y. (2001). A Comparative Study of the "Abiliene Paradox" and "Groupthink". Public Administration Quarterly, 25(2), 168-189. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docview/226979007?accountid= 27203

McFarland, Keith (2007). Where Groupthink is Good. Bloomberg BusinessWeek. Retrieved from https://www.businessweek.com/stories/2007-04-17/where-group-think-is-goodbusinessweek-business-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice

Mulrine, Anna (2008). The Army Trains a Skeptics Corps to Battle Groupthink. US News and World Report. Retrieved from https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2008/05/15/the-army-trains-a-skeptics-corps-to-battle-groupthink

Peng, M. W. (2014). Global Business. (3rd ed.). Mason, OH: South Western Cengage Learning.

PsySR. (2014). What is Groupthink? Psychologists for Social Responsibility. Retrieved from https://www.psysr.org/about/pubs_resources/groupthink%20overview.htm

Ziegenhals, G. (June, 2013). The Parable of the Abilene Paradox, or the Problem of Failing to Communicate. Retrieved from www.faithandleadership.com/blog/05-31-2013/the-parable-the-abilene-paradox-or-the-problem-of-failing-to-communicate.html