Groupthink & Abilene Paradox

Posted on August 18, 2016 Updated on August 24, 2016

How often do you think to yourself that you are not like everyone else and that your thoughts are not influenced by those around you? Well, you might be surprised that we can all fall into paradoxes such as ‘Groupthink’ and ‘Abilene Paradox’ without even realising it.

From time after time we see that even the most sophisticated teams fail as a result of poor team dynamics. We, humans, are still the most important resource in any project and it is important to appropriately manage this resource in a manner that is beneficial to us and the project we are working on. In teams, effective communication is a key contributor for successful functionality of groups. Groupthink and Abilene Paradox are two group conditions, if unmanaged, can have detrimental impact to a team’s performance.

Groupthink is defined as “a mode of thinking of people when they are deeply involved in a cohesive group. When the member’s are strivings for unanimity and they override their own motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action“(Anonymous, 2009). With groupthink, the individuals are unaware of that the team’s decision is wrong or risky.

Abilene Paradox, on the other hand, is when groups make ineffective decisions that are contrary to what each of the group members individually believe because they don’t want to ‘rock the boat’ (McAvoy & Butler 2007). The individuals are aware that a decision taken by the team is wrong or risky but do not voice their concerns due to action anxiety (Harvey 1988).

Groupthink and Abilene Paradox are similar but they are two separate group conditions. Below are symptoms for differentiating between Groupthink and Abilene Paradox.

Harvey (1988) identified six symptoms associated with the Abilene Paradox:

1. The individuals in a group privately assess the problem they are facing.
2. The individuals in a group come up with the steps that would be required to address the problem, however the team members do this individually, to themselves.
3. The team members fail to accurately communicate their individual desires and beliefs to one another within the group. In fact, they do the opposite and thus mislead each other.
4. With invalid and inaccurate information, the team members make group decisions that lead counterproductive outcomes.
5. As a result of counterproductive outcomes, the team members experience frustration, anger, irritation and dissatisfaction. Consequently, blame occurs and the team become ineffective (Yoonho 2001, 173).
6. Finally, if the team fails to resolve the issue, the cycle repeats itself with much greater intensity. In an organisational environment this could damage the business intensely.

Harvey et al (2004) identified seven symptoms associated with groupthink:

1. There is a strong lead and a strong organisational culture.
2. The group overestimate itself and creates the illusion that the group is invulnerable.
3. There is little to no conflict or debate within the group.
4. There is close mindedness with lack of diversity and pluralistic perspective.
5. There is pressure for uniformity.
6. The appointment of a leader (Harvey et al., 2004) in the group can trigger action anxiety to individuals. No one dares to question the leader publicly.
7. Finally, the development of a ‘spiral of silence’ where an individual’s perception of the majority opinion suppresses their willingness to share challenging questions.

Read the rest of this entry »