Challenging Consensus: On how we think, make decisions, communicate and compromise as a group
Imagine yourself in a team meeting where your boss proposes a new strategy that appears to have flaws. Despite having doubts, everyone in the room nods in agreement. Why is it common for people to ‘silently’ disagree in meetings? Perhaps you’ve experienced a similar situation in your workplace.
It may not initially seem significant, since you believe your boss has only the best intentions for the company. But what if your unexpressed ideas hold the potential to rescue the project? What if your boss genuinely values a team that is creative rather than merely obedient? This scenario exemplifies two distinct psychological phenomena in group decision-making: groupthink and the Abilene paradox.
Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs when a group values harmony and consensus over critical evaluation, leading to poor decisions. Everyone automatically agreed with the senior colleague instead of openly discussing alternative options.
The Abilene paradox on the other hand is when a group unanimously makes a decision that goes against what individual members truly want. Each member of the team privately disagrees with the senior colleague, yet they believe (incorrectly) that all the others are in favor, and so they go along with it to avoid conflict.
Understanding Groupthink and The Abilene Paradox
The term “groupthink” was coined by social psychologist Irving Janis in his 1972 book Victims of Groupthink. Groupthink is based on a common desire not to upset the balance of a group of people. This desire creates a dynamic within a group whereby creativity and individuality tend to be stifled in order to avoid conflict. The desire for harmony overrode rational decision-making.
The Abilene paradox is a social phenomenon where a group of individuals collectively agrees on something they privately disagree with because they assume it aligns with the desires of the rest of the group.
Mistakenly believing that their own preferences are in opposition to the group’s, they refrain from expressing their objections and may even outwardly support an outcome they actually do not desire. This differs from groupthink, where individuals accurately perceive others’ preferences, willingly conform without conflicting desires, and generally feel positive about the resulting group decisions.
The term was introduced by management expert Jerry B. Harvey in his 1974 article “The Abilene Paradox: The Management of Agreement”. It is named after a story about a family who agrees to go on a trip to Abilene, Texas, even though none of them want to go.
The Abilene paradox is also often associated with the phrase “not rocking the boat.” This sets it apart from groupthink, as the paradox is characterized by a lack of awareness of others’ perspectives. It serves as an illustration that groups can encounter challenges in effectively handling not just disagreements, but also agreements.
Circumstances that Foster Groupthink
The research conducted by Marlene Turner and Anthony Pratkanis in 1998 shed light on the factors that contribute to the occurrence of groupthink. They identified several conditions that increase the likelihood of groupthink within cohesive groups:
- High group cohesion: Group cohesion refers to the degree of unity, loyalty, and solidarity among group members. When group members have strong emotional bonds and a desire to maintain harmony, they may prioritize agreement over critical evaluation of ideas, leading to a conformity bias.
- Strong leadership: When a leader dominates the decision-making process and discourages dissenting opinions, group members may feel pressured to conform to the leader’s views. This dynamic restricts the exploration of alternative perspectives and limits the diversity of ideas.
- High levels of stress: When a group faces time constraints, high-pressure scenarios, or intense competition, members may be more inclined to seek rapid consensus rather than engage in thorough analysis.
- Low self-esteem within members: Individuals with low self-esteem may be hesitant to challenge the prevailing group opinion for fear of rejection or negative evaluation.
Together, these circumstances establish an atmosphere that hinders critical thinking, discourages dissent, and limits the exploration of diverse viewpoints. As a result, the group may overlook alternative solutions and fail to assess potential drawbacks associated with their chosen course of action.
It’s important to note that while these conditions increase the likelihood of groupthink, they do not guarantee its occurrence. Groupthink can still be mitigated through conscious efforts to foster an open and inclusive decision-making process that encourages dissent, critical evaluation, and the consideration of diverse perspectives.
When People Go Along To Get Along: How Our Need for Acceptance Drives Conformity
In any professional setting, the human need for belonging translates into a pressure to conform. Employees want acceptance from their colleagues and supervisors to feel included in the team. This pressure to conform can contribute to the development of groupthink. Here are the reasons why we may feel compelled to conform:
- The need to feel accepted. We naturally want to fit in with our social groups. Conforming helps us gain acceptance and avoid rejection.
- Desire for approval. We conform to social norms so that others will like us and view us positively. We want to seem “normal” to the group.
- Following cues from others. With uncertainty, we rely on how others act as information. Conforming copies the behaviors of the influential people in the group.
- Discomfort with differences. Not conforming causes internal conflicts in our beliefs versus actions. Agreeing with the group reduces our stressful inconsistencies.
- Influence from those in power. Authority figures and leaders in the social hierarchy can pressure us to conform through their positions of power and status.
- Fear of standing out. We conform out of worry about being criticized or seen as strange if we do not follow the crowd. We prefer blending in over negative judgments towards us.
Nonconformity risks being seen as disruptive or a poor cultural fit. Rather than rock the boat by raising objections, we often go along with plans and policies favored by management or our social circles at work. This serves our goal of maintaining inclusion and approval. As a result, we sometimes align our opinions and job tasks to what is expected or favored within the company culture. Conforming ensures our continued acceptance and positive relationships at work.
Leadership Strategies to Prevent Groupthink
As a leader, there are several strategies you can employ to avoid groupthink and foster a more open and inclusive decision-making process. Here are some effective approaches:
- Encourage diverse perspectives: Create an environment where individuals feel comfortable expressing their opinions, even if they differ from the prevailing consensus. Emphasize the value of diverse perspectives and make it clear that dissenting views are welcomed and respected.
- Appoint a devil’s advocate: Assign someone in the group the role of a devil’s advocate whose purpose is to challenge the prevailing opinions and ideas. This can help stimulate critical thinking and prevent the group from falling into conformity. Rotate the role among group members to ensure everyone has the opportunity to play this critical role.
- Foster open and inclusive communication: Create an atmosphere of open and honest communication where individuals feel safe to express their thoughts and concerns. Avoid dominating the conversation as a leader and give space for others to share their perspectives.
- Promote constructive conflict: Create guidelines for respectful disagreement and ensure that discussions remain focused on ideas rather than personal attacks. By allowing for differing opinions and facilitating discussions, you can stimulate critical thinking and prevent premature consensus.
- Seek external input: Bring in external experts or individuals who are not directly involved in the group to provide fresh perspectives. External input can challenge the group’s assumptions and offer alternative viewpoints that may have been overlooked. This can help break the echo chamber and promote more well-rounded decision-making.
As leaders, it’s important to foster a culture where team members feel comfortable voicing diverse opinions, even those that differ from our own. We should communicate that every idea, no matter how unusual, will be respected in this environment. By welcoming all perspectives, we encourage the exploration of outside-the-box solutions that our conventional thinking may have overlooked.
It’s our role to make each member feel their contributions have value, so that the group’s thinking is enriched rather than constricted by the pressure to conform. An inclusive workplace is one where innovation and excellence can truly thrive.
Afterthought
While some may think they’re avoiding conflicts from disagreements, the quest for harmony can instead cause irrational agreements. When groups value harmony most, it limits discussions and consideration of alternate views. People may set aside their own judgments just to fit in.
Even when people have good intentions, groups can make poor choices if they prioritize avoiding difficult conversations over fully exploring ideas. They chose comfort over thoroughly thinking things through. Conformity over creativity.
This is why we should practice healthy discussions to show our team that differing opinions offer helpful insights, not threats, to progress. For the best results, groups need to make room for all reasonable ideas, even uncomfortable ones. Encourage open communication and question assumptions in group settings. It’s better to voice doubts than to silently agree to a decision nobody supports.
Karma Wisdom | Curated research written by Anya Junor