Written by: Sandeep Jain, Executive Contributor
Executive Contributors at Brainz Magazine are handpicked and invited to contribute because of their knowledge and valuable insight within their area of expertise.
Have you heard of Abilene Paradox? The anecdote that inspired the term goes like this. On a hot afternoon in Coleman, Texas, the family is comfortably seated on a porch until the father-in-law suggests that they take a 50-mile trip to Abilene for dinner. The wife says, "Sounds like a great idea." Despite having reservations because the drive is long and hot, the husband thinks that his preferences must be out-of-step with the group and says, "Sounds good to me. I hope your mother wants to go." The mother-in-law then says, "Of course, I want to go. I haven't been to Abilene in a long time."
The drive is hot, dusty, and long. The food at the cafeteria is as bad as the drive. They come back home four hours later, exhausted.
One of them dishonestly says, "It was a great trip, wasn't it?" The mother-in-law says that she would rather have stayed home but went along since the others were so enthusiastic. The husband says, "I wasn't delighted to be doing what we were doing. I only went to please the rest of you." The wife says, "I just went along to keep you happy. I would have had to be crazy to want to go out in this heat" The father-in-law then says he only suggested it because he thought the others might be bored.
The group sits back, perplexed that they together decided to take a trip that none of them wanted.
Management expert Harvey quotes this anecdote in an article titled "The Abilene Paradox: The Management of Agreement". In the Abilene paradox, a group of people collectively decide on a course of action that is counter to the preferences of many or all individuals in the group.
Groupthink is a phenomenon that occurs when a group of individuals reaches a consensus without critical reasoning or evaluation of the consequences or alternatives. Everyone in the group proceeds with a (seemingly) shared desire not to upset the rest of the group.
Have you encountered this situation ever? Let's agree that this happens to all of us in our social settings and even more so in an organisational context, where the stakes are high. The communication channels get clogged, sometime for no apparent reason. We consent to the decision, but it is with no solid conviction or single mind regarding the seemingly agreed outcome or decision.
Six strategies to replace groupthink with independent thinking in groups
Build psychological safety – First and foremost, build psychological safety for team members to share their feelings and express their opinions openly. Like most other things, this must begin from the top. If the leader is willing to hear divergent views with an open mind, this becomes the culture of the team and the organisation.
Remain vulnerable – Vulnerability is not a sign of weakness but a sign of strength. The more vulnerable we are, the more willing we are to ask for help, more open to deeper conversations and more accepting of ideas, which all help with a good decision-making process. This also builds psychological safety, as being vulnerable signals our awareness that we may not always have all the answers.
Bring in diversity – Diversity in teams, both functional and social, helps take a more 360-degree view. Looking at the topic from different angles increases our collective ability to make better decisions. Besides, multiple perspectives build a systemic view of things, which enables better understanding of the impact of decisions on the larger organisation.
Encourage difference of opinion – Resonance leads only to validation of our view without adding too much to the quality of decision-making. In contrast, dissonance leads to discussions, learning and better decision-making. Note we are talking of constructive dissonance here, which helps reach better decisions rather than stonewalling the decision-making process.
Replace advocacy with inquiry – Team members don't need to approach decision-making as a contest. Advocating a viewpoint often means not letting the best point of view emerge. Team members in a mode of inquiry generate many alternatives, foster the exchange of ideas, and produce a well-tested solution. Team members' goal should not be to persuade others to adopt a given point of view but to reach an agreement on the best course of action.
Leaders speak the last – This does not come quickly to leaders, but the easiest and best way for leaders to add value to the decision-making process is by just 'shutting up'. Leaders should be the last to air their views. If their opinions are not known, the risk of the 'follow the leader' mentality gets eliminated.
Let unanimity never override the appraisal of alternative courses of action. Let's attempt to maximise the team's collective wisdom while minimising groupthink and cultivating independent thinking in groups.
Sandeep Jain, Executive Contributor Brainz Magazine
Sandeep Jain | Leadership Coach & Strategy Consultant | CEO, Value-Unlocked Private Limited After +25 years in various finance and business leadership roles across Asia-Pacific, Sandeep now runs a boutique strategy consulting and leadership coaching outfit, Value-Unlocked Private Limited.
Sandeep's purpose is to help organizations and individuals bring to life the amazing success stories they want to script for themselves, and he delivers this through coaching, consulting and facilitation.
As a coach, Sandeep primarily works with CXOs in organization-sponsored engagements and with senior teams on agendas around leadership, strategy, purpose and values, business growth, etc. On the strategy consulting side, he helps companies deliver on their transformation agendas through interventions around route-to-market, portfolio optimization, operational efficiencies, leveraging industry-ready technology solutions, cost savings, and organization re-design.
Sandeep also works as a business coach with aspirational business owners who want to scale up, innovate, professionalize and create an owner-independent business and as a mentor-investor-advisor with start-ups.
