Welcome to the AACP Leadership Institute. My name is Lothi Mulder and I'm one of your leadership coaches. Your other coach is Catherine Stekenas and together we will guide you through this entire course and program. Please reach out to us if you have any questions about the course or if there is anything else we can help you with. You can reach us through the Leadership Institute website you see here. We all make decisions. And we all make decisions in groups. But how do we know that the decisions we make as a group are sound? How can we ensure a good decision-making process where everyone feels comfortable sharing opposing opinions? This course consists of two separate sections, Groupthink and the Abilene Paradox, focusing on two different parts regarding a group's decision-making process. First, with Groupthink, we will discuss how groups can have irrational or even dysfunctional decision-making processes. Then, through studying the Abilene Paradox, we will learn how certain groups have an inability to manage group agreement. Together, these two parts will provide insights into how to encourage good group decision-making, whether groups agree or disagree. This is the overview of this Leadership Institute course. There will be two videos as part of the webinar. The first one is about Groupthink and the second is about the Abilene Paradox. At the end of the webinar, there will be a short test to assess your learning in a course evaluation. Once you have fulfilled these steps, the course will be considered completed and you can download the course transcript through your dashboard and claim your continuing education credits. Groupthink is a mode of thinking that people engage in when the member striving for unanimity overrides their motivation to realistically consider alternative courses of action. Groupthink specifically addresses the underlying psychological factors that can make or break a successful decision. In this course, we will explore the eight symptoms and causes of Groupthink. Researchers have discovered a number of positive strategies and techniques that can be employed in groups to reduce the chances of lapsing into Groupthink and to help ensure a rational, well-balanced dialogue of all available alternatives. We will discuss those techniques and develop strategies to participate effectively in group decisions and to turn a Groupthink around. Groupthink occurs when members of a group have a desire for unanimity that overrides their motivation to realistically consider alternative courses of action. In other words, the group's good decision-making is overridden by their desire for harmony and conformity. And this can sometimes lead to disastrous consequences, as we will explore later in this webinar. Good decision-making skills and avoiding Groupthink are thus essential to any team, department, and organization. William White coined the term Groupthink back in 1952 in Fortune magazine, but it was Dr. Irvin Janis, a research psychologist at Yale University, who initiated the research on the theory behind Groupthink, describing the systematic errors made by groups when making collective decisions. He studied the effects of extreme stress on group cohesiveness in the American Soldier Project and then focused on American foreign policy challenges such as Pearl Harbor in 1941, Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961, and the Watergate scandal in 1972, coming out with his book called Victims of Groupthink. We will explore one of the challenges he researched further into this webinar. Janis's research helped transform the management science of group dynamics, and the concept is still widely used to increase the decision-making process of groups. What Irvin Janis found through his research was that certain groups are unable to see beyond their own narrow focus. This means that if a group only has experts of one particular branch or department, they might not be able to see the consequences of their decisions on other departments. In turn, they might not realize how their decisions go against their own group goals and principles, leading the entire group and their mission astray. A group might have a loss of creativity and independent thinking because of their lack of considering alternatives and their need for conformity. And a group might also have an illusion of invulnerability, meaning that the group has a feeling that their decisions are always right and that they will be succeeding in everything they do. The illusion of invulnerability can become largely responsible for actually increasing the vulnerability of the group. All these are signs that a group might be experiencing groupthink and that they are heading towards making poor decisions. According to Irvin Janis, the advantages of having decisions made by groups are often lost because of powerful psychological pressures that arise when the members work closely together, share the same set of values and, above all, face a crisis situation that puts everyone under intense stress. He revealed the relationship peer pressure has to conformity and how this dynamic limits the confines of the collective cognitive ability of the group, resulting in stagnant, unoriginal and at times damaging ideas. In other words, when groups experience groupthink. Three conditions for groupthink are high group cohesiveness, structural faults and situational context. Please note that not all three factors are always present when groupthink is occurring, but Dr. Janis found that high group cohesiveness was always present. However, he found that high group cohesiveness would not always produce groupthink if a very cohesive group has additional norms that the group abides by, such as independent thinking. In other words, if the group encourages individual dissent and alternative strategies to problem solving, it is likely that groupthink will be avoided even in a highly cohesive group. This means that high cohesion will lead to groupthink only if one or both of the other conditions are present. The situational contexts of an organization that can contribute to groupthink are high stress such as upcoming deadlines or the pressure to make a decision now and low self-esteem created by recent failures and moral dilemmas. We will discuss the structural faults next. Here are the eight symptoms or structural faults of groupthink. These symptoms are in no particular order and you might see one or multiple symptoms simultaneously occurring when working in a group. Direct pressure from an authority figure, specifically to conform with their opinion, is one of the most common causes of groupthink. Pressuring people to agree with you and not by convincing them through your arguments make the group members feel that there will be consequences if they do not agree, such as alienation, demotion or even getting fired. Direct pressure does not only come from authority figures, it can come from anyone in the group. The other side of this is self-censorship, where group members do not share their opinions, thoughts and or suggestions and thereby not offering the group possibly valuable information. I mentioned the illusion of invulnerability before, the feeling that a group is strong and smart enough to avoid any negative consequences. The Titanic story is a perfect example of that, where people called the ship unsinkable because they believed they were invulnerable. Illusion of unanimity is the idea that every member of the group is agreeing with the majority or possibly even only with the leader when paired with that direct pressure to conform. The illusion of unanimity is dangerous because it does not open the space for true discussions and considering alternate courses of action. Rationalization is when voicing the drawbacks of a course of action is overshadowed by the perceived reaction of voicing those objections. This is done in order to influence the decision-making process. The belief in the inherent morality of the group is when a group believes that no matter what they do or choose to do, it is inherently moral even if they break the policies or the law by doing so. The show Scandal is a perfect example of this, where Olivia Pope and associates break the law in a number of ways but they call themselves gladiators and the white hats because they believe that their actions are inherently moral when in fact they are not. Sometimes a group can have stereotypes of opponents or so-called outgroups that prevent the group from taking their suggestions seriously. For example, there can be a stereotype of a person or department or even an entire organization that negates everything they say or even do. And last are mindguards. These are people who are trying to manipulate the decision-making process by providing or creating constraints. This can be done by providing limited information, creating additional time pressure, reframing situations as to make one solution more favorable or even creating the impression that group cohesiveness will suffer if there is no unanimity. This is an exercise to help you start recognizing the symptoms of groupthink. When looking at the first statement, we all know we wouldn't do anything that isn't 100% safe and proper, right? Do you think that this is an illusion of unanimity, self-censorship, belief in group morality or illusion of invulnerability? Indeed, it is a belief in group morality as a person saying this statement is pressuring another person to believe that the group would never make a decision that wasn't morally accurate. The next statement is, I'm not going to call for a show of hands because I think we are more or less in agreement here. This is clearly illusion of unanimity, where this person believes that everyone is in alignment and will not even bother finding out if someone does not agree. The third statement is, I had a few objections but since everybody else seems committed, in the interest of time, I won't bother bringing them up. As you can see, this person is only stating that they have some objections but is not explaining what they are, so this is self-censorship. And last, the statement that our surveillance has worked for us time and time again, odds are it will work again, is illusion of invulnerability. This person believes that because it has worked in the past, it will work in the future. Here are a few more statements to practice but with different symptoms. The first statement is, the department is always overreacting, let's just move forward with this. Is that rationalization, mind guards, shared stereotypes or direct pressure? It is stereotypes, as you can tell by their statement of the other department. Next is, hey, if we don't get this project up and running, it will be noted on my performance review, so are you on board or not? This is direct pressure because this person is pressuring the other group member or members to agree with them, by stating that there will be consequences if they don't. As you can see, this is direct pressure from a co-worker, not a supervisor. The third statement is, what have we got to worry about? This new information system is a winner. This would be rationalization, because the reason given to agree with a speaker is that it is a good system, not looking for alternatives or opposing views. And last, no need for you to be at the conference team meeting, I'll summarize your concerns for the group, ok? This is mind guards, as limited information and no voting power is being given. We are now going to watch a video about the Challenger disaster of 1986. The Challenger was a space shuttle that was launched and had landed 19 times prior to the launch in 1986. The 20th launch was scheduled for January 28th and ended up as a disaster, falling apart 73 seconds after the launch and killing all 7 crew members that you see depicted here. We will watch the re-enactment of how the decision was made to launch that day. Please pay attention to any groupthink conditions and symptoms. Please keep the symptoms of groupthink from the last slides with you and see how many of the symptoms you see demonstrated. You can access the video by following the directions listed on this slide by typing this unique URL into your Chrome or Firefox browser. These two browsers work best with this website. When you are on that site, register as a first-time user, enter your email address, name and a password. Select the groupthink video, watch it and return to this webinar. We will return to this website again to watch the Abilene Paradox video, so please save your login information. As you saw in the video, Dr. James Esser divided the groupthink symptoms in three separate clusters. Overestimation of the group, pressure towards uniformity and closed-mindedness. In the overestimation cluster, you can find the illusion of invulnerability and the inherent morality of the group as they both embellish the group's capacity. Pressure towards uniformity contains self-censorship, direct pressure, Pressure towards uniformity contains self-censorship, direct pressure, illusion of unanimity and mind-guard because all these symptoms do not allow dissenting opinions. And last is the closed-mindedness cluster with rationalization and stereotypes of outgroups because they close the group off from outsiders and alternative options. Now that we understand what groupthink is and what the symptoms and consequences are, we will discuss the techniques to avoid groupthink altogether. Even though it may seem that these techniques are catered towards the leader of a group or meeting, there is a lot non-leaders can do. When learning about these techniques, think about what some strategies are to empower yourself and others. The first step is to create an open environment. Make sure that everyone in the group feels that divergent thinking is accepted, open discussions are encouraged, and that there is a non-judgmental atmosphere. This will encourage discussions and allow people to feel comfortable to express their suggestions and opinions, even when they are not aligned with the group's view. One strategy for creating an open climate is to simply state that creating an open climate for the discussion is a goal for the meeting. As I previously mentioned, the leader of a group or meeting typically initiates this open environment. However, team members can also provide this suggestion as a group discussion strategy. Another way to avoid groupthink is by not isolating the group. You can avoid isolation by asking for outside opinions and by bringing experts into the group to provide critical feedback to the group's plans. You can also assign or offer to be a critical evaluator to the group, a person who will come up with reasons to go against the group decision. Assigning such a person will alleviate the discomfort someone with a divergent view might be feeling, and it allows the group to hear other opinions. You can assign a different person every time your group meets, as to not create one scapegoat in the group. And as the leader of a group, you can remove yourself at times from the leadership role, by letting other people facilitate the meeting, or possibly remove yourself from the meeting altogether, if you think that it is necessary for the group to truly discuss something. However, if this is the case, our suggestion would then be to re-evaluate the leadership style you have been using, and figuring out if there is a more productive style for you to use instead. In the workplace, people have experienced or might experience moments of groupthink, mistrust and pressures that drive us and our co-workers to deny, withhold or distort the truth or reality. What are some strategies that might be useful to you to avoid groupthink? What are some specific actions you can take? The next section of this course is the Abilene Paradox and how to manage agreement. The Abilene Paradox complements groupthink well, because while groupthink is about a member of a group not speaking up when they have an opposing opinion, the Abilene Paradox is when people decide on a course of action that is counter to what many, or even all of the members of a group believe. Originally based upon the article of the same name by Dr. Jerry Harvey, the Abilene Paradox examines the core dynamics of group decision-making, and helps managers and their work teams to recognize the downside of mismanaged agreement, to avoid moving in directions that are counterproductive to the group's overall goals. In this section of the course, we will focus on learning about the possible consequences of passively accepting a decision without communicating our true opinions about it. Secondly, we will learn to recognize the road signs that can tell someone that the group has embarked on a trip to Abilene. Thirdly, through the video we will learn general preventative measures to turn a car around mid-route, bypass Abilene, or even better, avoid embarking on the trip altogether. The Abilene Paradox focuses on what the real reason is behind wasted efforts, projects that never went anywhere, and ventures that just didn't quite do it right. It looks at what happens behind the scenes and how agreement was mismanaged. Organizational psychologists believe that we hesitate to speak up to avoid being ostracized from the group or seen as a loner. Our personal fears of being seen as different more so than actual pressure from the group cause this response. Unfortunately, the don't rock the boat approach to decision management often stifles honest opinions and valid concerns. When silence contributes to poor decisions, what often results are precisely those conditions that prompted the silence in the first place? Failure and ultimate separation from the group. To find out if you've ever experienced Abilene Paradox, ask yourself if you've ever said yes to a proposed group endeavor when no was your true response. Road signs can include ways of thinking that we notice in ourselves, or external signs such as blame, criticism of the boss, etc. If so, think back to that project and think if there would have been a different outcome had you expressed your opinion from the start. The project might still have gone forward, but what additional information would the group have sought? What different steps might the group have taken? This is exactly what we will be exploring in the rest of this course. The Abilene Paradox was introduced by Dr. Jerry Harvey, professor emeritus at George Washington University. In 1974, he wrote an article called The Abilene Paradox, The Management of Agreement, in which he explores this concept. He states that the Abilene Paradox is different from groupthink, in that with groupthink, members usually feel satisfactory with the overall decision afterward, even if they initially did not agree. With the Abilene Paradox, however, group members who did not agree with the course of action, but who did not say anything, are likely to have negative feelings toward the final decision. You can access the video by following the directions listed on this slide by typing this unique URL into your Chrome or Firefox browser. These two browsers work best with this website. When you are on that website, log in with your login information from the groupthink video, select the Abilene Paradox video, watch it and return to this webinar. As you could see in the video, the video demonstrates the way a mismanaged agreement can influence a group and even the goals of an entire organization. Let's now look at some causes of the paradox. These causes are in no particular order and you might see one or multiple causes simultaneously occurring when working in a group. In the video, you saw an example of each of these causes and as you are learning about them, reflect on your own workplace experiences. Disordering anxiety is an intense uneasiness created when we think about acting in accordance with what we believe needs to be done. It is foreseeing negative results instead of positive ones when we think about the outcome and that prevents taking action. Real risk is the true negative consequences of an incorrect decision as opposed to the disastrous scenarios of our negative fantasies. Negative fantasies are the disastrous scenarios that we play out in our minds when faced with a major decision. Examples of negative fantasy are when group members feel that their job might be at jeopardy if they say something or that they might be replaced by someone else on the team that is more aligned with the group's ideas. Fear of separation is another cause of the Abilene Paradox. This is the unspoken fear that people have of being isolated from others in the group. It's the fear of not being labeled as a team player which is seen by many organizations as a crucial aspect of your work performance. This can stop people from sharing their true opinions. Confusion of risk and certainty is when people have a tendency to give negative fantasies and perceived risk more weight than they deserve. What we imagine will go wrong if we say what we think seems more real to us than the more likely disaster that often results from going along with the crowd. Next is a short learning activity. On the next slide you will find 15 reasons why someone can end up in the road to Abilene. Circle the top 3 that are most likely or most frequent reasons that move through your mind when making decisions. This will provide you with some personal insights into your own Abilene Paradox tendencies. Here are 15 reasons for you to end up in Abilene. Please note that this list is by no means complete and just serves as a starting point to reflect on your own behavior patterns. Some reasons are I'm the newest member of the group, I haven't earned my voice at the table yet. It is really up to my boss. We've been through this a dozen times, let's decide something, anything and just move on. I don't care enough about the issue. No one wants to hear about my problems or concerns with the details. I'm not the expert. Why would I know more about this than the others? If I express my real opinions, someone will give me an extra assignment. If this decision moves ahead as is, there's a good chance my budget will increase. I've put so much effort into this proposal that I would upset them if I said anything negative. I care a lot about this issue, but I care more about keeping my job. Everyone remembers the last time I disagreed. It delayed implementation and it turned out not to be an issue. Whatever. I wish the others would learn to participate and be more accountable for decisions that impact their department. I shouldn't be at this meeting in the first place. It would be great to have more data. Take a moment to reflect and mark the top three that go through your mind when involved in a group decision. Now let's look at some ways you can avoid the trip to Abilene altogether before a meeting. First, invite the right people. This means the people with the right knowledge, experience and those who have mistaken the results of the course of action. When you begin the meeting, clearly state the decision to be made. This doesn't mean, oh, I want you to make this X decision, but I want us to make a decision about X. Also state the results you want to see accomplished during the meeting. Perhaps you just want to discuss other courses of action and not make any decision about which one is the best. Perhaps you want to flush out the decision the group has decided upon. Figure out what it is you want from the meeting prior to scheduling it. When planning your meeting, make sure you allow for enough time to discuss the course of action instead of just allowing time to inform people. Encourage people during the discussion to present divergent opinions. Similar to groupthink, you can assign people as critical evaluators. Make sure, however, that you have first created an open environment where participation is encouraged, every option is carefully considered and the potential impact and results are evaluated. In addition, review the risk and benefits of multiple courses of action and estimate the probabilities of each option. This allows the group to not get stuck on one idea and it creates the climate of considering all ideas and options. And for the discussion to be truly effective, organize the available data and information. Certain people rely heavily on data, so making sure that it is available will be essential to a good team decision-making process. But what can you do when you find yourself in a meeting that you feel is headed towards an Abilene paradox? The easiest and the safest way to avoid heading to Abilene is by asking questions. These questions, when stated in a calm and respectful manner, allow group members to open up and share their true opinions in a non-confronting way. Some question suggestions are, what happens if we don't do it? What other options are there to achieve the objective? What else could be creating this problem we are trying to solve? How confident are we in our data? What are the chances of success if we pursue this direction? And if we are wrong in pursuing this, is the situation recoverable? These questions can open up the discussion and allows group members to at least consider alternate routes, possibly to avoid Abilene altogether. Of course, the earlier in the process you ask questions such as these, the easier it is to avert the paradox. Here is a layout for you to explore your own situation, both as a group member and as a group leader. Take a moment to think and answer these questions. The first question is, how would you describe the decision-making approach in your department? Do you feel it is an open environment where everyone's opinion matters equally? Do you feel you are being told by a supervisor what the decision is prior to the meeting? Do you do that as a supervisor? The next question is, what do you or your manager do to encourage participation? Do you assign certain roles to people prior to a meeting? Do you call upon people who are usually silent? Do you facilitate discussions or are you more informative? Then what does your team do to inject ideas into the group process? Does the team discard certain ideas right from the start and move forward with the first so-called solid idea that is mentioned? What have you done to prevent the group from mismanaging agreement or experiencing group think? Have you been able to pull them away from Abilene by asking some questions that made everyone think and possibly reconsider? Have you played a role as critical evaluator even when it was uncomfortable or risky for you? And last, what would you do to improve the openness of the group? Will you assign critical evaluators? Will you encourage divergent opinions? Will you increase the discussion time and would you, as the leader of a group, even go forth if the group makes a decision different than your own? This is the final question to help you wrap up your learning in this course. We encourage you to share your answer with your team as a starting point for more effective group decision making. Thank you for watching this webinar. If you have any questions or concerns, you can reach us through the Leadership Institute website depicted here. Thank you!

Groupthink

Abilene Paradox

decision-making

leadership

team dynamics

continuing education