Available under Creative Commons-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Download for free at http://cnx.org/contents/05c97be4-3ad0-47f2-b5a7-a75d0ad90ab7@3.72
- The Abilene Paradox. "The story involves a family who would all rather have been at home that ends up having a bad dinner in a lousy restaurant in Abilene, Texas. Each believes the others want to go to Abilene and never questions this by giving their own view that doing so is a bad idea. In the Abilene paradox, the group winds up doing something that no individual wants to do because of a breakdown of intra-group communication." (From Huff, Good Computing, an unpublished manuscript for a textbook in computer ethics. See materials from Janis; complete reference below.)
- Groupthink. The tendency for very cohesive groups with strong leaders to disregard and defend against information that goes against their plans and beliefs. The group collectively and the members individually remain loyal to the party line while happily marching of the cliff, all the while blaming "them" (i.e., outsiders) for the height and situation of the cliff. (Also from Huff, Good Computing, an unpublished manuscript for a textbook in computer ethics.)
- Group Polarization. Here, individuals within the group choose to frame their differences as dis agreements. Framing a difference as non-agreement leaves open the possibility of working toward agreement by integrating the differences or by developing a more comprehensive standpoint that di alectally synthesizes the differences. Framing a difference as disagreement makes it a zero sum game; one's particular side is good, all the others bad, and the only resolution is for the good (one's own posi tion) to win out over the bad (everything else). (Weston provides a nice account of group polarization in Practical Companion to Ethics. This is not to be confused with Cass Sunstein's different account of group polarization in Infotopia.)
Note: All of these are instances of a social psychological phenomenon called conformity. But there are other processes at work too, like group
identification, self-serving biases, self-esteem enhancement, self-fulfilling prophecies, etc.
More Obstacles to Group Work
- Free Riders: Free riders are individuals who attempt to "ride for free" on the work of the other members of the group. Some free riders cynically pursue their selfish agenda while others fall into this pitfall because they are unable to meet all their obligations. (See conflict of effort.)
- Outliers: These are often mistaken for free riders. Outliers want to become participants but fail to become fully integrated into the group. This could be because they are shy and need encouragement from the other group members. It could also be because the other group members know one another well and have habitual modes of interaction that exclude outsiders. One sign of outliers; they do not participate in group social activities but they still make substantial contributions working by themselves. ("No, I can't come to the meeting-just tell me what I have to do.")
- Hidden Agendas: Cass Sunstein introduces this term. A group member with a "hidden agenda" has something he or she wants to contribute but, for some reason or other, hold back. For example, this individual may have tried to contribute something in the past and was "shot down" by the group leader. The next time he or she will think, "Let them figure it out without me."
- Conflict of Effort: conflict of Effort often causes an individual to become a free rider or an outlier. These group members have made too many commitments and come unraveled when they all come due at the same time. Students are often overly optimistic when making out their semester schedules. They tightly couple work and class schedules while integrating home responsibilities. Everything goes well as long as nothing unusual happens. But if a coworker gets sick and your supervisor asks you to come in during class times to help out, or you get sick, it becomes impossible to keep the problem from "spilling out" into other areas of your schedule and bringing down the whole edifice. Developing a schedule with periods of slack and flexibility can go a long way toward avoiding conflict of effort. Groups can deal with this by being supportive and flexible. (But it is important to draw the line between being supportive and carrying a free rider.)
Best Practices for Avoiding Abilene Paradox
- At the end of the solution generating process, carry out an anonymous survey asking participants if anything was left out they were reluctant to put before group.
- Designate a Devil's Advocate charged with criticizing the group's decision.
- Ask participants to reaffirm group decision-perhaps anonymously.
Best Practices for Avoiding Groupthink (Taken from Janis, 262-271)
-
The leader of a policy-forming group should assign the role of critical evaluator to each member, encouraging the group to give high priority to airing objections and doubts.
-
The leaders in an organization's hierarchy, when assigning a policy-planning mission to a group, should be impartial instead of stating preferences and expectations at the outset.
-
Throughout the period when the feasibility and effectiveness of policy alternatives are being sur veyed, the policy-making group should from time to time divide into two or more subgroups to meet separately....
-
One or more outside experts or qualified colleagues within the organization who are not core members of the policy-making group should be invited to each meeting ...and should be encouraged to challenge the views of the core members.
-
At every meeting devoted to evaluating policy alternatives, at least one member should be assigned the role of devil's advocate.
Best Practices for Avoiding Polarization (Items taken from "Good Computing: A Virtue Approach to Computer Ethics" by Chuck Huff, William Frey and Jose Cruz (Unpublished Manuscript)
- Set Quotas. When brainstorming, set a quota and postpone criticism until after quota has been met.
- Negotiate Interests, not Positions. Since it is usually easier to integrate basic interests than specific positions, try to frame the problem in terms of interests.
- Expanding the Pie. Conflicts that arise from situational constraints can be resolved by pushing back those constraints through negotiation or innovation.
- Nonspecific Compensation. One side makes a concession to the other but is compensated for that concession by some other coin.
- Logrolling. Each party lowers their aspirations on items that are of less interest to them, thus trading of a concession on a less important item for a concession from the other on a more important item.
- Cost-Cutting. One party makes an agreement to reduce its aspirations on a particular thing, and the other party agrees to compensate the party for the specific costs that reduction in aspirations involves.
- Bridging. Finding a higher order interest on which both parties agree, and then constructing a solution that serves that agreed-upon interest.
- 1555 reads
