Paper Example on Abilene Paradox and Group Think

Introduction

Abilene paradox and groupthink have emerged to be two serious problems which significantly affect the performance of various groups in which the suggestions and inputs of members are taken to count considerably. Both the problems result from the inability of the members of a group to express the value for their individual suggestions. According to Wang, Z., Kuang, Tang, Gao, Chen and Chan (2017), groupthink is the act of making decisions of trying to think as a group, which typically results in poor and unchallenged decision making. Thurmer, Wieber, and Gollwitzer (2014 argued that Abilene paradox, which is closely related to groupthink, is the tendency of the group members to think or decide together whereby the conclusions they make do not reflect the actual preferences of the individual members. The two aspects of decision making have diverse and related effects to the group, hence there is the need to reduce them within a group (Thomson, Maskrey & Vlaev, 2016). Group leaders are obliged to perform the task of reducing the occurrence of these situations.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Expect Teams to Disagree

According to Cooper, Connolly, and Kugler (2014) and Elkin and Wheeler (2016), the leaders of an organization should be ready to experience serious disagreements among the group members over an issue. Moreover, leaders should be willing to accommodate the various aspects of differences since members will be able to freely present their views (Synnott, 2016). This is because it is normal for a team to disagree if encourages inputs of different skills and review of issues from various perspectives. Disagreements, therefore, serve as a significant measure of the value of a team (Sobel, 2014). This implies that as much as the leaders may have the final say based on the final decision, the disagreements should be in place to determine and enrich the conclusion. Rotherham, Howe, and Tillard (2016) argued that to achieve an informed aspect of conclusion, group leaders should be willing to explore both sides of the agreements to capture the underlying facts in them.

Actively Listen to Feedback

Leaders should demonstrate their willingness to inquire and listen to feedback from the group members. According to Rau (2015), listening to the members' feedback make them feel that they are valued in the group. They would, therefore, be willing to contribute their views on any matter of concern. as a result, the members will have the courage to question the reasons behind the decisions that the leaders make during a discussion (Peters & Grunebaum, 1977). This can be used as a strategy through which a group tends to avoid the potential areas of conflict before they become out of hand. On the same note, the feedback generated by the members helps a group to identify areas which need adequate understanding hence solution can be established for the same. According to McCann (2012) and Nawata and Yamaguchi (2014), employing this strategy, the group leaders will have been able to reduce the problems associated with Abilene paradox and groupthink.

Establishment of a Safe Environment

It is the responsibility of the group leaders to ensure that the environment of a group meeting appeals to the safety and freedom needs of the members (James & Michelle, 2001). According to Bakay, Huang, and Huang (2014), group members normally feel free to present their inputs when they are made to feel free to react on an agenda. Boyle, Hanlon, and Russo (2011) and Collins (2017) argued that it is common for human beings to avoid the risk of speaking when they had been previously been ignored, having a feeling that they are not accommodated. However, Bier and Lin (2013) recognized that being welcome is a strategic approach through which leaders can establish a safe environment for the members hence their views will make the basis of the final decision making.

References

Bakay, A., Huang, J., & Huang, Y. (2014). Group decision-making processes and group decision quality: moderation of mutual interest. International Journal Of Management And Decision Making, 13(4), 335. Doi: 10.1504/ijmdm.2014.065347

Bier, V., & Lin, S. (2013). On the Treatment of Uncertainty and Variability in Making Decisions About Risk. Risk Analysis, n/a-n/a. Doi: 10.1111/risa.12071

Boyle, P., Hanlon, D., & Russo, J. (2011). The Value of Task Conflict to Group Decisions. Journal Of Behavioral Decision Making, 25(3), 217-227. Doi: 10.1002/bdm.725

Collins, S. (2017). Duties of Group Agents and Group Members. Journal Of Social Philosophy, 48(1), 38-57. Doi: 10.1111/josp.12181

Cooper, D., Connolly, T., & Kugler, T. (2014). Lay Personality Theories in Interactive Decisions: Strongly Held, Weakly Supported. Journal Of Behavioral Decision Making, 28(3), 201-213. Doi: 10.1002/bdm.1842

Elkin, L., & Wheeler, G. (2016). Resolving Peer Disagreements Through Imprecise Probabilities. Nous, 52(2), 260-278. Doi: 10.1111/nous.12143

Harvey, M. (2018). The Abilene Paradox After Thirty Years:: A Global Perspective. Organizational Dynamics, 33(2), 215-226.

Holley, R. (2016). Search Committees: When Members Disagree on the Relative Importance of Candidate Qualifications. Journal Of Library Administration, 56(1), 100-109. Doi: 10.1080/01930826.2015.1113066

James, W., & Michelle, H. (2001). The necessity of driving to Abilene. Organization Development Journal: Chesterland, 19(2), 99-108.

James, W., & Michelle, H. (2001). The necessity of driving to Abilene. Organization Development Journal: Chesterland, 19(2), 99-108.

McCann, H. (2012). MAKING DECISIONS. Philosophical Issues, 22(1), 246-263. Doi: 10.1111/j.1533-6077.2012.00228.x

Nawata, K., & Yamaguchi, H. (2014). Perceived group identity of outgroup members and anticipated rejection: People think that strongly identified group members reject non-group members. Japanese Psychological Research, 56(4), 297-308. Doi: 10.1111/jpr.12061

Peters, C., & Grunebaum, H. (1977). It Could Be Worse: Effective Group Psychotherapy with the Help-Rejecting Complainer. International Journal Of Group Psychotherapy, 27(4), 471-480. Doi: 10.1080/00207284.1977.11491328

Rau, P. (2015). Left Brain Right Stuff: How Leaders Make Winning Decisions. SDMIMD Journal Of Management, 6(2), 59. Doi: 10.18311/sdmimd/2015/2660

Rotherham, A., Howe, T., & Tillard, G. (2016). Perceived Benefits for Family Members of Group Participation by Their Relatives with Aphasia. Clinical Archives Of Communication Disorders, 1(1), 62-68. Doi: 10.21849/cacd.2016.00059

Sobel, J. (2014). On the relationship between individual and group decisions. Theoretical Economics, 9(1), 163-185. Doi: 10.3982/te1185

Synnott, K. (2016). What Students Think of Graded Group Projects (Supplement). SSRN Electronic Journal. Doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3077639

Thomson, C., Maskrey, N., & Vlaev, I. (2016). Making Decisions Better: an evaluation of an educational intervention. Journal Of Evaluation In Clinical Practice, 23(2), 251-256. Doi: 10.1111/jep.12555

Thurmer, J., Wieber, F., & Gollwitzer, P. (2014). A Self-regulation Perspective on Hidden-profile Problems: If-Then Planning to Review Information Improves Group Decisions. Journal Of Behavioral Decision Making, 28(2), 101-113. Doi: 10.1002/bdm.1832

Wang, Z., Kuang, Y., Tang, H., Gao, C., Chen, A., & Chan, K. (2017). Are Decisions Made by Group Representatives More Risk Averse? The Effect of Sense of Responsibility. Journal Of Behavioral Decision Making, 31(3), 311-323. Doi: 10.1002/bdm.2057