Collective Fallacy
As a young leader, I was shown the short film, The Abilene Paradox or colloquially known as The Road to Abilene. The film is about a family who decides to drive 53 miles to Abilene from Coleman, TX for dinner in a car with no air conditioning with the temperature soaring to 104 degrees Fahrenheit. Late that night, once they are back they realize that none of them actually wanted to go. They all went along because they thought everyone else wanted to go. The Abilene paradox is a group dynamic where a group agrees on a course of action that none of the individual members want to do because each individual believes the decision is aligned with the preferences of most of the others. This film was part of a curriculum aimed at teaching us about groupthink and other problem solving dysfunctions within organizations.
One of the groupthink experiments that we studied was Solomon Asch’s experiment investigating the extent to which social pressure from a majority group could affect a person to conform. In 1951, Asch recruited 50 male students from Swarthmore College to participate in a ‘vision test.’ The test consisted of determining which of three lines were the same length as a target line. Unbeknownst to the participants each was put into a room with seven confederates or actors that were in on the experiment. The confederates started by giving the correct answer and then switched to giving wrong answers. The real participant sat at the end of the row and gave their answer last. On average, about one third (32%) of the participants conformed with the clearly incorrect majority. In the control group, with no pressure, less than 1% of participants gave the wrong answer. Another interesting aspect was that if only one confederate dissented, the 32% dropped to only 5%.
The differences between groupthink and the Abilene paradox are subtle. The Abilene paradox is characterized by an inability to perceive the views of others, or to manage agreement. Whereas, in groupthink a unanimous decision is driven by a desire for group harmony and cohesiveness. In groupthink, a few members of a group do not speak up, while with the Abilene Paradox the majority remains silent. Despite the differences between the two, both groupthink and the Abilene paradox can be thought of as collective fallacies. This is a form of logical fallacy that arises when it is assumed that the beliefs or behaviors of a group necessarily apply to each individual member of that group. This can obviously be very detrimental to companies, especially around stifling innovation.
In many parts of our lives we are often faced with this concept of a collective fallacy. Examples of collective terms that are often used include “society,” “community,” “nation,” “class,” etc. What is necessary to remember is that these are all abstractions and not living, breathing, thinking, and acting entities. The fallacy here is presuming that a collective is, indeed, a living, breathing, thinking, and acting entity. The only living, breathing, thinking, and acting entity is the individual. The source of all human action is at the individual level. Other people may acquiesce or even participate, but everything which occurs as a consequence of an individual’s actions.
Phenomenons like groupthink and the Abilene paradox are examples of problem solving dysfunctions that organizations can experience and are often grounded in collective fallacy. Others include social loafing, where in group settings, individuals may exert less effort to achieve a goal when they believe that the group as a whole is functioning effectively, and herd mentality, where individuals in a group follow the majority opinion rather than critically evaluating information or voicing their own perspectives. These all tend to stifle innovation and creativity within an organization for a variety of reasons. Innovative solutions often arise from diverse perspectives and experiences. Collective fallacies can stifle creativity by promoting a homogenous view and discouraging unique insights that individuals from varied backgrounds can offer. They can also cause people to believe incorrectly that the collective is either just as effective without their voice or that everyone in the collective shares a single opinion. Let’s dive into how some of these dysfunctions impact innovation.
Social loafing occurs when individuals contribute less effort to a task when working in a group than when working alone. This reduction in effort can mean fewer ideas, less creativity, and lower quality contributions to innovative projects. In a group setting where social loafing is prevalent, it becomes difficult to identify and hold individuals accountable for their contributions. This lack of accountability can lead to a culture where mediocrity is tolerated, and exceptional effort is not encouraged or rewarded. When team members perceive that their individual contributions are not essential or noticeable, their motivation to think creatively and invest effort in innovation can diminish. Social loafing can result in the underutilization of the diverse skills and talents present in a group, as not all members are fully engaged or motivated to contribute their unique perspectives and ideas.
Herd mentality leads to a situation where individuals in a group conform to the majority opinion or the status quo, often at the expense of creative and innovative ideas. This can suppress novel approaches and discourage risk-taking. In a culture dominated by herd mentality, individuals may fear standing out or challenging the group's prevailing views. This fear can inhibit the expression of unique ideas and perspectives that are essential for innovation. Herd mentality can create echo chambers where only similar ideas and perspectives are echoed and reinforced. This lack of diverse viewpoints can lead to stagnation and prevent breakthrough innovations. Herd mentality often involves a focus inward and a disregard for external ideas or trends. This can cause an organization to miss out on important external innovations, market shifts, or technological advancements.
To foster innovation, organizations need to actively combat decision dysfunctions based on collective fallacy such as groupthink, social loafing, and herd mentality. You can accomplish this by encouraging individual accountability, promoting a culture that values diverse ideas and constructive dissent, and creating an environment where risk-taking and creativity are rewarded. This can involve implementing structures and processes that recognize individual contributions, facilitate open and inclusive discussions, and encourage continuous learning and adaptation. Ultimately we need to be aware and remind everyone in our organization that the only living, breathing, thinking, and acting entity is the individual and that everything occurs as a consequence of an individual’s actions. While we do collectively work together in an organizational structure, we are individuals responsible for our decisions and actions. This level of accountability and ownership helps foster dissenting opinions, creative ideas, and ultimately innovation, all the while keeping us off the road to Abilene.