Group Dysfunctions…

..and using Six Thinking Hats to Overcome them

Pancham Dogra
How norms stifle productivity

In 1948 a classic study was done of group norm behaviour in

a North American pyjama manufacturing plant (Coch &
French 1948).
At this plant, the informal group norm for productivity in a
group of pressers was about 50 items a day.
A new worker entered the group and, after a few days’
learning, began to exceed the group norm.
The rest of the group began to scapegoat or punish the
newcomer deviating from the norm, so that after some days,
the deviant conformed, and in fact over-conformed by
producing slightly less than the group norm.
After 20 days the group had to be split up, and even though
all other workers were transferred elsewhere, the
scapegoated worker remained.
Her output rate increased dramatically, freed as she was from
the restrictive group norm.
Two destructive group norms
Abilene Paradox
When a group of people collectively decide on a
course of action that is counter to the
preferences of any of the individuals in the
group.
Groupthink
When a group of individuals reaches a
consensus without critical reasoning or
evaluation of the consequences or
alternatives. Groupthink is based on a common
desire not to upset the balance of a group of
people.
How people behave in Abilene and Groupthink
Abilene Paradox
• Individuals want to do one thing but
willingly — though in despair — do the
opposite
• Absurdity of situation apparent from outset
• Makes people feel bad about the fact that a
wrong decision is being made
• Feel conflicted internally, feel bad
• Discuss in private how a bad decision was
taken
• Group is less than sum of parts: People
think they are better than the overall group
• No, people just do not want to “rock the
Boat”; they could be indifferent or also
willing to please others, so do not want to
voice dissent
Decision Processes
What members think during the decision
process
Immediate post-decision response
Relevant unit of analysis
Presence of external threats
Groupthink
• Group members are often euphoric,
enjoying high morale and sense of
efficacy
• Think they are doing the right thing;
absurdity is not obvious until fog lifts
• Makes people feel good about bad public
decisions
• Esprit de corps, optimistic views of the
future, feeling of relief “It was not only
my decision”
• Group is more than the sum of parts:
People think many people contributed to
final decision
• Often — induces stress and feelings of
urgency which may impair rational
examination of procedures and
alternatives; people may also feel they do
not want to be the one blocking decision
 Examples of Abilene Paradox and Groupthink
Abilene Paradox
The infamous Watergate scandal that ruined the legacy of Nixon’s presidency is a classic
case of Abilene Paradox.
Nixon’s close subordinates abided by his idea to “peek” into the offices of National
Democratic Party around his re-election bid in 1972, despite being aware of its immoral
and illegal nature.
The Washington Post courageously revealed how the much-condemned events unfolded
in the exact manner that the paradox predicts.
• Participants had their reservations and doubts, but decided to suppress them, as
dissent could potentially cost them their jobs or invite ostracism.
• The key authorities revealed how they didn’t want to be labeled as a traitor and
wanted to cement their positions as loyal “team players”.
• Their loyalty to the president proved to take precedence over the moral good.
• The members, after the catastrophe, could only blame each other.
Groupthink
The Space Shuttle Challenger disaster is one of the most studied disasters in history;
Groupthink led the Challenger team to launch a spacecraft that many of them knew was
not safe to launch.
• NASA managers perpetuated the fiction that everyone was fully in accord on the
launch recommendation. They admitted to the presidential commission that they
didn't report Thiokol's on-again/off-again hesitancy with their superiors. As often
happens in such cases, the flight readiness review team interpreted silence as
agreement.
• Thiokol (NASA’s partner Company for Challenger) engineers felt pressure from two
directions to reverse their ''no-go" recommendation. NASA managers had already
postponed the launch three times and were fearful the American public would regard
the agency as inept. Similarly, the company's management was fearful of losing
future NASA contracts. When they went off-line for their caucus, Thiokol's senior vice
president urged Roger Lund, vice president of engineering, to ''take off his
engineering hat and put on his management hat."
Six Thinking Hats as a tool for removing
destructive norms
Six Thinking Hats is a parallel thinking
process that helps people to view an issue
from different perspectives and to clarify
roles of different people in problem solving
and decision making

Using a tool like this properly can help

mitigate risks of Abilene Paradox and
Groupthink

However, it is not the only tool to solve

problems and make effective decisions.
Using the Tool

Six Thinking Hats is a role-play tool. Team

members wear a hat and perform what the
hat stands for

All hats represent a specific function (briefly

described on the right) they are expected to
carry out during problem solving

Hats can be used in any sequence, but a

proven sequence is provided on the next page
that has been found to work to provide
structure and output
Using the Six Thinking Hats in a sequence

Beginning During End

• Start with  • If there are strong feelings about the • End with 
• Set the agenda subject of discussion: invite  • Summarize what was achieved
• Define the problem • If boss starts the meeting wearing , • Establish next steps
• Provide background invite  next
• Explain the process • If the problem is data heavy, invite  to • In case you want to measure feeling of
present relevant data first satisfaction, invite  and ask,
• Invite another hat
• If the meeting is to finalize one of the • “How did we feel at the beginning?”
many options, start with  • “How are we feeling now?”
• To assess robustness of an argument or
proposal, invite 

     
Organize thinking, Facts and figures Emotions and Optimism, what is Devil’s advocate, How else can we do
control processes, feelings good about what won’t work something,
how do we go from something creative, different
1 to 2