Week 7 Discussion

docx

School

American Public University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

MISC

Subject

Philosophy

Date

Oct 30, 2023

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by ChefLyrebird3846

Good Evening Class, What is the difference (in your words) between groupthink and the Abilene Paradox? I think groupthink is whenever an entire group loses their confidence to speak up and disagree with a decision made by a group. Typically, in a group a leader presents something, and everyone just does it because that’s what they feel they’re supposed to do. Essentially, by encouraging whatever idea the group will just push everyone to agree eliminating critical thinking skills for everyone. On the other hand, the Abilene Paradox is whenever we think that it’s a group agreement so instead of creating conflict or disagreeing, we just go along with it even if we don’t want to. Which do you think is easier to fall into and why? I believe the Abilene Paradox is easier to fall into. It could be looked at similarly to peer pressure. I say this because it’s more of a personal choice rather than an entire group deciding together like groupthink. If you were leading a group and saw signs of Groupthink, how would you handle it? In the lesson it talks about ways to eliminate groupthink. This is done by choosing an evaluator of decisions, don’t make biased comments as a leader, create subsections in the group to look at the same information, use subsections with separate leaders, ask advice from outside peers, utilize experts to analyze and challenge findings, assign a “bad guy” to speak up on why something doesn’t work, and lastly, learn about competitors in the same field.

Are there any personal examples of any of these (Groupthink, Abilene Paradox, etc) decision blunders that you have been a part of and realize now? The Abilene Paradox is one plunder I’ve been a part of many times. Typically, I’m the one who doesn’t ever want to go shopping out of my four sisters. Every time, I end up going shopping with them and then hear them say how much they bought that wasn’t needed or that too much money was spent. In the end, it makes the trip miserable because who wants to listen to people complain about something you didn’t really want to do in the first place. Think back to some teams you have been on that were especially dysfunctional or effective. Did they follow the team dynamics favored by Google, or were they more directive in nature? What made them work (or not work)? One team I was always on was an athletics team. I would consider this like Google. On a sports team, we all come from different backgrounds and lives, but have a common goal or hobby. I think naturally, you just work well together in these types of teams. Regardless of if I liked someone or didn’t, I always played my best which included working with that person. This would go both ways, because in the end of it all, we enjoyed the sport and naturally, wanted to win each game or competition.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version