Abilene paradox

[ciphergoth]

Just randomly found this on Wikipedia: Abilene paradox - the possibility that a group decision will be made for X even though every single person in the group would prefer Y. This is a familiar situation to me, and I'm sure that's usual. It can be hard to express a preference weakly - you say "I'd slightly prefer not to get starters", and no matter how many caveats I put on that, it's rare that anyone is prepared to say "well, I really like their spring rolls so I would like to get starters if everyone else is OK".

On the other hand, it's kind of a good problem to have - I'd rather these problems than have everyone fighting to put their own needs ahead of everyone else's...

Comments

[funky-firelord.livejournal.com]

Sounds like some of the committee's that I know.
I do wonder sometimes how much of the group communication is non verbal in such situations. Leading our decisions before we voice them.

Firelord

[phantas.livejournal.com]

I used to talk about that type of scenarios with a close friend of mine who did research in economics.

Mathematically speaking, Microeconomics use an interesting mix of set theory, orders with games theory thrown in the mix to try to represent "preferences" and associated properties. It's cute.

[seph-hazard.livejournal.com]

Gosh, isn't that familiar! (Perfect example of this the other night-my father and I ended up in the pub when both of us wanted to be in bed, because we were both assuming that the other one wanted a drink...)

I'd rather these problems than have everyone fighting to put their own needs ahead of everyone else's...

Yes, indeed. It probably shows that said group is conscientious and caring. Or something.

[valkyriekaren.livejournal.com]

This may explain why I get so infuriated with the decision-making process of my social circle when many are gathered together. I suspct we're all so thoughtful and considerate that it frequently leads to total group paralysis because nobody wants to be seen to be a killjoy, or to make a decision that excludes or upsets anybody.

[seph-hazard.livejournal.com]

Yes, exactly! Our social circle is a perfect example of what happens when you get several dozen nice, sweet, caring people, each with their own set of psychological foibles, and put them in a position where they're all trying to look after each other while having as much fun as is humanly possible.

[purplerabbits.livejournal.com]

The sound you can hear is me banging my head on the desk in recognition. Ow.

[plumsbitch.livejournal.com]

Ha! so familiar.

Although yr specific example doesn't work on me as I'm *always* all about the tasty food when eating out so am most likely to say 'if no-ones minds, I'll get a starter/extra meal/six dinners etc to go along with what everyone else orders' and dive into the menu.

[vvalkyri.livejournal.com]

Entirely too familiar.

[booklectica]

Oh God, the number of times I've worried that I'm forcing 10-15 people to do something they don't really want to do because I'm the only person making any suggestions...

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

In this instance, the paradox suggests that your primary duty is to ensure that you personally want to do the things you are suggesting, so that at least one person likes them!

[booklectica]

Also, one would hope that if one person starts saying what they really want to do, and making it clear that that's what they're doing, others will follow. Doesn't always seem to work though.

[reddragdiva]

See, this is where I bring my superpowers of arrogance and cluelessness to good use.

[drdoug.livejournal.com]

This is a good plan in my book.

I'd say an even better course is to be assertive about what you want, and try to help others to do the same. This has the double benefit of reducing to at least one person preferring the decision, and encouraging better processes to emerge.

When out and about with my extended parental family we frequently ended up with similar group decision-making failure modes: both the straight Abilene paradox and (more commonly) a meta-variation where there's endless postponement of a decision because nobody would express a preference, and everybody would have preferred an arbitrary decision made quickly. Canonically we'd wander round the streets for literally hours looking for somewhere to have lunch until we started to get snappy from hunger and tiredness.

Much better these days that I'll express my preference - weakly or strongly as appropriate - and we take it from there. Even if it's "I'm happy to eat pretty much anywhere, but I'd be happier if we don't walk around for ages choosing somewhere. How about we look at the next three on this street and pick the one we like best out of those?"

[drdoug.livejournal.com]

Just randomly found this

Been looking up Internet2 by any chance? *grin*

[barking-watcher.livejournal.com]

Interesting concept, one that is so familiar within our group.

Did you follow the link to the article on Pluralistic ignorance and in particular the case of Kitty Genovese? A very chilling situation and one that is probably on the increase.

[thekumquat.livejournal.com]

So faffing is an indicator of niceness? As a X-herder, I can believe I'm just out for my own self-interest a lot of the time, so it's nice to hear support for my view that it helps others too.

I'm not sure about the example though, given that usually there's no reason for one person not to have a starter even if no-one else does. I think it's more of an issue when only one person clearly expresses a view (eg I'm not going to that pub!) and all the others have only a weak dissenting view (let's go to the X, it's always OK).

[nikolasco.livejournal.com]

It reminds me of the byzantine agreement problem, but maybe that's just because I'm a dork.

[jhg.livejournal.com]

This has been a major factor in me losing relationships. Though I'm not nearly as bad as I used to be.

[valkyriekaren.livejournal.com]

*nods*
I used to be very wary of being too definite about what I did/didn't want to do, in fear of everyone else saying, "bugger off and do that then, we're going to sit here/go to the pub/watch cartoons", and me being left all on my own because I didn't want to follow the majority.

I'm a bit tougher these days, I think.

[devilgate.livejournal.com]

Yes: the father-in-law in the original anecdote as cited on Wikipedia is an idiot, because he suggests doing something he doesn't want to do, when everyone else is happy as they are. If he was worried that they were bored, as suggested, he should just have asked them.

[hamsterine.livejournal.com]

Interesting that so many people recognise this. I don't remember experiencing this myself really. I've been in a situation where I actually wanted to do X initiallu but it was crap, & I still said I liked it to be polite.

I don't think I'd say I want to do something if I don't. I might downplay how much I don't want to a little bit, ie "I'd be happy just to stay in, but if you want to go thats fine too."

[strangerover.livejournal.com]

The Wisdom Of Crowds has a bit to say about such issues (and elections in the U.S. of A.)

"The meek shall inherit the Earth" - oh go on, if you insist...

[bileandvitriol.livejournal.com]

It's sort of a strange mirror of the Byzantine Generals' Problem, arising from ineptitude rather than malice. Obviously, we need more dictators to prevent this sort of erroneous groupthink from derailing the engine of state. Remember, Vote Fascist for a Third Glorious Decade of Total Law Enforcement!

[ladycat.livejournal.com]

I've been in so many women's groups where this happens - nobody is prepared to make a decision in case they spontaneously grow a penis, so a murmur from one person pushes it that way, then everyone begrudges the decision.

Does the same happen on mixed or male only committees?

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

I can't imagine this happening in the workplace about a work-related matter; there's implicit permission to defend your corner because you're understood to be doing it for the Good of the Company. I think it's plausible that it's rarer in all-male groups in general, but I've no evidence.

[(Anonymous)]

I've actually seen this used as a serious strategy -- a group that, knowing that there will be stupid decisions that they don't really care about but have to make anyway (e.g., where they will eat dinner each night while traveling together), appoints a rotating dictator. ("It's Tuesday, so Karen is Restaurant Czar.")

See also: shotgun rules for meetings: http://www.svbug.com/shotgun_rules.txt

-- Nathaniel

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

I'd be fascinated to know how those BAD rules worked out in practice. That's a very interesting strategy.

[ladycat.livejournal.com]

Oops, sorry, that wasn't clear:
Paid women's organisations - yup, no problems with decision making (in my experience)
Unpaid voluntary women's groups - decision hell (in my experience)