Design Errors and Group Biases

In Part I of this examination of design errors, we noted that the consequences of design errors are sometimes favorable. We also explored groupthink and considered an example of how groupthink can lead to design errors. Groupthink is an example of a group bias — an attribute of the way groups function that can often lead to results that differ from the group's intentions.

Many group biases have been identified, and to the extent that they produce results at variance with group intentions, they can all lead to design errors that produce unexpected and unintended results. Here are three of them.

Group polarization

Group polarization is the tendency of groups to adopt positions more extreme than any of their members would adopt if acting individually. The phenomenon is consistent with a normalization effect that can occur when group members learn that the sense of the group is in general alignment with their own inclinations. Members then feel free to abandon reluctance and doubt with respect to their private judgments, and the result is a "hardening" of those judgments. More

For groups making design decisions, group polarization can suppress interest in alternatives, and any desire to search for or explore rare but important use cases. It can also lead to outright rejection of perfectly workable designs — a form of design error not often noticed, because rejected designs typically are not implemented.

Pluralistic ignorance

In pluralistic ignorance, group members privately reject a position, while they simultaneously and incorrectly believe that almost everyone else accepts it. They decline to voice objections because they feel that doing so is pointless, or because they misinterpret the positions of other group members. More

For example, consider a design that forthrightly concedes that it does not address a well-defined need of the customer population. All of the members of the group might have misgivings about failing to address the issue, but the group adopts the design anyway because all members believe (erroneously) that the others favor it.

Abilene paradox

Closely related to pluralistic Many group biases have been identified,
and to the extent that they produce
results at variance with group intentions,
they can all lead to design errorsignorance, the Abilene paradox applies when members of a group agree to go along with a group decision despite their private misgivings, mostly because of unpleasant imaginings of what the group might say or do if the member were to be honest about his or her misgivings. More

For example, a group can reach a design decision that none of its members support, because all of its members imagine that serious conflict — possibly threatening the group's ability to work together — would erupt if they were to express their honest objections to the proposed design.

Although all of these biases (and others) can lead groups to decisions their members do not support, the results can actually be positive. Some groups do well in spite of themselves. It's rare, but it happens.   First issue in this series   Top    Next Issue

Is every other day a tense, anxious, angry misery as you watch people around you, who couldn't even think their way through a game of Jacks, win at workplace politics and steal the credit and glory for just about everyone's best work including yours? Read 303 Secrets of Workplace Politics, filled with tips and techniques for succeeding in workplace politics. More info

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Problem Solving and Creativity:

Project Improvisation Fundamentals

Project plans are useful — to a point. Every plan I've ever seen eventually has problems when it contacts reality. At that point, we replan or improvise. But improvisation is an art form. Here's Part I of a set of tips for mastering project improvisation.

How to Reject Expert Opinion: II

When groups of decision makers confront complex problems, and they receive opinions from recognized experts, those opinions sometimes conflict with the group's own preferences. What tactics do groups use to reject the opinions of people with relevant expertise?

Power Distance and Risk

Managing or responding to project risks is much easier when team culture encourages people to report problems and to question any plans they have reason to doubt. Here are five examples that show how such encouragement helps to manage risk.

Cost Concerns: Comparisons

When we assess the costs of different options for solving a problem, we must take care not to commit a variety of errors in approach. These errors can lead to flawed decisions. One activity at risk for error is comparing the costs of two options.

Pseudo-Collaborations

Most workplace collaborations produce results of value. But some collaborations — pseudo-collaborations — are inherently incapable of producing value, due, in part, to performance management systems, lack of authority, or lack of access to information.

See also Problem Solving and Creativity and Problem Solving and Creativity for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming December 11: White Water Rafting as a Metaphor for Group Development

Tuckman's model of small group development, best known as "Forming-Storming-Norming-Performing," applies better to development of some groups than to others. We can use a metaphor to explore how the model applies to Storming in task-oriented work groups. Available here and by RSS on December 11.

And on December 18: Subgrouping and Conway's Law

When task-oriented work groups address complex tasks, they might form subgroups to address subtasks. The structure of the subgroups and the order in which they form depend on the structure of the group's task and the sequencing of the subtasks. Available here and by RSS on December 18.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenyrWpTxHuyCrjZbUpner@ChacnoFNuSyWlVzCaGfooCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info