When Seeking Input from Others may just be an Illusion

It is commonly held wisdom that we could improve our decisions by gathering information and advice from others. Yet, much research on decision making and group processes shows that we sometimes approach the advice seeking process in a flawed way – one that makes us think we are seeking good advice, when we, in fact, are not. This was driven home to me last month, when I was chatting with a manager who was in the process of making a very important decision for his organization. As he described the situation and described the steps he had taken to get input from others I couldn’t help wondering if he was falling into a trap which only gave him the illusion of gathering information and input from others. So this weekend, out of curiosity I went back to my notes and re-read a few papers and identified a few things we could be conscious about when seeking advice.

Who do we gather information from?

We usually seek advice from those we consider close to us. This seems sensible as we can discuss sensitive issues with some level of confidence with those close to us. They are likely to respect the confidentiality of the situation. Yet, demographics research has shown that we are close to people who are similar to us and think like us. These individuals probably see the world in the same way as us, often have similar experiences and are very likely to confirm what we already think. This is the paradox of advice seeking – it is easiest to seek information from those who are close to us, but they are the ones who are least likely to give us differing viewpoints. There is also a disturbing corollary to this implicit bias – a variety of studies have shown that our prejudices come into play in many ways during advice seeking. In a recent study subjects were charged with performing a task and during the task, a person they did not know offered them helpful advice. While the stranger always offered the same advice, participants were more likely to take the advice when it was given by a man. Other studies have shown that other demographic prejudices (Race, age, etc.) come into play too.

What gets shared during a discussion?

In 1989, Garold Stasser, Laurie Taylor, and Coleen Hanna of Miami University published a very interesting study in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. They created groups of six students who were all given information about a potential candidate to be evaluated for the student body president. Some information items about this person were provided to ALL the group members, while some information items were only provided to individual members (and were thus unshared). When these groups discussed the candidate, it was found that close to 60% of the items that were known to all group members were mentioned and considered but less than 20% of the items that were known to only one individual were discussed. Stasser (and many others) has subsequently conducted follow-up studies that consistently indicate that people tend to primarily share information that is known to others in the group. This is rather puzzling because the very idea of using groups is to ensure that different perspectives and information get considered during the decision process. So we run the very real risk of another paradoxical situation where groups may actually consider less information than the individual members themselves would have. Something that group leaders and group members need to be consciously aware of.

How do we gather information?

Have you ever been driven to distraction by that manager or co-worker who insists on using email for every communication? Or, in the reverse, who picks up the phone and calls you for any question he/she may have? You may be justified in your frustration. Way back in 1987, Richard Daft (then at Texas A&M University) and his co-researchers examined how managers in a large petrochemical company communicated and shared information. They drew on a theoretical stream called media richness and their results have been corroborated over the years – effective managers judicially choose the medium through which they share and obtain information. Some communication media (for instance email) are considered lean media – they are efficient, quick and great for transmitting simple information but not the best for sharing complex ideas. On the other hand, trying to learn from another person in a face to face meeting is less efficient, takes time but can be great for brain storming and discussing complex problems. This is an example of a ‘rich’ communication medium. The use of a mismatched medium is inefficient, and often doesn’t get us the best information or advice that we need. And as pointed out by several friends who have senior positions in organizations, the use of a mismatched media can be downright annoying — just recently I had lunch with a former student, who now leads a team in a Fortune 100 company and he expressed some choice words about a coworker who visited him a dozen times a day to get information that he could have easily emailed about!