It’s a scorching, dusty July day in Coleman, Texas. Four people wait for the heat to pass, drinking lemonade in the shade of a farmhouse porch. At one point, someone suggests they drive to Abilene, 53 miles away, for a bite to eat at a cafeteria. The others think it’s a crazy idea, but they don’t say anything and move on. They drive to Abilene in an air-conditioned car through a dust storm, have a mediocre meal, and return to Coleman hours later, tired, hot, and unhappy.
When they return home, they reveal that they didn’t want to go in the first place, but they did because thought the others were eager to drive. Of course, this communication gap was someone else’s fault.
Here we have the Abilene paradox, a phenomenon of group dynamics first identified by Jerry Harvey of George Washington University in 1974. The paradox is that people accept a bad decision, knowing full well that it was a bad decision in the first place. . The result is the complete opposite of what was originally intended: half-hearted support, uninspired ideas, and wasted time and money on results that don’t meet expectations.
On the way to Abilene
We have all experienced the Abilene Paradox, especially in decision-making meetings. We struggle to make a decision, to come to an agreement only to find, deep in our hearts, that we did it only because of what we assume about the wishes and opinions of others.
If you’ve said to yourself in those situations, “Who cares? Everything will be fine, whatever we decide” or “I guess I’ll go with the flow,” you’re on your way to Abilene. We assume that others really want to go to Abilene, although we don’t, but we agree to go anyway. And, if each individual has the same wrong assumptions, then action is something that no one wants. We agree as a group, but as individuals, we regret it. It can be said that this is an absurd situation.
Why do people really support things that go against what they want? What happened to the outspoken individual with ideas to contribute and concepts to develop? A rare bird in groups.
According to Harvey, in group settings, expressing your real beliefs creates a degree of anxiety. Should you maintain your own integrity and self-esteem by speaking your mind, or do you compromise your values and follow what you think? think is the consensus?
Anxiety stems from the magical belief that something disastrous will happen to you if you reveal your real thoughts. “Oh, they’ll fire me if I do that. They’ll label me a nonconformist. I’ll look like a fool. I’ll be nasty.” Since you believe those things will happen if you say what you really think, you end up not being honest about what you really think. These magical consequences provide an excuse to be quiet.
And what do these magical and negative consequences represent? Alienation, separation, ostracism; These are powerful, underlying fears, so powerful that we will act against our own interests to avoid the risk of not being “part” of something. Of course, doing so takes you to Abilene.
When Engagement Gets Unhealthy, You Head To The Future
But isn’t commitment a part of working life? Are we not going against our own interests when we agree to move on? In his new book, The commitment trap, Elizabeth Doty draws a line between healthy commitment that is necessary to achieve goals and unhealthy commitments that betray beliefs and values. When unhealthy commitments pile up, the conflict inside your head can cause stress and many trips to Abilene (as well as the alienation, separation, or ostracism you feared in the first place!).
Your approach is to recognize when you feel pressured to play by rules that undermine your beliefs and / or common sense, and to play a different game by being true to yourself, no matter how difficult the circumstances. The key to playing this different game is to question your assumptions. Does this decision really interest the group? Are others committed to this or do they just feel pressured to move on? What are the costs to me if I move on, including the costs to my self-esteem and the ability of others to trust me? And finally, will I really be fired, ostracized, or marginalized if I focus on helping the group reach its goals?
In her book, Elizabeth shows numerous examples of professionals who questioned her assumptions and found that the consequences of speaking were not as bad as they seemed at first, at least not compared to Abilene’s dust and heat.
So how do you know your team is on its way to Abilene? Here are some indicators:
Soft and ambiguous language. Is there vagueness and opacity in the agenda versus clear and descriptive words? Vagueness leads to low understanding that leads to uncertainty about how to react. Secured debt obligations, anyone?
Missed opportunities. Do people leave meetings saying something like “What I really wanted to say was …?” Individually and privately, we have a completely different opinion than what we express in the team.
It is not fun. Are the meetings formal, serious, procedural, and somewhat intimidating? Is there room for spontaneity of expression?
Authority plays. Beware of the authority figure who subtly deflects ideas, inserts their own preferences, and uses forceful language to press starting points without the group repeating.
Looking for a scapegoat. We were all in the wrong decision; we are all to blame. In those circumstances, blaming is not a good sign. That is a sign that you have been and perhaps are still in Abilene.
Low involvement. Are there people in the meeting who don’t contribute? Why?
Under questioning and probing. What is the ratio of questions to input of ideas?
Process awareness. Do people realize that they are producing deals that nobody really wants?
The point is, you need to step in with your true point of view, whatever that may be. To get people to listen, be diplomatic, choose your words carefully, and support your thoughts with logic and data. People will not listen to the ideas that are imposed on them.
We visit Abilene too often
Unfortunately, the Abilene paradox manifests itself in real-life situations where surrogate decision-making has dire consequences. A much publicized example was the Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961. Here’s what a CIA officer wrote about the final stages of the decision-making process.
“It’s hard to believe in hindsight that the president and his advisers felt that plans for a complicated, large-scale military operation that had been underway for more than a year could be reworked in four days and still offer a high probability of success. It is Equally surprising that we at the agency agree so easily. “
For more information on Abilene’s paradox, see TThe Abilene Paradox and Other Management Meditations by Jerry Harvey. For more information on unhealthy commitments, see The commitment trap by Elizabeth Doty.
