 |
 |
 |
 |
ManagerZine Archive Favorite
11. The Importance Of Being Real: The Abilene
Paradox
It is a scorching, dusty July day in Coleman, Texas. Four people are waiting
out the heat sipping lemonade in the shade of a farmhouse porch. At one
point, someone suggests they drive to Abilene, 53 miles away, to have a bite
in a cafeteria there.
The others think it’s a crazy idea, but they say nothing and go along. They
drive all the way to Abilene in a non-air-conditioned car through a dust storm,
have a mediocre meal and drive back 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 did because they thought the others were eager for the drive.
Of course, this gap in communication 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 go along with 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 intended at the outset: half-baked support, uninspired ideas, and
wasted time and money on results that fall short of expectations.
We’ve all experienced the Abilene Paradox, especially in decision-making
meetings. We struggle to make a decision, come to an agreement only to find,
in our heart of hearts, that we did so only because of what we assumed about
the desires and opinions of others.
If you’ve said to yourself in those situations, “Who cares; it’ll be okay whatever
we decide,” or “Guess I’ll go with the flow,” you are on your way to Abilene. We
assume the others really do want to go to Abilene, even though we don’t, but
we agree to go anyway. And, if each individual has the same misguided
assumptions, then the action is something that no one wants. We agree as a
group, but as individuals, we have regrets. One can say this is an absurd
situation.
Why do people actually support things that go against what they desire? What
happened to the outspoken individual with ideas to contribute and concepts to
roll around in? A rare bird in groups.
According to Harvey, in group settings, expressing your real beliefs creates
anxiety. Should you maintain your own integrity and self worth by speaking
your mind, or do you compromise your values and go with what you think is the
consensus?
The anxiety comes from the magical belief that something disastrous will
happen to you if you do reveal your real thoughts. “Oh, I’ll get fired if I do that.
I’ll get labeled a maverick. I’ll look like a fool. I’ll be unlikable.” Since you
believe those things will happen if you speak your true mind, you wind up not
being honest about what you really think. These magical consequences
provide an excuse for being quiet.
And what do those magical and negative consequences represent?
Alienation, separation, ostracism; these are powerful, underlying fears, so
powerful that we will act against our own interest to avoid the risk of not being
“part” of something. Of course, doing so winds you up in Abilene.
Heavy, huh? So, how do you know your team is on its way to Abilene? Here are
some indicators:
Soft and ambiguous language. Is vagueness and opacity on the agenda versus
clear and descriptive words? Vagueness leads to low comprehension that
leads to uncertainty about how to react.
Missed opportunities. Do people come out of meetings saying something like,
“What I really wanted to say was…?” We individually and privately have a
completely different opinion than the one we expressed in the team.
No fun. Are meetings are formal, serious, procedural and somewhat
intimidating? Is there any room at all for spontaneity of expression?
Looking for a scapegoat. We were all in on the crummy decision; we are all to
blame. Under those circumstances, it’s not a good sign to be placing blame.
Low involvement. Are there people in the meeting who do not contribute?
What’s that all about?
Low questioning and probing. What’s the ratio of question asking to spouting
off?
·Awareness of process. Do people realize they are producing agreements that
no one really wants?
The point is that you need to step in with your true point of view, whatever it is.
To get people to listen, be diplomatic, choose your words carefully and back
up your thoughts with logic and data. People won’t listen to ideas being forced
on them.
Unfortunately, the Abilene Paradox plays itself out in real life situations where
ersatz decision-making has severe consequences. One well-publicized
example was the Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961. Here is what a CIA officer wrote
about the final stages of the decision-making process.
“It is hard to believe in retrospect that the president and his advisers felt the
plans for a large-scale, complicated military operation that had been ongoing
for more than a year could be reworked in four days and still offer a high
likelihood of success. It is equally amazing that we in the agency agreed so
readily.”
For more information about the Abilene Paradox, see The Abilene Paradox
and Other Meditations On Management by Jerry Harvey.
How To Gain Consensus
From a far-flung reader:
"I am a senior manager of a large division within a major corporation. Although
we operate by necessity in a stove pipe environment, I still need my direct
reports-who are also senior managers-to get more involved in making some of
the key decisions about the challenges we all share. We have discussions at
our meetings, but there isn’t a real sense of engagement. I think they feel they
are being “interviewed” for their opinions, none of which are very controversial,
and that I wind up owning the final decision. How can I raise the quality of our
decision-making?"
You are currently using your direct reports for input to decisions that you wind
up making. That is one perfectly effective way of decision-making, and it works
well enough for certain kinds of decisions. The quid pro quo is that team
members understand that they are informing your decision, not making the
decision. However, what you are looking for is consensus. That’s a different
story.
Consensus is the process of coming to a group agreement so that when the
final decision is made, everyone in the group understands why it is the best
decision, given the circumstances, and they are committed to implementing
it. So consensus is about managing agreement, much like the Abilene
Paradox.
The process of gaining consensus involves getting people with different points
of view to start seeing the issues in a similar way or at least to narrow their
differences. The only way to do that and wind up with a true consensus is to
expose each team members’ real and unfiltered ideas. Otherwise, you’re on
your way to Abilene. (See above.)
How do you do that? Some ideas to try:
Consensus decisions, done truly and honestly, are incredibly strong. It does
take time and a lot of talking. When a true consensus happens, it reflects the
collective wisdom of the group and usually feels right
© 2006 Singularity Group
11. The Importance Of Being Real: The Abilene
Paradox
It is a scorching, dusty July day in Coleman, Texas. Four people are waiting
out the heat sipping lemonade in the shade of a farmhouse porch. At one
point, someone suggests they drive to Abilene, 53 miles away, to have a bite
in a cafeteria there.
The others think it’s a crazy idea, but they say nothing and go along. They
drive all the way to Abilene in a non-air-conditioned car through a dust storm,
have a mediocre meal and drive back 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 did because they thought the others were eager for the drive.
Of course, this gap in communication 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 go along with 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 intended at the outset: half-baked support, uninspired ideas, and
wasted time and money on results that fall short of expectations.
We’ve all experienced the Abilene Paradox, especially in decision-making
meetings. We struggle to make a decision, come to an agreement only to find,
in our heart of hearts, that we did so only because of what we assumed about
the desires and opinions of others.
If you’ve said to yourself in those situations, “Who cares; it’ll be okay whatever
we decide,” or “Guess I’ll go with the flow,” you are on your way to Abilene. We
assume the others really do want to go to Abilene, even though we don’t, but
we agree to go anyway. And, if each individual has the same misguided
assumptions, then the action is something that no one wants. We agree as a
group, but as individuals, we have regrets. One can say this is an absurd
situation.
Why do people actually support things that go against what they desire? What
happened to the outspoken individual with ideas to contribute and concepts to
roll around in? A rare bird in groups.
According to Harvey, in group settings, expressing your real beliefs creates
anxiety. Should you maintain your own integrity and self worth by speaking
your mind, or do you compromise your values and go with what you think is the
consensus?
The anxiety comes from the magical belief that something disastrous will
happen to you if you do reveal your real thoughts. “Oh, I’ll get fired if I do that.
I’ll get labeled a maverick. I’ll look like a fool. I’ll be unlikable.” Since you
believe those things will happen if you speak your true mind, you wind up not
being honest about what you really think. These magical consequences
provide an excuse for being quiet.
And what do those magical and negative consequences represent?
Alienation, separation, ostracism; these are powerful, underlying fears, so
powerful that we will act against our own interest to avoid the risk of not being
“part” of something. Of course, doing so winds you up in Abilene.
Heavy, huh? So, how do you know your team is on its way to Abilene? Here are
some indicators:
Soft and ambiguous language. Is vagueness and opacity on the agenda versus
clear and descriptive words? Vagueness leads to low comprehension that
leads to uncertainty about how to react.
Missed opportunities. Do people come out of meetings saying something like,
“What I really wanted to say was…?” We individually and privately have a
completely different opinion than the one we expressed in the team.
No fun. Are meetings are formal, serious, procedural and somewhat
intimidating? Is there any room at all for spontaneity of expression?
Looking for a scapegoat. We were all in on the crummy decision; we are all to
blame. Under those circumstances, it’s not a good sign to be placing blame.
Low involvement. Are there people in the meeting who do not contribute?
What’s that all about?
Low questioning and probing. What’s the ratio of question asking to spouting
off?
·Awareness of process. Do people realize they are producing agreements that
no one really wants?
The point is that you need to step in with your true point of view, whatever it is.
To get people to listen, be diplomatic, choose your words carefully and back
up your thoughts with logic and data. People won’t listen to ideas being forced
on them.
Unfortunately, the Abilene Paradox plays itself out in real life situations where
ersatz decision-making has severe consequences. One well-publicized
example was the Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961. Here is what a CIA officer wrote
about the final stages of the decision-making process.
“It is hard to believe in retrospect that the president and his advisers felt the
plans for a large-scale, complicated military operation that had been ongoing
for more than a year could be reworked in four days and still offer a high
likelihood of success. It is equally amazing that we in the agency agreed so
readily.”
For more information about the Abilene Paradox, see The Abilene Paradox
and Other Meditations On Management by Jerry Harvey.
How To Gain Consensus
From a far-flung reader:
"I am a senior manager of a large division within a major corporation. Although
we operate by necessity in a stove pipe environment, I still need my direct
reports-who are also senior managers-to get more involved in making some of
the key decisions about the challenges we all share. We have discussions at
our meetings, but there isn’t a real sense of engagement. I think they feel they
are being “interviewed” for their opinions, none of which are very controversial,
and that I wind up owning the final decision. How can I raise the quality of our
decision-making?"
You are currently using your direct reports for input to decisions that you wind
up making. That is one perfectly effective way of decision-making, and it works
well enough for certain kinds of decisions. The quid pro quo is that team
members understand that they are informing your decision, not making the
decision. However, what you are looking for is consensus. That’s a different
story.
Consensus is the process of coming to a group agreement so that when the
final decision is made, everyone in the group understands why it is the best
decision, given the circumstances, and they are committed to implementing
it. So consensus is about managing agreement, much like the Abilene
Paradox.
The process of gaining consensus involves getting people with different points
of view to start seeing the issues in a similar way or at least to narrow their
differences. The only way to do that and wind up with a true consensus is to
expose each team members’ real and unfiltered ideas. Otherwise, you’re on
your way to Abilene. (See above.)
How do you do that? Some ideas to try:
- Explain the need for candor and frankness as a ground rule. The
question here whether your team members will believe it is a safe
environment, especially if you are a hard-nosed type of manager.
- Poll each individual to see how he/he feels about the situation and
why. Literally go around the table and get viewpoints.
- Pay attention to words and their meaning. Interestingly, people have
different interpretations of words in their own minds. Get out on they
table what people think “conservative” means. How about
“appropriate”, “oversight”, or any other abstraction.
- Ensure the discussion balances advocacy and probing. When
someone advocates an action or decision, the team needs to find out
the underlying reasoning. When ideas start to settle in a pattern, the
team needs to ask itself how it feels about the emerging decision.
- Ask team members to privately evaluate their contributions. Chris
Argyris, HBS management guru, suggests team members assess what
they said versus what they were thinking. The idea is to help people
see whether they are saying what they are thinking or not and, if not,
why not.
- Consider the “dialogue” technique. In this sense, dialogue is basically
conducting an open-ended discussion with no defined end point or
decision to make. The idea is to explore the subject roundly.
- Reinforce the notion that odd, contrarian, maverick ideas will not ruin
anyone’s career. You can do that by making it a policy to encourage
creativity and innovation on a regular basis.
- Ask people to be flexible and open-minded. Rigorous position taking
and inflexibility is a sign someone is not listening.
- Show respect for people’s heart-felt opinions. It often takes courage to
express these in a group setting.
Consensus decisions, done truly and honestly, are incredibly strong. It does
take time and a lot of talking. When a true consensus happens, it reflects the
collective wisdom of the group and usually feels right
© 2006 Singularity Group
Visit Singularitygroup.com
Click Board! Odd games and silly things. If you need to break your train of thought or just plain goof off, this place has loads of links to diversions lasting anywhere from 30 seconds to 5 minutes. Our favorite (so far) is the Reflex Tester Game. Make sure your door is closed. http://www.bored.com This is ManagerZine's competition and a highly useful site with an opportunity to subscribe to its very own zine. Research into benefits, management fundamentals, compensation, staffing, global HR management, and you get the picture. Well done. http://www.workforce.com/ A great spot if you are a high school sophomore facing a French final. Or a language-ophile. Actually, you can translate sentences from English to French, Spanish, German, Italian, Norwegian and Portuguese and back the other way. Check with a native speaker, however, before using the output. http://www.freetranslation.c om |
| Singularity Group Helping organizations implement change since 1983 For more information: www.singularitygroup.com |
Well-Spoken
"Individual
commitment to group
effort--that is what
makes a team work, a
company work, a
society work, a
civilization work."
Vince Lombardi
"Individual
commitment to group
effort--that is what
makes a team work, a
company work, a
society work, a
civilization work."
Vince Lombardi