The Abilene Paradox - Setting Tone

In my last post, I described a common form of miscommunication called The Abilene Paradox. The Paradox is a problem that arises not from conflict, but from agreement. It happens when a group makes a collective decision that is in direct opposition to the actual desires and beliefs of individual members. A common example is when someone suggests a place for lunch. No one really wants to go there, but they are unwilling to voice opposition. So everyone just goes along.

Following the last blog, I asked readers how they would keep groups from traveling to Abilene. Those suggestions helped form two broad solutions. The quotes below are from some of those contributors.

Everyone involved in decisions that are made in “Abilene” shares responsibility for those decisions. But ultimately, the leader’s role is to avoid that decision-making flaw. Whether formally leading a team or simply organizing an evening out, as the leader, you must guard against the Paradox in two ways. First, discourage road trips to Abilene by setting the proper TONE. Second, if you feel the team is detouring to Abilene, stop and VALIDATE the group’s decision.

TONE
The best decisions are those made in an environment that fosters healthy disagreement. The leader’s role is to set that tone for all team interactions. Becky Cates posted this comment:

When a barrier exists, either real or perceived, there can be no open exchange. It takes a confident person to project a sincere desire to listen, receive and value the opinions and feelings of others—whether they agree or not.

Confident leaders know that the best decisions are those reached through an open exchange and they constantly encourage it.

Encouraging open exchanges and healthy disagreement begins long before a meeting. To set the proper tone you must model it all the time. Denise Dunn was succinct:

Lead by example -- not just when there are decisions to be made, but always.

One way to set the tone is to ask team members for their thoughts before expressing your own. If someone is reluctant to comment, reiterate her responsibility to the team and remind her that regardless of her views, you value her thoughts. Modeling the proper tone of open exchange demonstrates that team members have a voice and that exercising that voice will not have negative consequences.

It is important to restate the proper tone at the beginning of decision-making meetings. Explain that each team member brings a unique perspective to the decision-making process. As members of the team, they each have a responsibility to help determine the best course of action. Remind them that there may be instances when being responsible means voicing concerns. As Mike Hawkins wrote

Leaders should never fear well-intentioned dissent.

To that I add – and they should set a tone that supports it.

Setting the proper tone will help prevent trips to Abilene. However, despite your best efforts, occasionally the team will venture down that road. In the next post, I will explain how to abort The Abilene Paradox by VALIDATING team decisions.

Until then, set the proper tone: Tell your team members it is OK to constructively disagree. Make sure your friends know to speak up if they don’t like the lunch plans. Ask for your spouse’s opinion before expressing your own. Setting the proper tone is a Subtlety of Leadership that will help you stay off the road to Abilene.

The Abilene Paradox - Causes

Have you visited Abilene? You probably did and didn’t know it. Many groups take this ‘trip’ but don’t realize they are in route until it is too late. Abilene, Texas may be a great town, but as a leader, make sure your team never goes there.

The Abilene Paradox is an allegory describing a common form of miscommunication called group think. It was originally coined in the 70’s by Texas native Jerry B. Harvey, a professor of management science at George Washington University.

In his book The Abilene Paradox and other Meditations on Management, Harvey described a family experience in which four relatives agreed to drive an hour to Abilene for dinner. Four hours later, after enduring 100+ degree heat, no air conditioning and a not-so-great meal, his mother commented that she only went along because everyone else wanted to go. A second relative snapped that he only agreed, because he thought everyone else wanted dinner in Abilene. The conversation quickly dissolved into a full-blow family argument when it became evident that while everyone had agreed to go no one actually wanted to go.

The Abilene Paradox describes a unique problem that arises not from conflict, but from agreement. It is what happens when a group makes a collective decision that is in direct opposition to the actual desires and beliefs of individual members. The irony is that often team members agree privately about the best possible decision. Yet, when convened as a group, they fail to publicly voice their opinion, passively accepting the decision of the group.

The Abilene Paradox:

When organizations take actions in contradiction to what they really want to do and therefore defeat the very purposes they are trying to achieve.

Do not think The Paradox is limited only to business. The need to “effectively manage agreement” as Harvey calls it, is needed in non-profits, family interactions, sports teams – anywhere people need to make decisions as a group. In fact, Harvey suggested that “the inability to manage agreement is a major source of organizational dysfunction.”

There are a number of reasons for passive agreement in teams. Occasionally, silence is a form of loyalty to, or support of, the leader. In another situation one person may be driving the entire team to Abilene by dominating the discussion with his strong opinions.

Most often the paradox happens when individuals fear the repercussions of speaking up in a group setting. Typically, that fear reflects a concern for job security or retaliation from the leader. Others may hesitate to speak up out of fear of being ostracized from the group or being seen as different. In either case, the result is not only a poor decision, but also a lack of grassroots support for the decision. Together these are a recipe for disaster because

agreeing TO something is vastly different than agreeing WITH something.

Do you have thoughts about how effective leaders can avoid a trip to Abilene? Next week, I’ll explain my solutions and include your ideas as well. Leave your comments below or email me at SubtletiesofLeadership@gmail.com