The other night, during a live online session with graduate students, one of them raised an issue that made me think of the Abilene Paradox, a phenomenon coined and described by Dr. Jerry B. Harvey in a 1988 article entitled, “The Abilene Paradox: The Management of Agreement”.
The Abilene Paradox in a Nutshell
In his article and subsequent book, Harvey recounts a story of how his family took a 106-mile trip through the Texas desert on a hot summer day, later finding out that even though everyone agreed to go when the father first suggested it, no one really wanted to go – not even the father.
Dr. Harvey saw this “tendency for groups to embark on excursions that no group member wants” as a metaphor for how groups frequently agree to take actions that contradict what individual members really want to do or believe is right and therefore defeat the very purposes they are trying to achieve.
How is this different from Groupthink?
People often conflate the Abilene paradox and groupthink. While both can be dysfunctional to teams and groups, there are differences. In the Abilene Paradox, the group members may privately dislike or disagree with a proposed plan or decision and may have strong concerns and yet don’t express their disagreement and go along with the plan without saying anything. They go along to get along.
In groupthink, members endorse the decision or proposed course of action without analyzing or evaluating it fully because of inherent pressures from the leader (or a small group of outspoken participants) to conform.
I intend to elaborate on these differences in a future blog article.
Managing Agreement Vs. Managing Conflict
The topic of managing conflict is a major issue in many organizations and teams — for good reason. Conflict within an organization can cripple or even cause it to implode.
But managing agreement is equally important — and is often ignored.
Dr. Harvey posited that “the inability to manage agreement is a major source of organization dysfunction” (p. 15). This “Abilene Paradox” represents how organizational and managerial decisions gain traction and take flight under the illusion that everyone agrees on the path to take.
Harvey contended that “the inability to cope with (manage) agreement, rather than the inability to cope with (manage) conflict, is the single most pressing issue of modern organizations” (p. 17). In his book, he explains this statement when he says, “analysis of the Abilene Paradox opens up the possibility of two kinds of conflict – real and phony” (p. 28). The difference is that real conflict occurs when people have real differences in facts, goals, methods, or values; while “phony conflict occurs because people agree on the actions they want to take and then do the opposite” (p.28). He goes on to say that the two kinds of conflict look alike but have different causes and require differing methods to resolve them.
The Costs of Trips to Abilene
This “road to Abilene” can cause an organization to invest much time, money, resources, and people on projects most of the people know won’t work. In my experiences in training & organizational development, human resources, as a professor and consultant, I have seen this many times: the road to Abilene often leads to failure of the organization or team to meet its innovation, performance, and financial goals.
What To Do?
So, what do organizational leaders need to do to cancel these trips to Abilene?
The key to understanding and managing through the Abilene Paradox is recognizing it is about the inability to manage agreement. And Harvey concedes that while conflict issues and agreement issues look alike, they have different causes and require different methods to resolve them.
It stands to reason, then, that the first step is to determine whether the issue you’re facing is one of conflict management or agreement management. While the subject is large and complicated, here are questions to explore when doing a postmortem on a group decision gone bad:
- Did group members agree privately and individually to the nature of the situation or problem?
- Did group members agree privately and individually to the steps required to address the situation or problem?
- Did group members fail to clearly articulate their desires, ideas, or beliefs to the others?
- Did group members experience frustration, anger, irritation, and dissatisfaction with their organization after the decision was made?
Affirmative answers to these questions are a good indication that the organization needs to focus on managing agreement.
In Closing
In subsequent blog articles, I’ll share specific methods and tools for addressing the conditions that lead to trips to Abilene as well as strategies for avoiding them in the future.
PS: Speaking of Conflict Management…
Speaking of Conflict Management, stay tuned for more information about an online course I have developed, entitled, “Resolving Conflict with Skill and Tact“. This self-paced course teaches you how to analyze and understand the mindset of conflict so you can diagnose and resolve conflict or difficult situations skillfully.
References
Harvey, J., “The Abilene Paradox: The Management of Agreement,” Organizational Dynamics, Summer 1988, AMACOM, pp 17-43.
Harvey, Jerry B., (1988), The Abilene Paradox and Other Meditations on Management, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco.