The Abilene Paradox
In class yesterday, we watched a video (based on an article) entitled "The Abilene Paradox", which basically highlights the phenomenon whereby a group of people can agree to something (usually a particular course of action) despite the fact that none of them are actually interested in it (and may actually be against it). Although these may have been covered by the article, the video did not really spend any time on how these situations arise, and how they can be prevented.
First of all, these situations are almost always caused by our fear of authority. In the video, all of the instances (with the possible exception of the wedding story) were founded on a two-fold belief regarding the person perceived to be the highest authority: First, that the authority figure is in favor of the particular position, and, two, that admitting one's contrary position will somehow be perceived as an attack against the authority. For example, in the namesake instance, the author believed that his father-in-law wanted to make the trip, and he was afraid that stating his opinion would somehow upset his in-laws, whom he was clearly still trying to impress (despite already having married their daughter).
Furthermore, the reason why they tend to think the authority figure is in favor of the idea is because they are frequently the ones to bring the idea forward. In the original instance, the father-in-law was the one who suggested it, even though he later admitted that he suggested it solely as a means of starting a conversation, which all the listeners interpreted as a desire to see his suggestion followed. Similarly, in the faculty meeting example, the facilitator of the meeting was perceived as being the one who wanted the meeting; he had, after all, called or scheduled it and was, as a result, making everyone sit there.
One way to keep these things from happening is for whoever is in charge to remember that he or she shouldn't raise an idea "just to say something" or force something "just because it's on the schedule" without making the perceived subordinates aware of that fact.
However, sometimes, even though the authority figure is perceived to be supportive of a particular thing, he or she may not have been the source of it (e.g., the wedding and Project X instances). Even in these situations, all it takes is for one voice to be honest to "get off the road to Abilene," and the earlier this is done, the better. And I don't mean that merely in the sense of stemming the damage: The earlier in deliberations that one person voices their resistance to the suggested course, the easier it will be for others to join in. The longer a person waits, even in this initial stage, the harder it may be to overcome, as more people express their agreement with the suggestion. Maybe they're agreeing because they truly like it, maybe they're agreeing because they don't care either way, or maybe they're agreeing because of the pull of the Abilene Paradox; it doesn't matter. The earlier resistance is expressed, the earlier other's may feel comfortable agreeing with the dissenter, or the earlier the dissenter's concerns can be addressed. And it doesn't have to be a response as contradictory as "I don't like that." For example, in response to the father-in-law's suggestion of taking a drive to Abilene (53 miles one way, in the middle of the summer), the author asked if the car's air-conditioning had been fixed yet (it hadn't), but he left it at that. If he had followed up with "Do you really think it would be a good idea to make such a long trip in this heat with air-conditioning?", that would have given the father-in-law a way to back out of the suggestion, and it would have provided a venue for the others to express their resistance to the suggestion as well.
Basically, honesty is the cure for the Abilene Paradox. I can confidently state that I have never experienced this Paradox, although I have been in situations where it could have developed had I not been afraid to state how I truly felt. For example, at the beginning of the most recent professional football season, the fantasy football league I am in was holding our draft for the upcoming season, when we appointed a new commissioner and he made some remarks. One of his topics was, in fact, the future of our draft, and he stated that we were going to have a meeting after the season to test out holding an auction for players rather than drafting them. At first, he was presenting this as an idea that we were going to test out to see if we would be interested in it, but near the end of his remarks, he began using terms that implied it had already been decided and that this session was just to familiarize ourselves with the process. As he was winding up, he finally made some comment about "all of us" being in favor of it, and that's when I felt I had to jump in. I explained that, not only have I never expressed a favorable position on changing the process, I am currently emphatically against such a change. I explained that I was willing to participate in the auction test because I recognized that I may be mistaken in my assessment of its virtues and I was open to more information, but that, if we took a vote right then, I would be so adamantly against switching to an auction that I would be willing to leave the league if we switched. After I was done, it came out that three others (in a ten-member league) were against a switch as well, and even the ones who had originally suggested the test had suggested it because they knew it existed but didn't know all of the implications of a switch and wanted to test it out so that the league could, after the test, make an informed decision. The new commissioner was a little peeved (he was gung-ho for the switch and saw the test as a formality), but the rest of us felt a lot better about it once all the cards were on the table.
Bottom line: If you are a professional, you should be able to avoid the Abilene Paradox because you will be willing to be honest and willing to express disagreement to your superiors.
First of all, these situations are almost always caused by our fear of authority. In the video, all of the instances (with the possible exception of the wedding story) were founded on a two-fold belief regarding the person perceived to be the highest authority: First, that the authority figure is in favor of the particular position, and, two, that admitting one's contrary position will somehow be perceived as an attack against the authority. For example, in the namesake instance, the author believed that his father-in-law wanted to make the trip, and he was afraid that stating his opinion would somehow upset his in-laws, whom he was clearly still trying to impress (despite already having married their daughter).
Furthermore, the reason why they tend to think the authority figure is in favor of the idea is because they are frequently the ones to bring the idea forward. In the original instance, the father-in-law was the one who suggested it, even though he later admitted that he suggested it solely as a means of starting a conversation, which all the listeners interpreted as a desire to see his suggestion followed. Similarly, in the faculty meeting example, the facilitator of the meeting was perceived as being the one who wanted the meeting; he had, after all, called or scheduled it and was, as a result, making everyone sit there.
One way to keep these things from happening is for whoever is in charge to remember that he or she shouldn't raise an idea "just to say something" or force something "just because it's on the schedule" without making the perceived subordinates aware of that fact.
However, sometimes, even though the authority figure is perceived to be supportive of a particular thing, he or she may not have been the source of it (e.g., the wedding and Project X instances). Even in these situations, all it takes is for one voice to be honest to "get off the road to Abilene," and the earlier this is done, the better. And I don't mean that merely in the sense of stemming the damage: The earlier in deliberations that one person voices their resistance to the suggested course, the easier it will be for others to join in. The longer a person waits, even in this initial stage, the harder it may be to overcome, as more people express their agreement with the suggestion. Maybe they're agreeing because they truly like it, maybe they're agreeing because they don't care either way, or maybe they're agreeing because of the pull of the Abilene Paradox; it doesn't matter. The earlier resistance is expressed, the earlier other's may feel comfortable agreeing with the dissenter, or the earlier the dissenter's concerns can be addressed. And it doesn't have to be a response as contradictory as "I don't like that." For example, in response to the father-in-law's suggestion of taking a drive to Abilene (53 miles one way, in the middle of the summer), the author asked if the car's air-conditioning had been fixed yet (it hadn't), but he left it at that. If he had followed up with "Do you really think it would be a good idea to make such a long trip in this heat with air-conditioning?", that would have given the father-in-law a way to back out of the suggestion, and it would have provided a venue for the others to express their resistance to the suggestion as well.
Basically, honesty is the cure for the Abilene Paradox. I can confidently state that I have never experienced this Paradox, although I have been in situations where it could have developed had I not been afraid to state how I truly felt. For example, at the beginning of the most recent professional football season, the fantasy football league I am in was holding our draft for the upcoming season, when we appointed a new commissioner and he made some remarks. One of his topics was, in fact, the future of our draft, and he stated that we were going to have a meeting after the season to test out holding an auction for players rather than drafting them. At first, he was presenting this as an idea that we were going to test out to see if we would be interested in it, but near the end of his remarks, he began using terms that implied it had already been decided and that this session was just to familiarize ourselves with the process. As he was winding up, he finally made some comment about "all of us" being in favor of it, and that's when I felt I had to jump in. I explained that, not only have I never expressed a favorable position on changing the process, I am currently emphatically against such a change. I explained that I was willing to participate in the auction test because I recognized that I may be mistaken in my assessment of its virtues and I was open to more information, but that, if we took a vote right then, I would be so adamantly against switching to an auction that I would be willing to leave the league if we switched. After I was done, it came out that three others (in a ten-member league) were against a switch as well, and even the ones who had originally suggested the test had suggested it because they knew it existed but didn't know all of the implications of a switch and wanted to test it out so that the league could, after the test, make an informed decision. The new commissioner was a little peeved (he was gung-ho for the switch and saw the test as a formality), but the rest of us felt a lot better about it once all the cards were on the table.
Bottom line: If you are a professional, you should be able to avoid the Abilene Paradox because you will be willing to be honest and willing to express disagreement to your superiors.
posted by Dan Baker at 2:01 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home