It is a fervent and dusty day in July in Coleman, Texas. Four people are waiting for the heat, drinking lemonade in the shade of a farmhouse porch. At one point, someone suggests, removed to Abilene, 53 miles to get a bite in the cafeteria instead. Others think it’s a crazy idea, but they say nothing and walk. To all the way to Abilene in a car without air conditioning through a sandstorm, a mediocre meal and drive back to Coleman, hours later, tired, hot and happy.
When they return home, did not show the first, but because they thought the others were eager for the unit. Of course, this lack of communication was the fault of another person.
Here is the paradox of Abilene, a phenomenon of group dynamics is first identified by Jerry Harvey of George Washington University in 1974. The paradox is that people goes a bad decision, knowing it was a bad decision in the first place. The result is the opposite of what uninspired from the start, center support, ideas, and the loss of time and money on results that fall short of expectations should.
On the way to Abilene
We have all experienced Abilene paradox, especially in decision-making meetings. We strive to make a decision to agree, only to find to make, in our innermost being, he did it only for what others around the wishes and views.
If you said, even in such situations, “Who cares, it will be alright, what you choose,” or “I think I’ll go with the flow”, which is on the way to Abilene. We assume that others really want to go to Abilene, though not, but we decided to go anyway. And if everyone has the same false assumptions that is, the action is something that nobody wants. We agree that a group but as individuals, we have regrets. One can say that this is an absurd situation.
Why do many people actually support the things that go against what they want? What happened to the people open to ideas and concepts that contribute in roles? A rare bird in the groups.
According to Harvey, in groups, to express their true beliefs creates a degree of anxiety. In the case of maintaining one’s own integrity and self-respect to speak your mind, or compromise your values ??and stick with what you think is the consensus?
The fear comes from the magical belief that something catastrophic will happen if you do not post their true thoughts. “Oh, I’ll get fired if I do that. I’ll get called a rebel. I’ll look like a fool. I’ll be uncomfortable.” Because I believe that these things happen when you speak your mind right, just not honest about what they really think. These magical consequences excuse to relax.
And what do these negative consequences and make magic? The alienation, separation, isolation, anxiety, that are powerful, underlying, so powerful that we act against our own interests to the risk of not “part” of something to avoid. Of course, doing what ends up in Abilene.
The commitment is unhealthy, you go Down the Road
But it is the commitment of professional life? We are not against our own interests, if we go together? In his new book, the commitment trap, Elizabeth Doty draws a line between healthy commitment that is necessary to reveal the fulfillment of the goals and commitments to unhealthy beliefs and values. Where commitments accumulate unhealthy conflict within the head can lead to stress and many trips to Abilene (and alienation, isolation or ostracism feared in the first place!).
His approach is to recognize when they are pressured to go through the rules, the play violated their faith and / or common sense, and a different game play to be true to yourself, no matter how difficult the circumstances. The key to playing this game different is to question their assumptions. Is it really this decision in the interests of the group? Are other people involved with this set or just feel pressured to participate? What are the costs for me without progress, including the cost of my self-esteem and the ability of others to trust me? And finally, do you think really fired, getting ostracized, excluded, or if I focus on group support to achieve their goals?
In his book, Elizabeth shows many examples of professionals who had not questioned their assumptions and discovered the consequences of speaking up as bad as they first appeared, at least not in comparison with the dust and heat of Abilene.
So how do you know your team is on the way to Abilene? Here are some pointers:
Soft and ambiguous language. It is the vagueness and opacity in the order of the day against the clear and descriptive words? The uncertainty leads to a poor understanding leads to confusion about how to react. Collateralized debt obligations, anyone?
Missed opportunities. Do people from the meetings by saying something like: “What I really meant was …?” We respond individually and privately brought an entirely different opinion is expressed on the computer.
It’s no fun. Are the meetings are formal, serious, process and intimidate something? Is there room for spontaneity in every speech?
The Authority plays. Beware of the person in authority, the subtly different ideas, adds his / her own likes and uses strong language in the home key points without reply in the group.
Looking for a scapegoat. We were all in a lousy decision, we are all guilty. Under these circumstances, it is a good sign for the debt. This is a sign that they have been and perhaps still in Abilene.
The low turnout. Are there people in the meeting is not? Why?
Under questioning and investigation. What is the relationship between the formulation of questions to get ideas?
Knowledge about the process. Do people realize that they produce agreements that nobody really wants?
The point is that it is necessary to intervene in their true perspective, what. To listen to the people, be diplomatic, chooses his words carefully and back up your opinion on logic and data. People are not ideas that were forced to accept to hear.
Visit us too often in Abilene
Unfortunately, the Abilene Paradox in real life, where surrogate decision has serious consequences played. A highly publicized example was the Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961. This is what a CIA agent, wrote about the final stages of decision making.
“It’s hard to believe that, in retrospect, that the President and his advisers the plans for a large scale, complicated military operation that lasted for over a year, could be revised in four days and still felt a strong likelihood success. It is also surprising that the agency agreement that simple. “