Abilene paradox

Last updated

In the Abilene paradox, a group of people collectively decide on a course of action that is counter to the preferences of many or all of the individuals in the group. [1] [2] It involves a common breakdown of group communication in which each member mistakenly believes that their own preferences are counter to the group's and, therefore, does not raise objections. A common phrase relating to the Abilene paradox is a desire not to "rock the boat". This differs from groupthink in that the Abilene paradox is characterized by an inability to manage agreement. [3]

Contents

Explanation

The term was introduced by management expert Jerry B. Harvey in his 1974 article "The Abilene Paradox: The Management of Agreement". [3] The name of the phenomenon comes from an anecdote that Harvey uses in the article to elucidate the paradox:

On a hot afternoon visiting in Coleman, Texas, the family is comfortably playing dominoes on a porch, until the father-in-law suggests that they take a trip to Abilene [53 miles (85 km) north] for dinner. The wife says, "Sounds like a great idea." The husband, despite having reservations because the drive is long and hot, thinks that his preferences must be out-of-step with the group and says, "Sounds good to me. I just hope your mother wants to go." The mother-in-law then says, "Of course I want to go. I haven't been to Abilene in a long time."

The drive is hot, dusty, and long. When they arrive at the cafeteria, the food is as bad as the drive. They arrive back home four hours later, exhausted.

One of them dishonestly says, "It was a great trip, wasn't it?" The mother-in-law says that, actually, she would rather have stayed home, but went along since the other three were so enthusiastic. The husband says, "I wasn't delighted to be doing what we were doing. I only went to satisfy the rest of you." The wife says, "I just went along to keep you happy. I would have had to be crazy to want to go out in the heat like that." The father-in-law then says that he only suggested it because he thought the others might be bored.

The group sits back, perplexed that they together decided to take a trip which none of them wanted. They each would have preferred to sit comfortably, but did not admit to it when they still had time to enjoy the afternoon.

Ronald Sims writes that the Abilene paradox is similar to groupthink, but differs in significant ways, including that in groupthink individuals are not acting contrary to their conscious wishes and generally feel good about the decisions the group has reached. [4] According to Sims, in the Abilene paradox, the individuals acting contrary to their own wishes are more likely to have negative feelings about the outcome. In Sims' view, groupthink is a psychological phenomenon affecting clarity of thought, where in the Abilene paradox thought is unaffected. [5]

Like groupthink theories, the Abilene paradox theory is used to illustrate that groups not only have problems managing disagreements, but that agreements may also be a problem in a poorly functioning group. [6]

Research

The phenomenon is explained by social psychology theories of social conformity and social influence, which suggest human beings are often very averse to acting contrary to the trend of a group. [6] [7] According to Harvey, the phenomenon may occur when individuals experience "action-anxiety"—stress concerning the group potentially expressing negative attitudes towards them if they do not go along. This action-anxiety arises from what Harvey termed "negative fantasies"—unpleasant visualizations of what the group might say or do if individuals are honest about their opinions—when there is "real risk" of displeasure and negative consequences for not going along. The individual may experience "separation anxiety", fearing exclusion from the group. [8]

Applications of the theory

The theory is often used to help explain extremely poor group decisions, especially notions of the superiority of "rule by committee". For example, Harvey himself cited the Watergate scandal as a potential instance of the Abilene paradox in action. [9] The Watergate scandal occurred in the United States in the 1970s when many high officials of the administration of then-President Richard Nixon colluded in the cover-up and perhaps the execution of a break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters in Washington, D.C. Harvey quotes several people indicted for the cover-up as indicating that they had personal qualms about the decision but feared to voice them. For one instance, campaign aide Herbert Porter said that he "was not one to stand up in a meeting and say that this should be stopped", a decision he then attributed to "the fear of the group pressure that would ensue, of not being a team player". [9]

See also

Related Research Articles

Consensus decision-making

Consensus decision-making is a group decision-making process in which group members develop, and agree to support a decision in the best interest of the whole group or common goal. Consensus may be defined professionally as an acceptable resolution, one that can be supported, even if not the "favourite" of each individual. It has its origin in the Latin word cōnsēnsus (agreement), which is from cōnsentiō meaning literally feel together. It is used to describe both the decision and the process of reaching a decision. Consensus decision-making is thus concerned with the process of deliberating and finalizing a decision, and the social, economic, legal, environmental and political effects of applying this process.

Organization development (OD) is the study of successful organizational change and performance. OD emerged from human relations studies in the 1930s, during which psychologists realized that organizational structures and processes influence worker behavior and motivation. More recently, work on OD has expanded to focus on aligning organizations with their rapidly changing and complex environments through organizational learning, knowledge management and transformation of organizational norms and values. Key concepts of OD theory include: organizational climate, organizational culture and organizational strategies.

Facilitation in business, organizational development (OD), and in consensus decision-making refers to the process of designing and running a successful meeting.

Decision-making Cognitive process resulting in choosing a course of action

In psychology, decision-making is regarded as the cognitive process resulting in the selection of a belief or a course of action among several alternative possibilities. Decision-making is the process of identifying and choosing alternatives based on the values, preferences and beliefs of the decision-maker. Every decision-making process produces a final choice, which may or may not prompt action.

Diffusion of responsibility is a sociopsychological phenomenon whereby a person is less likely to take responsibility for action or inaction when others are present. Considered a form of attribution, the individual assumes that others either are responsible for taking action or have already done so.

Majority rule is a decision rule that selects alternatives which have a majority, that is, more than half the votes. It is the binary decision rule used most often in influential decision-making bodies, including all the legislatures of democratic nations.

Escalation of commitment is a human behavior pattern in which an individual or group facing increasingly negative outcomes from a decision, action, or investment nevertheless continues the behavior instead of altering course. The actor maintains behaviors that are irrational, but align with previous decisions and actions.

Emotional contagion is the phenomenon of having one person's emotions and related behaviors directly trigger similar emotions and behaviors in other people. Emotions can be shared across individuals in many different ways both implicitly or explicitly. For instance, conscious reasoning, analysis and imagination have all been found to contribute to the phenomenon.

A tacit assumption or implicit assumption is an assumption that includes the underlying agreements or statements made in the development of a logical argument, course of action, decision, or judgment that are not explicitly voiced nor necessarily understood by the decision maker or judge. Often, these assumptions are made based on personal life experiences, and are not consciously apparent in the decision making environment. These assumptions can be the source of apparent paradoxes, misunderstandings and resistance to change in human organizational behavior.

A facilitator is someone who engages in facilitation—any activity that makes a social process easy or easier. A facilitator often helps a group of people to understand their common objectives and assists them to plan how to achieve these objectives; in doing so, the facilitator remains "neutral", meaning he/she does not take a particular position in the discussion. Some facilitator tools will try to assist the group in achieving a consensus on any disagreements that preexist or emerge in the meeting so that it has a strong basis for future action.

Edwin C. Nevis was a gestalt therapist who identified Maslow's hierarchy of needs as culturally relative and formulated a hierarchy of needs for Chinese culture and a mode of classifying hierarchies of needs in different cultures. He co-founded the Gestalt Institute of Cleveland and founded the Gestalt International Study Center, and was a faculty member in management at the MIT Sloan School of Management.

Workplace spirituality or spirituality in the workplace is a movement that began in the early 1920s. It emerged as a grassroots movement with individuals seeking to live their faith and/or spiritual values in the workplace. Spiritual or spirit-centered leadership is a topic of inquiry frequently associated with the workplace spirituality movement.

Group decision-making is a situation faced when individuals collectively make a choice from the alternatives before them. The decision is then no longer attributable to any single individual who is a member of the group. This is because all the individuals and social group processes such as social influence contribute to the outcome. The decisions made by groups are often different from those made by individuals. In workplace settings, collaborative decision-making is one of the most successful models to generate buy-in from other stakeholders, build consensus, and encourage creativity. According to the idea of synergy, decisions made collectively also tend to be more effective than decisions made by a single individual. In this vein, certain collaborative arrangements have the potential to generate better net performance outcomes than individuals acting on their own. Under normal everyday conditions, collaborative or group decision-making would often be preferred and would generate more benefits than individual decision-making when there is the time for proper deliberation, discussion, and dialogue. This can be achieved through the use of committee, teams, groups, partnerships, or other collaborative social processes.

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Cohesiveness, or the desire for cohesiveness, in a group may produce a tendency among its members to agree at all costs. This causes the group to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation.

Groupshift is a phenomenon in which the initial positions of individual members of a group are exaggerated toward a more extreme position. When people are in groups, they make decisions about risk differently from when they are alone. In the group, they are likely to make riskier decisions, as the shared risk makes the individual risk less.

Risk is the potential for uncontrolled loss of something of value. Values can be gained or lost when taking risk resulting from a given action or inaction, foreseen or unforeseen. Risk can also be defined as the intentional interaction with uncertainty. Uncertainty is a potential, unpredictable, and uncontrollable outcome; risk is an aspect of action taken in spite of uncertainty.

Denise Rousseau is a University Professor at Carnegie Mellon University. She holds an H.J. Heinz III Chair in Organizational Behavior and Public Policy, Heinz College and jointly Tepper School of Business.

The general group problem solving model is a problem solving methodology, in which a group of individuals will define the desired outcome, identify the gap between the current state and the target and generate ideas for closing the gap by brainstorming. The end result is list of actions needed to achieve the desired results.

Spreadthink is a kind of conceptual pathology of groups unable to reach any "genuine consensus, or even majority view toward component aspects of a complex issue". A neologism coined by systems researcher and mathematical cybernetician John N. Warfield, describing ineffective thinking in groups. He states that this collective condition is generally neither recognized nor usually compensated for. Spreadthink reflects the fact that any time a group meets to work together on a complex issue using ordinary and familiar group processes, the individuals in the group will not agree on what are the most important sub-issues, and in general will not have a majority view on the merits of any of the many sub-issues.

Organizational change fatigue is a general sense of apathy or passive resignation towards organizational changes by individuals or teams. Organizational change efforts are all too often unfocused, uninspired and unsuccessful. Research shows, 70 percent of transformation efforts fail, often caused by change fatigue.

References

  1. McAvoy, John; Butler, Tom (2007). "The impact of the Abilene Paradox on double-loop learning in an agile team". Information and Software Technology. 49 (6): 552–563. doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2007.02.012.
  2. McAvoy, J.; Butler, T. (2006). "Resisting the change to user stories: a trip to Abilene". International Journal of Information Systems and Change Management. 1 (1): 48–61. doi:10.1504/IJISCM.2006.008286.
  3. 1 2 Harvey, J. B. (1974). "The Abilene paradox: the management of agreement". Organizational Dynamics. 3: 63–80. doi:10.1016/0090-2616(74)90005-9.
  4. Ronald R. Sims (1 January 1994). Ethics and Organizational Decision Making: A Call for Renewal. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp.  55–56. ISBN   978-0-89930-860-9.
  5. Ronald R. Sims (1 January 1994). Ethics and Organizational Decision Making: A Call for Renewal. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp.  57. ISBN   978-0-89930-860-9.
  6. 1 2 Levi, Daniel (28 April 2010). Group Dynamics for Teams. SAGE Publications. pp. 108–109. ISBN   978-1-4129-7762-3.
  7. Vasu, Michael L.; Debra W. Stewart; G. David Garson (3 March 1998). Organizational Behavior and Public Management, Third Edition, Revised and Expanded. Taylor & Francis. pp. 136–137. ISBN   978-0-8247-0135-2.
  8. Pownall, Ian. Effective Management Decision Making. Bookboon. p. 223. ISBN   978-87-403-0120-5.
  9. 1 2 Harvey, Jerry (Summer 1988). "The Abilene Paradox: the Management of Agreement". Organizational Management. American Management Association. 17 (1): 19–20. doi:10.1016/0090-2616(88)90028-9.

Further reading