| Definitions (Gathered from various online sources) The Abilene Paradox: The Mangement of Agreement by Jerry B. Harvey. "One sultry Saturday afternoon, a Coleman, Texas family travels to Abilene to eat at a diner--only to discover that no one really wanted to go. Insightful advice on how to keep your management team from "going to Abilene"--i.e., from agreeing to follow a course of action everyone knows is wrong." "Where groups of people (committees, for example) often make decisions which, as individuals, they would consider to be silly. The group agrees to do a silly thing because each individual knows he or she can side-step responsibility for the action of the group." "Group agreement can be as detrimental as disagreement when it is mismanaged--when individuals acquiesce without raising objections or reservations to others in the group. Developed by Dr. Jerry B. Harvey, Professor of Management Science, George Washington University, the Abilene Paradox is the result of three psychological principles, action anxiety, negative fantasy and fear of separation. When all three principles are at work, bad decisions are inevitable. " "Harvey (1988) was the first person to pen the name Abilene Paradox. This paradox occurs when a group takes actions in contradiction to what they really want to do. Each person defers to another person though they disagree, and they end up defeating the goal which they are trying to achieve. This is similar to Groupthink, in which consensus occurs due to pressure from members to preserve group harmony. In the Abilene Paradox, however, there is an outward group acceptance of a solution though each member disagrees with the accepted solution. The individual members of our group agree privately about a problem or situation, but we end up making decisions and taking actions that are not in agreement with our private beliefs. What are we doing wrong? Your group may be suffering from something called the Abilene Paradox where an organization makes decisions and takes actions that are in contradiction to their purpose." Summary of its Implications for Managing Change Gordon Lickfold
1. None of the four wanted to go to Abilene. 2. The recriminations after the trip demonstrate the interpersonal conflicts that can arise when teams seek to avoid disagreement and things go wrong as a result. 3. Organisations that put a high value on managing agreement - rather than surfacing, expressing and discussing disagreements - may find themselves on a trip to Abilene. 4. The Abilene Paradox results from a mindset that is the opposite of resisting change - that we should not disagree with either the objectives or proposed methods of a change programme because the organisation discourages "dissent". Keep the peace rather than rock the boat. But expressing disagreement may yield: 5. Therefore organisations should encourage full debate about change initiatives, allowing "dissent" and disagreement as constructive methods to: Return to |
