Leaderboard

Abilene Paradox It states that a group or organization frequently take decisions or actions which is opposite to what most or all of the group wanted to. It indicates a breakdown in how a group communicates - with the individuals incorrectly believing that their own choices or preference are contradictory to those of the group (therefore the fear or appearing as “not a team player”) and doesn’t even share them. This is likely caused by human’s instinctive nature to conform to the group, gap of ownership mindset or perceiving an expert/ heavyweight in the group on the topic or even adequate time to debate. Individuals as a result are afraid of speaking up, resulting in collectively the group remaining silent on the issue. For example, after multiple election defeats members of a political party committee meet to select a new president replacing the existing incumbent. Meeting starts with a coterie of close senior leaders extending supporting for the incumbent to continue while covering up the issue. A senior leader who viewed himself as a contender but didn’t want to come out as too eager, extended his support for status quo. Other individual members who too had discussed privately the need for change but didn’t want to appear to present conflict or lack of public support with the party’s ageing leadership, didn’t raise any objections to the incumbent continuing or even share their actual views about need for change in leadership. Some deferred to the senior party leader earlier expressing support with the incumbent. Even the incumbent who didn’t want to appear to run from responsibility while privately of the opinion for fresh blood, didn’t voice out opposition to his continuing as party president in the meeting. Thus, the group while individually desiring of a change in leadership and backed by data of poor decisions made by the incumbent, collectively decided for status quo. This caused further increase in frustration within the members, with each blaming other members or the party leaders and obviously more electoral defeats. In effect, the issue for which resolution was being attempted got compounded due to the hampered decision making ability, with blame game running rife among the members. As on any path for resolution, the first step is to identify existence of the problem. Symptoms include: · Individuals sharing differing view points or opinions while in private as against when in a group · Culture of discouraging members presenting different view points or opinions or taking risks or shooting the messenger · Presence of frustration among members towards other groups or leadership. · Lack of trust among members of the group resulting in backstabbing. · Decision making requiring unanimous committee agreement. Now the step towards avoiding this paradox are: · Leadership acknowledge the issue clearly asking for frank opinions without fear · Encourage everyone to share their feedback even if different or voice out concerns before decision is taken. Reward the devil’s advocate even if he gets proven wrong. · Further before collectively discussing, encourage individuals or smaller teams to brainstorm independently and present options. This would ensure that heavyweights don’t swing the discussion first. · Encourage members to listen without passing judgment, enforce culture of brainstorming. · Finally avoid being hasty while making key decisions without considering alternatives and studying the impact