Q 532. What is Abilene Paradox? How does it adversely affects decision making? What are ways to prevent it?

 

Note for website visitors - Two questions are asked every week on this platform. One on Tuesday and the other on Friday. 

• All questions so far can be seen here - https://www.benchmarksixsigma.com/forum/lean-six-sigma-business-excellence-questions/
• Please visit the forum home page at https://www.benchmarksixsigma.com/forum/ to respond to the latest question open till the next Tuesday/ Friday evening 5 PM as per Indian Standard Time. Questions launched on Tuesdays are open till Friday and questions launched on Friday are open till Tuesday.
• When you respond to this question, your answer will not be visible till it is reviewed. Only non-plagiarised (plagiarism below 5-10%) responses will be approved. If you have doubts about plagiarism, please check your answer with a plagiarism checker tool like https://smallseotools.com/plagiarism-checker/ before submitting. 
• The best answer is always shown at the top among responses and the author finds honorable mention in our Business Excellence dictionary at https://www.benchmarksixsigma.com/forum/business-excellence-dictionary-glossary/ along with the related term

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

 

 

 

What is Abilene paradox

 Abilene paradox invented by J.B. Harvey, Professor Emeritus of Management at George Washington University in 1988. This explain how gap in team behaviour mainly to make consensus within team may lead to undesired outcomes.

How it does adversely affects decision making

Harvey shared example how in 1986 , NASA when ready to Launch a shuttle high wind forced its cancellation and delayed due to freezing temperature beyond expectation. NASA management decided that engineers must evaluate the impact of cold weather in Launch. Critical things were hided and not reported to NASA. On Jan 28, 1986 at 11:38 , NASA launch its shuttle however after 73 seconds shuttle is lost. As per Harvey this is Abilene paradox to describe the contradiction between actual desired purpose of cation and undesired outcomes. Individually , the member of group understand the problem they are trying to resolve. They know the steps necessary to achieve the desired outcomes, however they fail to transfer their individual belief to group. This lack of communication facilitates wrong decision and results in action which is contrary to the organisation desire. The results of the action lead to undesirable results, which causes team members to become dissatisfied with others and the company. This often leads to team members blaming each one. If the team does not step back and deal with the issue of agreement management, the paradox will continue to occur with much greater organizational consequences.

What are ways to prevent it?

He shared the idea that team must perform in a manner that contradicts what each individual believes is the right thing to do, often creating a giant issue for the organization than the original one being solved. he suggest the  main issue of the paradox is the necessity of team members to avoid harm.

1. Action anxiety, which is the intense feelings one gets when thinking about acting in accordance with their beliefs. Action anxiety is often driven by what negative fantasies, which are the perceived negative consequences one believes they will receive if they follow their beliefs. Team members may think that going with the whole team group is less risky of two risks. He acknowledges that real risk is present in individual thought to follow the group or not, just as few risk is present in all conditions.

2. Separation anxiety, or the strong negative feeling of being separated from the rest of the group, according to Harvey. He suggest that we need for connection and engagement and the fear may drive some factors which lead to action anxiety, negative fantasies. Group Thinking or brainstorming is actually discussing the unfavourable events and allows room to questioning past decisions.

The Abilene Paradox is a phenomenon in which a group of people collectively decide on a course of action that is contrary to the preferences of many or all of the individuals in the group. This occurs when members of the group think that the others desire a certain action, and therefore do not express their own contrary ideas. The result is that the group collectively decides on a course of action that is not actually desired by many or sometimes most or all of the individuals. The term was coined by management scholar Jerry B Harvey in 1974.

 

The Abilene Paradox can have a significant impact on decision making in groups, as it can lead to poor or even undesirable decisions being made. This is because the group may collectively decides on a course of action that is not actually desired or supported by many individual members. This can lead to dissatisfaction, lack of commitment, and poor implementation of the decision.

 

Abilene Paradox can also lead to a breakdown in communication within the group, as individuals may not feel comfortable expressing their own preferences or concerns due to fear of being perceived as dissenting or uncooperative. This can create a culture of groupthink where dissenting opinions are discouraged.

 

To avoid Abilene Paradox, it is important for group members to actively communicate and listen to one another, and to make efforts to understand and consider individual preferences and concerns before decision making. Additionally, it is important for leaders to create an environment where dissenting opinions are encouraged and valued.

 

There are several ways that can be used to prevent the Abilene Paradox in group decision making:

·        Encourage group members to express their opinions, preferences, and concerns openly and honestly, by creating an environment based on mutual trust and respect.

·        Encourage group members to actively listen to one another and understand/ consider the perspectives of others.

·        Appoint a member of the group to act as a devil's advocate and question the proposed course of action. This helps to identify concerns and objections that other members may have.

·        Invite outside experts or stakeholders to provide input and perspective on the decision.

·        Make sure that individual preferences and concerns are considered when deciding.

·        If a decision is being made that is not supported by all group members, it may be best to take a step back and reassess the situation. It may be necessary to gather more information or to consider alternative options.

·        Leaders should avoid stating their preferences upfront as some team members may feel uncomfortable in putting across contrary point of view.

 

By implementing these methods, leaders can prevent the Abilene Paradox and ensure that group decisions are made in an inclusive, & effective manner which are not perceived to be forced on the team but owned by the team.

Interesting examples quoted by Anupam and Kirpa Shanker. Anuj has highlighted very good points to address Abilene Paradox.

 

The winner for this answer is Anupam Goswami for quoting an example and also suggesting multiple methods for addressing it. 

 

P.S. Sometimes people confuse it with groupthink. However both are different. Read more about groupthink at the following link

https://www.benchmarksixsigma.com/forum/topic/35899-avoiding-groupthink/