Question

Question 1, Abilene Paradox, Anaclitic Depression, and the Organization:

You have a sense that your organization may have arrived to Abilene. You are to decide what to do next. As part of your answer, explain the concept of the Abilene Paradox to the CEO. Why does it happen? How would you know if your organization is in or approaching Abilene? Define and explain what anaclitic depression is and how it impacts organizations. Develop a strategy to take your organization out of Abilene/Phrog Farm, and explain to the CEO why you would or would not recommend doing .

Answer 1

Abilene Paradox

The Abilene Paradox refers to a situation when a group makes a collective decision that is counter to the thoughts and feelings of its individual members. The Abilene Paradox occurs because individuals do not want to ‘rock the boat’ or ‘be a killjoy,’ even though their perceptions of the other members’ feelings are incorrect.

The Abilene Paradox was introduced by management thinker Jerry B. Harvey, Professor Emeritus of Management at The George Washington University, in an article on the subject. It occurs because human beings have a natural aversion to going against the feelings of a group - they want to conform socially. According to Harvey, the paradox may be driven because individuals believe they will experience negative attitudes or feelings if they ‘speak up’ on a topic. Of course, if no-one speaks up, the group will make a decision that is counter to the wishes and feelings of the group.

The paradox is similar to groupthink but generally when the Abilene Paradox occurs, the individual members of the group feel the overall decision is a poor one, but this isn’t always the case with groupthink. Efficient groups must work to overcome both groupthink and the Abilene Paradox as part of optimising group dynamics.

Elements of the Paradox

According to Harvey, the issue that leads to the Abilene Paradox is an inability to manage agreement, not conflict. The following symptoms are said to exist in organizations that tend to fall for the paradox:

• Organization members agree privately, as individuals, as to the nature of the situation or problem facing the organization.
• Organization members agree privately, as individuals, as to the steps that would be required to cope with the situation or problem they face.
• Organization members fail to accurately communicate their desires and/or beliefs to one another. In fact, they do just the opposite and thereby lead one another into misperceiving the collective reality.
• With such invalid and inaccurate information, organization members make collective decisions that lead them to take actions contrary to what they want to do, and thereby arrive at results that are counterproductive to the organization’s intent and purposes.
• As a result of taking actions that are counterproductive, organization members experience frustration, anger, irritation, and dissatisfaction with their organization. Consequently, they form subgroups with trusted acquaintances and blame other subgroups for the organization’s dilemma.
• Finally, if organization members do not deal with the generic issue-the inability to manage agreement-the cycle repeats itself with greater intensity.

Symptoms of the Paradox that you can look out for

When your organization makes decisions, do you find the same dysfunctional activities repeated over and over? If so, you want to be on the look out for the paradox and find a way to cut it off before it causes more damage. If you want to identify the paradox at work within your group, we’ve compiled the following list to look out for:

• Members exhibit different opinions in the group as opposed to one on one
  If your people are telling you one thing and then offering their true opinions only in private, there’s likely an issue with communication. It’s common for bad news to have trouble flowing upstream in an organization, but if no one’s telling you the plan is a dud, you’ll never know.
• Members are discouraged to dissent, often seen as lack of commitment
  When someone on your team offers constructive criticism, is it encouraged, or are they accused of failing to be a team player. If anyone offering a different opinion is asked “hey, where are your pom-poms?” you may have a problem on your hands.
• Members seem frustrated or resentful towards management and other team members
  If your organization has a habit of letting bad ideas come to fruition, then it stands to reason that someone’s being blamed for each failure. There’s plenty of reasons for employees to be resentful of management- some is reasonable and some isn’t. In this case, you’re looking for resent for being blamed- often for tasks that when assigned were already doomed to failure.
• Members avoid responsibility or even attempt to blame others
  The same systemic habit of failure mentioned above can often lead to a culture of blame. If no one feels the freedom to point out bad ideas, then no one wants to take responsibility for them either.
• Members exhibit a lack of trust
  Eventually, all of these things erode trust. Employees distrust management that doesn’t listen to their concerns and that delegates not only tasks, but also blame for failed initiatives. Corporate politics then lead to backstabbing and blame-shifting among employees under such management, as everyone does what they can to avoid being targeted.
• All decisions require unanimous agreement
  Leadership by committee can breed horrible decision-making. On the one hand, it may increase buy-in. On the other hand, every member is incentivized to agree as soon as possible, or risk being stuck in committee session longer than they want, as well as risk the image of dissenter.
• Very little dissent from group opinion is observed
  Again, lack of dissent is not always a good thing- in fact, if you as a manager aren’t encountering any dissent for the decisions you make, that should be a red flag. You have a choice- you can go on believing that the reason that your employees fail to argue with you because all of your decisions arise from bulletproof logic and infallible judgment, or you can probe to find out if the Abilene Paradox is thriving under your leadership.

Here are 3 ways to avoid the negative impact of the Abilene Paradox:

1. Create a safe environment

Think about it for a moment, who wants to be the party pooper, the kill-joy being accused of not being a team player just because they have a different opinion. Human beings are social animals and people generally yearn to feel that they ‘belong’ to a group. If someone appears as an outsider, the ability to empathise and try and understand that person drops. Relatedness is closely linked to trust, which is critical for close collaboration and the sharing of information.

So the first way to avoid the Abilene Paradox is for leaders to create an environment where people feel ‘safe’ to voice a divergent opinion. If we’ve been shouted down, ignored, or made to feel naïve in the past, we may not risk speaking out again.

2. Expect teams to disagree

If teams are built to provide a range of skills and to review issues from a variety of perspectives, it should be expected that they ‘disagree’. This is the value of a team. If it’s clear who will review the evidence and make the final decision, then disagreement should only enrich and validate the final outcome. Both sides of an argument need to be explored before one can be confidently supported – this is the essence of analysis.

3. Actively listen to feedback

​When leaders demonstrate that they are listening to differing views, team members will feel valued and are more likely to have the confidence to contribute fully. Leaders should be prepared to take the time to communicate the reasons behind decisions. This can defuse potential areas of conflict before they are driven ‘underground’. If we can see conflict, we can help to resolve or manage it. False agreements made in organisations every day may have widespread and long-lasting impacts. People may mutter and grumble about “that’s the way things are around here” embedding a cynicism about the ability to change opinions or reverse decisions. Read our blog on Communication, Collaboration and Emotional Intelligence here.

Many leaders may be unaware of how they surround themselves with ‘yes-people’ or how the power of their personality may overwhelm people. It’s essential that people can provide the diverse opinions that may be needed for an organisation to break out of a slump or to make a meaningful difference in the marketplace. Leaders may say that they value other people’s opinions but then be quite shocked to discover that they have unwittingly given a covert message that disagreement will not be tolerated.

Leaders need to become more aware of the power of group dynamics and the effects that it has on the individuals in an organisation. If they can find a way to allow true dialogue in their organisation that encourages a spirit of inquiry in their teams and groups, this would allow differences of opinion to emerge, with a wider understanding of an issue from a variety of perspectives.

Anaclitic Depression