What is the Abilene paradox?

The Abilene paradox describes a situation in which a group’s collective decision is at odds with the thoughts, beliefs and feelings of each individual member. Individually, these group members may feel as if the decided-upon action is flawed or faulty, but despite having reservations, they go along with it because they perceive it as the best choice for the group and don’t want to create friction.

Ironically, they don’t realize their thoughts actually reflect those of their teammates. Essentially, it’s a failure to manage agreement.

The origins of the Abilene paradox

The Abilene paradox was introduced by management expert Jerry B. Harvey, who posed the idea after a real-life trip to Abilene. On a sweltering Texas afternoon, his family relaxed on the porch of their home with a fan, cold lemonade and a game of dominoes. Despite the heat, they were relatively comfortable.

Seemingly out of the blue, his father-in-law suggested a drive to nearby Abilene for dinner. Harvey immediately disliked the idea—the town was 53 miles away and the car wasn’t air-conditioned—but his spouse spoke up to say it was a great idea. When pressed, Harvey agreed, on the condition that his mother-in-law wanted to go. Of course, she said she did.

After the 4-hour trip and an unsavory meal, the group arrived home overheated and exhausted. To spark conversation, Harvey mused that it had been a great trip. Nobody agreed. One by one, the family members admitted they hadn’t wanted to go to Abilene. They only agreed to the trip because they thought it was what the others wanted. In fact, Harvey’s father-in-law confessed he’d only suggested it because he thought the others would enjoy it. He hadn’t wanted to go either.

Essentially, the entire family took a trip no individual member wanted to go on. If even one family member had spoken up to say, “I’d prefer to stay home,” the failed trip may have been avoided.

Realizing that organizations could just as easily fall into the trap his family did, Harvey coined the term Abilene paradox to describe the situation.

Stages of the Abilene paradox

The Abilene paradox typically occurs in six distinct stages:

1. Privately, each group member has a similar understanding of the problem being addressed.
2. Privately, each group member has a similar belief about the solution needed to address the problem.
3. During group discussion, team members express thoughts and feelings they believe the group wants to hear, rather than communicating their true ideas.
4. Using this inaccurate information, group members land on a decision nobody actually believes in.
5. Group members experience negative emotions, such as frustration and anger, as a result of the counterproductive decision and resulting actions.
6. If the underlying causes aren’t addressed, the cycle repeats.

What causes the Abilene paradox?

The Abilene paradox typically occurs when individual team members have misconceptions about the way other members and leaders think or feel about a topic. They may not feel confident or secure enough to share thoughts or opinions they believe to be contrary to the group’s collective wishes, or they may not think it’s worth fighting for what they want.

Group members may also fail to speak up due to fear of:

• Being wrong
• Looking foolish
• Losing their job
• Inciting conflict within the group
• Experiencing rejection from other team members or leaders
• Challenging a trusted expert’s opinion or recommendation

Ultimately, if multiple group members feel this way and nobody speaks up, the team may decide on an action that nobody actually believes is a good option.

What consequences can the Abilene paradox have?

The Abilene paradox can have negative consequences for your organization and the workers you employ. If unchecked, it can ultimately lead to:

• Economic loss
• Missed opportunities
• An unsafe workplace
• Job abandonment
• Employee frustration, resentment and dissatisfaction
• Mistrust and blame toward other group members or leaders
• Formation of subgroups that exclude other group members from conversations
• A climate of blame

How to identify the Abilene paradox

Before you can address the Abilene paradox, you’ll need to determine whether it’s occurring within your organization. To quickly identify the existence of, or potential for, problematic group decision-making, watch for the following red flags:

• Hasty decisions: Teams that return hasty decisions or solutions to complex problems may be failing to adequately discuss potential outcomes.
• Pressure to agree: If group members or leaders pressure other members to agree, individuals may not feel secure enough to voice dissenting opinions, even when they know they have valid concerns.
• Staff negativity: If workers exhibit signs of frustration or resentment toward colleagues or team leaders, it can signal trouble within the group.
• Blame and responsibility avoidance: When group decisions result in counterproductive actions or outcomes, members who feel silenced may seek to avoid responsibility, blaming other team members or leaders for what happened.

How to prevent the Abilene paradox

If you fail to prevent the Abilene paradox, it can quickly become cyclical. Fortunately, you can decrease your company’s risk byfollowing a few simple strategies:

• Invite outside opinions: When making crucial group decisions, ask other teams or departments to share their thoughts, opinions or insights. Outsiders can often provide new or unique perspectives that help team members see a problem from a different angle.
• Encourage critical thinking: During decision-making conversations, ask one individual to play devil’s advocate, regardless of their personal views. Acknowledge or reward individuals who speak up and offer different opinions.
• Let others speak first: If you’re heading up a team, reserve your opinion until others have spoken. This can help you avoid inadvertently influencing what others might have been planning to say.
• Ask questions: Reluctant team members may be more likely to share insights and opinions when asked open-ended questions, such as, “What problems could arise from this decision?”
• Schedule one-on-one conversations: One-on-one conversations may help you identify times when a team member’s spoken thoughts differ from one-on-one to group conversations. Private conversations can be particularly beneficial for new hires, who may not feel comfortable voicing their opinions.
• Allow time for consideration: When presenting major proposals, give team members time to review materials. Individuals who have sufficient time to consider a proposal may be more likely to pinpoint areas of concern.
• Create a safe, supportive environment: When employees feel comfortable on the job, they may be more likely to share their true opinions and views—even those they suspect may be contrary to the group’s collective wishes.
• Break the silence: If team members aren’t speaking up, dig deeper. Don’t mistake someone’s failure to publicly disagree with the group for their agreement.
• Don’t require unanimous agreement: When making group decisions, leave room for dissent. By leaving space for individuals to disagree, you can free them up to express their authentic opinions.
• Create a team charter: By creating a document that details a team’s goals, expectations and boundaries, you can set the team up for decision-making success.

FAQs about the Abilene paradox

What is the difference between groupthink and the Abilene paradox?

Both groupthink and the Abilene paradox demonstrate dysfunction in group problem-solving. However, in groupthink, team members agree collectively and individually. In the Abilene paradox, individuals privately disagree with the group’s collective decision.

What are somemodern Abilene paradox examples?

Modern Abilene paradox examples, such as those listed here, can often shed additional light on this workplace dilemma.

Example 1: The new team leader

A company’s project management team must agree on a new team leader. One member immediately suggests the worker with the most seniority, even though she doesn’t think he’s the best choice. The other members agree, despite their own reservations and personal preferences. Not wanting to disappoint his team members, the nominated worker accepts the job, although he feels unprepared for the responsibility.

Example 2: The technological upgrade

A small business tasks a group with determining the merits of upgrading to a new technology. On paper, it appears great, but, individually, team members have reservations. One person worries that the untested technology would cause more harm than good. Another thinks the cost of training workers to use the equipment could damage their budget. Several other group members believe their current system works fine and upgrading it is a waste of money. However, not wanting to cause conflict, each team member agrees that the new technology is a great idea.