The Abilene Paradox: the Management of Agreement
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
The Abilene Paradox: The Management of Agreement Jerry B. Harvey JERRY B. HARVEY is professor of management sci- father-in-law suddenly said, “Let’s get in the ence at the George Washington University in car and go to Abilene and have dinner at the Washington, D.C. He is a graduate of the Univer- cafeteria.” sity of Texas in Austin, where he earned an un- I thought, “What, go to Abilene? Fifty-three dergraduate degree in business administration and miles? In this dust storm and heat? And in an a Ph.D. in social psychology. unairconditioned 1958 Buick?” A member of the International Consultant’s But my wife chimed in with, “Sounds like Foundation, a Diplomate of the American Board a great idea. I’d like to go. How about you, of Professional Psychology, and a member of the Jerry?” Since my own preferences were obvi- O.D. Network, he has served as a consultant to a ously out of step with the rest I replied, wide variety of industrial, governmental, religious, “Sounds good to me,” and added, “I just hope and voluntary organizations. He has written a your mother wants to go.” number of articles in the fields of organizational “Of course I want to go,” said my mother-in- behavior and education and currently is involved law. “I haven’t been to Abilene in a long time.” in the exploration of moral, ethical, and spiritual So into the car and off to Abilene we went. issues of work. In the pursuit of that interest, his My predictions were fulfilled. The heat was book, The Abilene Paradox and Other Medita- brutal. We were coated with a fine layer of tions on Management, was published by Lex- dust that was cemented with perspiration by ington Books in 1988. the time we arrived. The food at the cafeteria provided first-rate testimonial material for antacid commercials. he July afternoon in Coleman, Texas Some four hours and 106 miles later we re- (population 5,607) was particularly hot— T turned to Coleman, hot and exhausted. We sat 104 degrees as measured by the Walgreen’s in front of the fan for a long time in silence. Rexall Ex-Lax temperature gauge. In addition, Then, both to be sociable and to break the si- the wind was blowing fine-gained West Texas lence, I said, “It was a great trip, wasn’t it?” topsoil through the house. But the afternoon was still tolerable—even potentially enjoy- No one spoke. Finally my mother-in-law able. There was a fan going on the back porch; said, with some irritation, “Well, to tell the there was cold lemonade; and finally, there truth, I really didn’t enjoy it much and would was entertainment. Dominoes. Perfect for the rather have stayed here. I just went along be- conditions. The game required little more cause the three of you were so enthusiastic physical exertion than an occasional mumbled about going. I wouldn’t have gone if you all comment, “Shuffle ‘em,” and an unhurried hadn’t pressured me into it.” movement of the arm to place the spots in the I couldn’t believe it. “What do you mean appropriate perspective on the table. All in all, ‘you all’?” I said. “Don’t put me in the ‘you it had the makings of an agreeable Sunday all’ group. I was delighted to be doing what afternoon in Coleman—this is, it was until my we were doing. I didn’t want to go. I only From Organizational Dynamics, Summer 1988, pp. 17–43. © 1988 by the American Management Association, New York. All rights reserved. Reprinted by permission. went to satisfy the rest of you. You’re the cul- scribe, in summarized case-study examples, prits.” how they occur in a variety of organizations; My wife looked shocked. “Don’t call me a (3) discuss the underlying causal dynamics; culprit. You and Daddy and Mama were the (4) indicate some of the implications of accept- ones who wanted to go. I just went along to ing this model for describing organizational be- be sociable and to keep you happy. I would havior; (5) make recommendations for coping have had to be crazy to want to go out in heat with the paradox; and, in conclusion, (6) relate like that.” the paradox to a broader existential issue. Her father entered the conversation abruptly. “Hell!” he said. He proceeded to expand on what was al- SYMPTOMS OF THE PARADOX ready absolutely clear. “Listen, I never wanted The inability to manage agreement, not the in- to go to Abilene. I just thought you might be ability to manage conflict, is the essential bored. You visit so seldom I wanted to be sure symptom that defines organizations caught in you enjoyed it. I would have preferred to play the web of the Abilene Paradox. That inability another game of dominoes and eat the left- to manage agreement effectively is expressed overs in the icebox.” by six specific subsymptoms, all of which After the outburst of recrimination we all were present in our family Abilene group. sat back in silence. Here we were, four rea- 1. Organization members agree privately, sonably sensible people who, of our own vo- as individuals, as to the nature of the situation lition, had just taken a 106-mile trip across a or problem facing the organization. For exam- godforsaken desert in a furnace-like tempera- ple, members of the Abilene group agreed ture through a cloud-like dust storm to eat that they were enjoying themselves sitting in unpalatable food at a hole-in-the-wall cafete- front of the fan, sipping lemonade, and play- ria in Abilene, when none of us had really ing dominoes. wanted to go. In fact, to be more accurate, 2. Organization members agree privately, we’d done just the opposite of what we as individuals, as to the steps that would be wanted to do. The whole situation simply required to cope with the situation or problem didn’t make sense. they face. For members of the Abilene group At least it didn’t make sense at the time. “more of the same” was a solution that would But since that day in Coleman, I have ob- have adequately satisfied their individual and served, consulted with, and been a part of collective desires. more than one organization that has been caught in the same situation. As a result, they 3. Organization members fail to accurately have either taken a side-trip, or, occasionally, communicate their desires and/or beliefs to one a terminal journey to Abilene, when Dallas or another. In fact, they do just the opposite and Houston or Tokyo was where they really thereby lead one another into misperceiving the wanted to go. And for most of those organi- collective reality. Each member of the Abilene zations, the negative consequences of such group, for example, communicated inaccurate trips, measured in terms of both human mis- data to other members of the organization. The ery and economic loss, have been much data, in effect, said, “Yeah, it’s a great idea. Let’s greater than for our little Abilene group. go to Abilene,” when in reality members of the This article is concerned with that para- organization individually and collectively pre- dox—the Abilene Paradox. Stated simply, it ferred to stay in Coleman. is as follows: Organizations frequently take 4. With such invalid and inaccurate infor- actions in contradiction to what they really mation, organization members make collec- want to do and therefore defeat the very pur- tive decisions that lead them to take actions poses they are trying to achieve. It also deals contrary to what they want to do, and thereby with a major corollary of the paradox, which arrive at results that are counterproductive to is that the inability to manage agreement is a ma- the organization’s intent and purposes. Thus, jor source of organization dysfunction. Last, the the Abilene group went to Abilene when it article is designed to help members of organi- preferred to do something else. zations cope more effectively with the para- 5. As a result of taking actions that are coun- dox’s pernicious influence. terproductive, organization members experi- As a means of accomplishing the above, I ence frustration, anger, irritation, and shall: (1) describe the symptoms exhibited by dissatisfaction with their organization. Conse- organizations caught in the paradox; (2) de- quently, they form subgroups with trusted ac- quaintances and blame other subgroups for the organization’s dilemma. Frequently, they also blame authority figures and one another. Such phenomena were illustrated in the Abilene group by the “culprit” argument that occurred when we had returned to the com- fort of the fan. 6. Finally, if organization members do not deal with the generic issue—the inability to manage agreement—the cycle repeats itself with greater intensity. The Abilene group, for a variety of reasons, the most important of which was that it became conscious of the process, did not reach that point. To repeat, the Abilene Paradox reflects a failure to manage agreement. In fact, it is my contention that the inability to cope with (manage) agreement, rather than the inability to cope with (manage) conflict, is the single most pressing issue of modern organizations. * * * * * Note: This is an edited version of the original article. If you are interested in a more detailed analysis of the dynamics at play, we can provide you the unedited version upon request..