Abstract
The Abilene paradox presents itself in situations where people, organizations and groups tend to do what they oppose but would have done if given a chance. In these instances, the individuals usually think that their fellows are for the idea they are pursuing and are diehard followers and therefore telling them that the idea is impracticable is likely to have dire consequences.
On the contrary, their colleagues perceive them as diehard proponents of the idea, thinking they are only in the boat to help them and protect their own sleeves despite the fact that they do not agree with the plan.
The Abilene paradox was put forth by Jerry Harvey after a frustrating journey to Abilene with his Wife and in-law parents where he discovered that the greatest problem is not management of conflict, but management of agreement. This paper is a written critique of his article ‘Abilene Paradox: The Management of Agreement.
Critique of the Abilene Paradox: The Management of Agreement
The Abilene paradox is characterized by the inability of an organization or a group to manage agreement. This paradox usually presents itself when the members of the organization pursue a certain goal thinking that they are doing it to please their fellows or seniors and yet in their minds they resent the idea they are pursuing.
On the other hand, their fellows also resent their idea, but pursue it in order to please the former. This idea of the Abilene Paradox was presented by Jerry Harvey, and this paper is an analysis of his article ‘the Abilene paradox: the management of agreement.
Biography Section
The author of this article is Jerry Harvey who is a professor of Management Science at George Washington University. This article is found in the book called “classic organizational behavior” by Natemeyer and Hersey. Harvey earned his undergraduate degree in business administration and his PhD in social psychology from the University of Texas.
Furthermore to his works of study, Harvey has written a numerous number of articles on topics talking about organizational behavior and the ethical, moral and spiritual issues in the workplace environment (as cited in Natemeyer & Hersey, 2011, p. 263).
He developed the idea of management of agreement during the time that he went together with his in-law parents on a trip, which they did not want to go to, but did not object, thinking they were all pleasing one another. The trip was to the semi-desert land of Abilene, where he discovered that management of agreement, rather than conflict, is the major problem in organizations.
Critique Section
Jerry Harvey discusses factors related to the failure of agreement, starting by describing his journey to Abilene, which happened to be around fifty miles from where he lived with his wife and parents-in-law. The journey was an idea of his father in law who thought the family was bored by staying in the house.
Though he recommended they visit Abilene, he did not want to go there in the first place. Harvey’s wife consented to the idea of visiting Abilene, though she also did not want to go. His mother-in-law too agreed to go to Abilene despite the fact that in her mind she wanted to stay in the house.
The journey was not enjoyable as such given the hot temperatures, the dust and the low quality food in Abilene. On return from the journey, each one of them started accusing each other of forcing one another to the unpleasant journey to Abilene. Harvey’s mother-in-law said she went for the trip since the three others were so enthusiastic about it, and somehow she did not want to disappoint them.
Harvey in his defense said he did not want to go, but was only doing what he thought they all wanted and so he should not be included in the ‘all of you were enthusiastic’ category. His wife on the hand said she only went because they all wanted to go, and she was there to be sociable and to keep them happy.
Lastly, his father-in-law said he was not for the Abilene idea and would have preferred playing another game instead. However, he believed it was a good idea as he thought they were bored, and they seldom visited the place.
This experience showed how people when in certain situations can find themselves doing just the opposite of what they want. Harvey used this experience to explain the problems this type of paradox can cause to organization more so when people fail to agree and end up doing what they oppose.
This critique section examines the symptoms that indicate the presence of Abilene paradox in an organization its underlying causes in organizations.
The author used six major sections to discuss the presence of the Abilene paradox in organizations which include identifying symptoms of the paradox in organizations caught by it and how they occur, the underlying causal dynamics, and the implications of using the paradox in describing organizational behavior.
The remaining two sections are the recommendations for coping up with the paradox and the relationship it has to current existential issues.
Symptoms of the Abilene Paradox in Organizations
The Abilene paradox is characterized by the inability of the organization to manage agreement but not by its inability to manage conflict as it might appear to be (James, 1988, p. 23). This paradox is portrayed in an organization when workers privately agree but consequently fail to communicate their desires to their partners (Thompson, 1990, p. 100).
The result of this action is a counterproductive collective decision in the organization, which is not good for its profitability.
Harvey suggests six symptoms that show the existence of the inability to manage agreement in organizations. The first symptom manifests itself when employees in an organization of the members of a group unanimously agree that there is a situation or a problem facing the organization or group. Secondly, they agree on the measures that are necessary to handle the particular problem at hand.
The third aspect which brings about the paradox issue is that these employees fail to communicate their doubts and desires to one another. This as a result creates a misunderstanding and a misconception of the problem at hand.
The wrong perception comes as a result of the members approving what they individually do not agree with; they thus deceive themselves that they are for the idea, while in reality they think otherwise (Natemeyer & Hersey, 2011, p. 265).
The fourth symptom is where by the members then make collective decisions based on the inaccurate and invalid information they have. The consequence of this is the pursuance of an action that is contrary to what they wanted to do leading to results that are counterproductive to the firm’s purposes and intents.
The fifth symptom is the point where members of the organization start experiencing anger, frustration, and irritation and ultimately dissatisfaction with the company as a result of the action they took.
They then form subgroups of likeminded acquaintances and start blaming and accusing other subgroups and seniors for that dilemma. The last symptom is manifested where the difficult in managing agreement issues persists in the organization. If this persistence is not dealt with the cycle of frustrations will likely repeat itself and a t a greater magnitude.
Underlying Causal Dynamics
There are a number of reasons that can make organizations take actions that totally contradict the data they have for handling the problems at hand. Harvey outlines five underlying themes for these contradictory actions, including action anxiety, real risks, negative fantasies, psychological reversal of risk and certainty, and separation anxiety (Cohen, 1998, p. 31).
Assessment
The issue of the Abilene paradox is very much applicable in organizations today, in view of the fact that it shows how this paradox influences the recurrence of human problems in firms. Human problems are interrelated in their nature and if they are not resolved through resolving agreement issues, they are bound to repeat.
In this reciprocal nature, this article explains how people in an Abilene bound organization collude with one another either consciously or subconsciously to create the dilemma in which the firm can find it in.
Application Today
The concept of agreement management is very relevant in today’s organizations and can help managers avoid measures that can lead to dire consequences. This article makes it clear that the Abilene paradox scenarios take place when the top management or a person of authority in the group develops the idea.
A good example is illustrated in Harvey’s case where the father-in-law; who was perceived to be in the highest authority in the family setting, makes the suggestion of going to Abilene. After such a decision is made, the members who fear opposing their seniors willingly consent to the idea instead of airing their views.
In the case of Harvey’s situation, they all considered it as a great idea, while in actual sense they had their personal reservations about the place. They did not want to go, but since they did not want to disagree they freely consented to the idea. This same scenario is seen in organizations today where the members of the groups willingly accept a top official’s proposal knowing that it will result into unfavorable outcomes.
The Abilene paradox helps managers find ways of coping up with the problems of failing to agree by providing ways of confronting the situation. This ways include the use of group settings, where the members of the organization who are key figures in the problem at hand and its solutions form a team to solve the problem.
The group leader should be flexible and should not impose any decisions. He should be open to feedback and allow the group members to air their fears, worries, and desires. The members, together with their leader, should own up the problem solving process, treat it as their own and show concern to other members by allowing them to give their suggestions, even if they contravene what they think.
In conclusion, the Abilene paradox can explain why some problems in organizations persists despite effective conflict management measures. This paradox is about agreement management, which is the major cause of problems in many firms.
Majority of problems are not caused by conflict of ideas and roles, but by failure to agree. This failure results into people doing the opposite of what they really desire to do, leading to dire consequences.
References
Cohen, H. B. (1998). The performance paradox. The Academy of Management Executive, 12(3), 30-40.
Harvey, J. B. (2011). The Abilene paradox: The management of agreement. In W. E. Natemeyer & P. Hersey (Ed.), Classic organizational behavior (pp. 263-280). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Pr Inc.
James, G. Y. (1988). A case study of small group decision-making as influenced by the Abilene paradox: The ‘challenger’ mishap. DTIC Document, 23(3), 1-83.
Thompson, L. (1990). Social perceptions in negotiations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 47(1), 98-123.