Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Abilene paradox
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
{{Short description|False consensus due to communication failure}} {{Use dmy dates|date=January 2023}} The '''Abilene paradox''' is a collective [[fallacy]], in which a group of people collectively decide on a course of action that is counter to the preferences of most or all individuals in the group, while each individual believes it to be aligned with the preferences of most of the others.<ref name=BIS1856892>{{cite journal| last1 = McAvoy | first1 = John| last2 = Butler | first2 = Tom | title = The impact of the Abilene Paradox on double-loop learning in an agile team | journal = Information and Software Technology | volume = 49 | issue = 6 | pages = 552–563 | year = 2007 | doi = 10.1016/j.infsof.2007.02.012}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | issue = 1 | volume = 1 | pages = 48–61 | year = 2006| last1 = McAvoy | first1 = J.| last2 = Butler | first2 = T.| doi = 10.1504/IJISCM.2006.008286 | journal = International Journal of Information Systems and Change Management | title = Resisting the change to user stories: a trip to Abilene }}</ref> It involves a breakdown of [[group communication]] in which each member mistakenly believes that their own preferences are counter to the group's, and therefore does not raise objections. They even go so far as to state support for an outcome they do not want. A common phrase related to the Abilene paradox is a desire to not "rock the boat". Like in [[groupthink]], group members jointly decide on a course of action that they would not choose as individuals. However, while in groupthink, individuals undergo self-deception and distortion of their own views (driven by, for example, not wanting to suffer in anticipation of a future they sense they cannot avoid by speaking out), whereas in the Abilene Paradox, individuals are unable to perceive the views or preferences of others, or to manage an agreement.<ref name="Harvey" /> ==Overview== The term was introduced by [[management]] expert Jerry B. Harvey in his 1974 article "The Abilene Paradox: The Management of Agreement".<ref name = Harvey>{{Cite journal | last1 = Harvey | first1 = J. B. | doi = 10.1016/0090-2616(74)90005-9 | title = The Abilene paradox: the management of agreement | journal = Organizational Dynamics | volume = 3 | pages = 63–80 | year = 1974 }}</ref> The name of the phenomenon comes from an anecdote that Harvey uses in the article to elucidate the paradox: {{quote|On a hot afternoon visiting in [[Coleman, Texas]], the family is comfortably playing [[dominoes]] on a porch, until the father-in-law suggests that they take a [50-mile (80-km)] trip to [[Abilene, Texas|Abilene]] for dinner. The wife says, "Sounds like a great idea." The husband, despite having reservations because the drive is long and hot, thinks that his preferences must be out-of-step with the group and says, "Sounds good to me. I just hope your mother wants to go." The mother-in-law then says, "Of course I want to go. I haven't been to Abilene in a long time." The drive ''is'' hot, dusty, and long. When they arrive at the cafeteria, the food is as bad as the drive. They arrive back home four hours later, exhausted. One of them dishonestly says, "It was a great trip, wasn't it?" The mother-in-law says that, actually, she would rather have stayed home, but went along since the other three were so enthusiastic. The husband says, "I wasn't delighted to be doing what we were doing. I only went to satisfy the rest of you." The wife says, "I just went along to keep you happy. I would have had to be crazy to want to go out in the heat like that." The father-in-law then says that he only suggested it because he thought the others might be bored. The group sits back, perplexed that they together decided to take a trip that none of them wanted. They each would have preferred to sit comfortably but did not admit to it when they still had time to enjoy the afternoon.}}The Abilene Paradox consists of five components:<ref name="Harvey 2008">{{Cite journal |title=The Abilene Paradox After Thirty Years: A Global Perspective |url=https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4490138 |access-date=2023-12-24 |journal=IEEE Engineering Management Review |doi=10.1109/emr.2008.4490138 |date=2008 |last1=Harvey |first1=Michael |last2=Buckley |first2=M. Ronald |last3=Novicevic |first3=Milorad M. |last4=Halbesleben |first4=Jonathon R.B. |volume=36 |page=43 |s2cid=38801567 |url-access=subscription }}</ref> # The first component refers to '''mutual agreement''' of a group that the current situation is not acceptable. However, on the individual level, the members may be satisfied with the existing setting after they have compared it with proposed alternatives. # The second component stands for '''ineffective communication''' within the group when several members express considerable support for a decision because they assume that is the desire of others. This process of communication reinforces assumptions that individual thoughts are a minority in the group. # The third component of the Abilene Paradox is the '''vocalisation of group sentiment''' which arose from inaccurate assumptions or incorrect interpretation of the "signals" given by other members. # The fourth component refers to the decision-maker's '''reflections''' on the actions taken, usually in the form of questions as follows: "Why did we do this?", "How can we justify our decision to others?". # The fifth component refers to the '''defeat''' of the group leader to poor decision making in order to avoid making similar decisions in the future. There are several factors that may indicate the presence of the Abilene Paradox in the decision-making process:<ref name="Harvey 2008" /> * '''Leaders who publicly do not fear the unknown'''. Such arrogance leads them to go along as they do not possess sufficient understanding of complex problems. Rather, they stick to the "that sounds good to me" attitude. * '''A group with no-conflict or no-debate type of decision-making'''. When such views are supported in the cohort, the lack of diverse opinions becomes the foundation for mismanagement of agreement. This can be visible by the emergence of the "I will go along with that" attitude. * '''Overriding leaders and a strong organisation culture'''. A strong leader and solid organisation may become a powerful asset, and it may also intimidate other members of subordinates to the point of submission. This results in the inclination of supporting more dominant ideas. * '''Lack of diversity and pluralistic perspective in a group'''. Homogeneous groups tend to be conformal. Such groups tend to achieve consensus rather than searching for the "right" decision. * '''Recognition of a dysfunctional decision-making environment'''. Management in this environment has lost control, as the directional prerogative of management has succumbed to wanting to be liked by avoiding conflict. * '''The feeling of a "messiah" in the organisation and action anxiety on the part of management'''. When the group handles complex tasks, there is usually one person or a small cohort within the group who has required expertise to manage in this situation. As a result, there is a tendency to acquiesce to them. * '''The development of a "[[spiral of silence]]" in the organisation'''. The spiral of silence occurs when one's perception of the majority opinion in the organisation suppresses one's willingness to express any challenging opinion against the most visible point of view.<ref name="Harvey 2008" /> ==Research== Based on an online experiment with more than 600 participants, being prosocial and generally caring about the implications of one's actions on others (measured by the [[Social value orientations|social value orientation]] measure) has been shown to increase the likelihood that an individual finds themselves in an Abilene Paradox with others, especially if they are not the first to have a say.<ref>{{cite SSRN |last1=Flores |first1=Lia |last2=Mannahan |first2=Rachel |last3=Sohn |first3=Jinyeong |title=The Abilene Paradox: The Curse of Caring Too Much |date=2023 |ssrn=4406948 }}</ref> The study at [[Makerere University Business School]] described the case of the Abilene Paradox in the process of [[decision-making]] in 2006: The institution was in a dispute with its parent institution, [[Makerere University]], over its status as an independent university. A meeting of the MUBS Academic Staff Association (MUBASA) was called to discuss the issue, and the attendees voted to support MUBS council's decision to sue the Ministry of Education for interfering in a high court pronouncement. Each member of the association was to contribute towards the legal costs. By interviewing 68 employees, the researcher found that the majority of them never considered it a solution but thought that others strongly support the idea of starting the trial.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Bagire |first=Vincent Amooti |date=2010-12-01 |title=Pretended Agreement in Decision Making: Exploring the Abilene Paradox in Uganda |url=http://www.www.na-businesspress.com/JMPP/bagire_abstract.html |journal=Journal of Management Policy and Practice |volume=11 |issue=5 |pages=106–113 }}</ref> Chen and Chang conducted a study about the effects, causes, and influences of the Abilene paradox, if any, on their elementary school; this study involved twelve faculty members. Results of this Abilene paradox study showed a negative effect on the school’s operation, through poor communication, inadequate interaction, [[Social isolation|isolation]], [[Social exclusion|exclusion]], and rising [[gossip]].<ref>{{cite journal |title=組織防衛:國民小學學校行政決策中「艾比林弔詭」之探討 |trans-title=Organizational Defense: A Study of 'The Abilene Paradox' in Elementary School Administration Decision-Making |journal=學校行政 |date=16 November 2018 |issue=118 |id={{ProQuest|2160689087}} |doi=10.6423/HHHC.201811_(118).0006 |author1=陳成宏 |author2=張文權 |pages=85–110 }}</ref> ==Applications of the concept== The theory is often used to help explain poor group decisions, especially notions of the superiority of "rule by [[committee]]". For example, Harvey cited the [[Watergate scandal]] as a potential instance of the Abilene paradox in action.<ref name="HarveyOM">{{cite journal | title = The Abilene Paradox: The Management of Agreement | last = Harvey | first = Jerry | journal = Organizational Management | date =Summer 1988 |pages = 19–20 | publisher = American Management Association | volume = 17 | issue = 1 | url = http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00902616/17/1 | doi=10.1016/0090-2616(88)90028-9| url-access = subscription }}</ref> The Watergate scandal occurred in the United States in the 1970s when many high officials of the [[Nixon administration]] colluded in the cover-up and perhaps the execution of a break-in at the [[Democratic National Committee]] headquarters in Washington, D.C. Harvey quotes several people indicted for the coverup as indicating that they had personal qualms about the decision but feared to voice them. In one instance, campaign aide [[Herbert Porter]] said that he "was not one to stand up in a meeting and say that this should be stopped", a decision that he attributed to "the fear of the group pressure that would ensue, of not being a team player".<ref name="HarveyOM" /> Another notable example of applying the Abilene paradox to the notorious real-world event can be seen during and in the aftermath of the 1989 United Kingdom [[Hillsborough disaster|Hillsborough tragedy]] and its cover-up by the authorities, which was characterised by individually hesitant, but otherwise compliant, government agents and the narrative and available information moulded and manipulated by the state.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Montgomery |first=Anthony |date=2022 |title=Concerted Collusion: Studying Multiagency Institutional Cover-Up |journal=Frontiers in Psychology |volume=13 |doi=10.3389/fpsyg.2022.847376 |doi-access=free |pmid=35783708 |pmc=9244796 }}</ref> The other frequently cited example is the case of [[Space Shuttle Challenger disaster|Challenger disaster]], though in that case researchers use both the concepts of groupthink and the Abilene paradox as possible explanation of the events.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Dimitroff |first1=Robert D. |last2=Schmidt |first2=Lu Ann |last3=Bond |first3=Timothy D. |title=Organizational Behavior and Disaster: A study of conflict at NASA |journal=Project Management Journal |date=June 2005 |volume=36 |issue=2 |pages=28–38 |doi=10.1177/875697280503600204 |s2cid=115872990 }}</ref> The phenomenon of the Abilene paradox can also be used in [[Information system|information systems]] development, to conceptualise and operationalise the relationship between [[Systems analyst|systems analysts]], users, and other organisational stakeholders in situations of illusory agreement.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Browne |first1=Glenn J. |last2=Appan |first2=Radha |last3=Safi |first3=Roozmehr |last4=Mellarkod |first4=Vidhya |title=Investigating illusions of agreement in group requirements determination |journal=Information & Management |date=December 2018 |volume=55 |issue=8 |pages=1071–1083 |doi=10.1016/j.im.2018.05.013 |s2cid=53237080 }}</ref> == Related concepts and explanations == Other theories add to the Abilene paradox’s explanation of poor decision-making in groups, notably, such phenomena as [[groupthink]] and [[pluralistic ignorance]]. The concept of groupthink posits that individuals correctly perceive the preferences of others, undergo some form of motivated reasoning, which distorts their true preferences, and then willingly choose to conform; hence, they generally feel positively about the resulting group decisions.<ref name="Sims1994">{{cite book |author=Ronald R. Sims |url=https://archive.org/details/ethicsa_sim_1994_00_0891/page/55 |title=Ethics and Organizational Decision Making: A Call for Renewal |date=1 January 1994 |publisher=Greenwood Publishing Group |isbn=978-0-89930-860-9 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/ethicsa_sim_1994_00_0891/page/55 55–56]}}</ref> The success of groupthink also hinges on the long-term homogeneity of the group, which seeks to keep that same cohesiveness and therefore to avoid all potential conflict.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Turner |first1=Marlene E |last2=Pratkanis |first2=Anthony R |title=Twenty-Five Years of Groupthink Theory and Research: Lessons from the Evaluation of a Theory |journal=Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes |date=February 1998 |volume=73 |issue=2–3 |pages=105–115 |doi=10.1006/obhd.1998.2756 |pmid=9705798 |s2cid=15074397 }}</ref> However, while groupthink, to some extent, depends on the ability of individuals to perceive attitudes and desires of others, the Abilene paradox hinges on the ''in''ability to gage true wants and intentions of group members.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Halbesleben |first1=Jonathon R.B. |last2=Wheeler |first2=Anthony R. |last3=Buckley |first3=M. Ronald |title=Understanding pluralistic ignorance in organizations: application and theory |journal=Journal of Managerial Psychology |date=23 January 2007 |volume=22 |issue=1 |pages=65–83 |doi=10.1108/02683940710721947 }}</ref> The concept of pluralistic ignorance, on the other hand, is also defined as the situation where an individual underestimates the extent to which their views are shared by the other members of the group or organisation.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Zhu |first1=David H. |last2=Westphal |first2=James D. |date=2011 |title=Misperceiving the Beliefs of Others: How Pluralistic Ignorance Contributes to the Persistence of Positive Security Analyst Reactions to the Adoption of Stock Repurchase Plans |journal=Organization Science |volume=22 |issue=4 |pages=869–886 |doi=10.1287/orsc.1100.0575 |jstor=20868901 |s2cid=30377299 }}</ref> In some ways, pluralistic ignorance can be considered as a factor inciting situations where the Abilene paradox occurs — individuals’ inability to correctly estimate the share of potential supporters lead to the assumption of ‘the [[Worst-case scenario|worst case scenario]]’ and in-advance mitigation of potential risks of dealing with the opponents. Some researchers consider pluralistic ignorance to be a wider-ranging concept: while both groupthink and the Abilene paradox are usually discussed as the detriments to successful group decision-making, pluralistic ignorance is sometimes evaluated neutrally.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Halbesleben |first1=Jonathon R.B. |last2=Wheeler |first2=Anthony R. |last3=Buckley |first3=M. Ronald |title=Understanding pluralistic ignorance in organizations: application and theory |journal=Journal of Managerial Psychology |date=23 January 2007 |volume=22 |issue=1 |pages=65–83 |doi=10.1108/02683940710721947 }}</ref> ==See also== {{div col|colwidth=20em}} * ''[[Argumentum ad populum]]'' * [[Asch conformity experiments]] * [[Design by committee]] * [[Elephant in the room]] * [[False consensus effect]] * [[Group polarization]] * [[Groupshift]] * [[Keynesian beauty contest]] * [[Moving the goalposts]] * [[Peer pressure]] * [[Pluralistic ignorance]] * [[Prediction market]] * [[Preference falsification]] * [[Prisoner's dilemma]] * [[Pseudoconsensus]] * [[Public choice#Special interests|Special interests]] * [[Spiral of silence]] * ''[[The Wisdom of Crowds]]'' {{div col end}} ==References== {{Reflist}} ==Further reading== {{Refbegin}} * Harvey, Jerry B. (1988). ''The Abilene Paradox and Other Meditations on Management''. Lexington, Mass: Lexington Books. {{ISBN|0-669-19179-5}} * Harvey, Jerry B. (1996). ''The Abilene Paradox and Other Meditations on Management'' (paperback). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. {{ISBN|0-7879-0277-2}} * Harvey, Jerry B. (1999). ''How Come Every Time I Get Stabbed in the Back, My Fingerprints Are on the Knife?''. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. {{ISBN|0-7879-4787-3}} {{Refend}} ==External links== * [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7m6byv89mc|The Abilene Paradox (Documentary film by Peter J. Jordan, 1984)] {{Decision theory paradoxes}} {{Unintended consequences}} {{Portal bar|Psychology|Society}} [[Category:Conformity]] [[Category:Decision-making paradoxes]] [[Category:Abilene, Texas]] [[Category:Eponymous paradoxes]] [[Category:Management]] [[Category:Fallacies]] [[Category:1974 introductions]]
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)
Pages transcluded onto the current version of this page
(
help
)
:
Template:Cite SSRN
(
edit
)
Template:Cite book
(
edit
)
Template:Cite journal
(
edit
)
Template:Decision theory paradoxes
(
edit
)
Template:Div col
(
edit
)
Template:Div col end
(
edit
)
Template:ISBN
(
edit
)
Template:Portal bar
(
edit
)
Template:Quote
(
edit
)
Template:Refbegin
(
edit
)
Template:Refend
(
edit
)
Template:Reflist
(
edit
)
Template:Short description
(
edit
)
Template:Unintended consequences
(
edit
)
Template:Use dmy dates
(
edit
)