"Abilene Paradox" - the thorn in XFN collaboration
Here’s why the phrases “ok" / "perfect” / "I agree" could prove to be a paradox than indicative of harmony / agreement while working with XFN teams
As a leader / product manager (PM) it’s natural for you to spend most of your time over meetings, chairing them in most cases when also attending them largely. One ritual all of us would resonate with is popping questions to the participants at the end of a presentation / session so as to build consensus. And we are also known to take decisions based on the consent that is so often provided so callously given the countless possibilities of it getting influenced by many unknowns.
Ok, try and picture this…
How many times have you got on to those meetings and heard phrases like:
I agree
Yes, that’s right
Perfect!
Absolutely sir / ma’am!
100% (or even 110% if that really makes any sense to anyone)
That’s what I used to term the “aye-aye captain” (aka Abilene Paradox) over collaborating & managing teams a decade and a half back. It could be more dangerous than anyone can perceive, as it could quickly transform to represent the culture of the team / the org, when in reality nobody does feel comfortable associating with it.
Coined by Jerry B. Harvey, a management expert over his article "The Abilene Paradox: The Management of Agreement" released in 1974, the rationale behind the nomenclature comes from this anecdote…
On a hot afternoon in Texas, USA a family of 4 (husband, his wife & his in-laws) is comfortably playing dominoes (a tile-based game played arranging pieces) until the father-in-law suggests they take an 80-km trip to Abilene for dinner at a café (well, not all that famous a café).
The wife chimes in with, "yes, sounds like a great idea."
Then the husband replies "Sounds good to me. I just hope your mother wants to go" despite detesting the idea owing to the effort over a long and hot drive
Finally, the mother-in-law says, "Of course I want to go. I haven't been to Abilene in a long time."
The drive is hot, hopelessly dusty, and long they arrive back home four hours later, totally exhausted sitting under the fan running at full-speed.
The husband says, "It was a great trip, wasn't it?"
The mother-in-law says she would rather preferred to have stayed back at home, but agreed to the trip as the majority of them looked enthusiastic about the idea.
Husband then retorts, “WHAT! Don’t blame me. I went only because all of you wanted to, I wasn’t inclined towards the idea myself right from the beginning”
The husband says, "I wasn't at all 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.And you may have come to terms with how the Abilene paradox could surface almost everywhere during discussions pertaining to decision making within teams & organizations, both crucial or trivial.
But, identifying & combating it could be down to these steps over these levels.
At the TEAM LEVEL:
1. Action anxiety
Apparently if you have observed most team members may be very happy with just joining & being present in a meeting or just nodding “yes” to what’s being said sans striking an argument or counter-argument. It is a bias nonetheless and is certainly bent towards mere participation than actual meaningful logical contribution. Beware of it for starters.
2. Passive responses
Just bluntly agreeing with anything or everything being said is not a great trait to possess. Being uninterested in a conversation could simply point to them being uninhibited by any of the consequences of the decisions stemming from the discussion. Always ensure you are convening the right stakeholders in the meeting.
3. Negative fantasies
It is very possible that many may be living in the fantasy of agreeing entirely to what’s being told (or) doing JUST what is being directed, nothing more or nothing less, as opposed to standing up and voicing their opinions over what they believe is right. Facilitate a culture of allowing everyone to speak and honor their opinions.
4. Ineffective reasoning
If you ever come across how the opinions of team members made you feel like “not much thought was put into it” it could surely rank very poorly over logical reasoning. Don’t just take consensus, ensure people explain / reason out their choices.
5. Borrowed logic
The possibility of people’s opinions getting inspired and influenced by loudest voice in the room shouldn’t come as a surprise to most of you. It happens all the time, in fact more than we think. And it is also possible that the opinions are also infused by collusion, enough to derail any organized structured thought process / approach.
6. Victimization
The “I didn’t do it, he / she did” is something that’s known to even destroy strong cultures built on trust. Blame games & pointing fingers at each other ought to be a big NO-NO. If someone is using the language stop them and say “here in this team & org. it is [WE], it is never I / YOU.”
7. Fixated Responsibility & Zero Ownership
A question like “who’s responsibility is it?” may point to one single answer exhibiting a culture of individualism working in their own silo as opposed to the thought of healthy collaboration taking over. And when it comes to an individual’s share of ownership there may not be much to talk about there. Do away with Authoritative & get down to enforcing Servant / Collaborative Leadership all across the org.
At the LEADERSHIP / CULTURE LEVEL:
There are a few things that leaders could follow in the way they organize the teams / stakeholders around meetings, setting expectations by the way they chair it and take it ahead.
1. Keep it Open-ended
Dropping thoughts as MINE could put your teams / stakeholders in awe and they may hesitate to voice their opinion. And that can be combated by saying “I am not sure of whether this Is right or wrong, what are your thoughts? What am I missing here & how do we succeed in this?”. That ought to encourage collaborative thought process helping all of you work towards a common goal giving little room for.
2. Encouraging communication
The more the number of thoughts and the relevance it carries to the underlying topic over a discussion, improved would be the chances of hitting pay-dirt. But as a leader one ought to be proactive and facilitate that which could be achieved by sending documents / presentations in advance as a pre-read so that every stakeholder / team member comes in prepared. Also, trying to push each of them to cover a new aspect or angle may work as the VoM has it.
3. Diving into Practicality
When teams / stakeholders take comfort in agreeing to someone else’s thought process prodding them to explain it further with a question like “could you please quote examples to support your stand / comment?” may work well. That would enforce them to bring about an entirely new brand reasoning that may be or unthought of thus far.
4. Honoring Opinions
Some people don’t speak up because they bear the fear of being oppressed. If you are a leader merely saying “I agree” or “Ok” or just nod in harmony with a possible “Hmm…” when some stakeholder / participant is voicing their opinion is all it may take for them to break out of that shell. It may also stop people feeling like they are separated / singled out over their opinions & help stitch a camaraderie around teams.
5. Enumerate & Discuss Risks
Team members / stakeholders could voice their opinion over a discussion and that could be motivated by facts and figures best known to them alone. But what about the risks? Has that been covered and to enough depth? Getting to the bottom of the risks involved by asking follow up questions to the stakeholders / participants could put everyone aligned & in course towards coming up with action plans to combat them & not to mention the decision of whether the idea is doable.
6. Play the Devil’s Advocate
Like Cark Marx’s theory says “question everything” and doing it from what appears like a standpoint of breaking things albeit a constructive way could play out well in your favor if you’re a leader chairing the discussion or even a participating stakeholder. The clarity would surely be for the win and for all of them involved.
7. Cover What-ifs
“Forecasts and projections are mostly created to impress” and the day teams / stakeholders come out of that fallacy it’d augur very well for everyone in the org. Those very documents and the graphs / numbers are just a great beginner to a question like, “what if we did (x) instead of (y), how would that impact our goal?”. Not only would it help clear up a few possible doubts, it could also help judge the team’s preparedness in terms of the depth & breadth they have covered over their silo of research.