Abeline Paradox: Solutions and Symptoms

Abeline Paradox: Solutions and Symptoms

The Abeline Paradox, as described in Jerry B. Harvey's essay of the same name, occurs when a group of individuals embark upon a project that all of them agree, privately, is insane (like taking a long trip to Abeline, Texas on a hot summer day), but no one speaks up to stop the insanity. Another way of thinking about the paradox is to call it 'groupthink' gone mad. It exemplifies the dangers of governing by committee or by following standard operating procedures in a blind fashion. In other words, the idea that too many cooks spoil the broth is all too true, whether it is in a dusty restaurant in Abeline, or in a powerful organization.

The symptoms of the paradox are that members of the group might agree privately that the current decision is bad, and even may have private ideas as to what the solution ought to be, but they fail to articulate their feelings through effective channels of communication. Thus a less effective solution is put into action. Invalid or inaccurate information, as the result of a lack of information, generates less productive solutions, frustration, anger, and blaming. Furthermore, the more the paradox is repeated, the more ineffective solutions are generated, the higher the tensions mount, and the more entrenched inefficient decision-making within the organization is likely to become in the future. A real-life parallel of the actual paradox might be a tense married couple, eating at the same restaurant in Abeline that both of them hate, weekend after weekend, for all of their married life.

At the heart of the paradox, however, is another paradox. On one hand, to prevent a bad group decision from going through, effective leadership is needed. A leader must resist the pressures to go along with the group and speak up, contrary to 'going with the flow,' that a change is needed. However, to gain a sense of what is the right decision, all members of the organization must have some input, and channels of communication must be kept open, so that everyone can volunteer evidence about the real situation, not just ideas that confirm management's assumptions.

Harvey states that one of the root problems that cause the paradox is action anxiety, or anxiety about taking the correct course. It is hard to take a contrary stand, and easier to go with the flow. One remedy to this sense of paralysis and to the symptomatic fear of speaking up is to make sure that every level of an organization has some leadership training. It is not enough that top managers are schooled in critical thinking and have input as to what is the correct path. Remember, according to another parable, that it was a young boy who shouted out that the emperor had no clothes -- in other words, sometimes a person with an ordinary employee's point-of-view can break out of the groupthink more easily and say 'hey, that's not going to work!' They may be voicing what higher level management suspects, but are afraid to articulate. Also, they may have new but valuable information that members of the core group of decision makers lack.

To encourage all workers to feel free to openly speak their mind in public rather than in private (another symptom of the paradox), an organization must make free expression part of its public culture. Routinely soliciting criticism and comments from everyone creates an idea that speaking up is encouraged, rather than discouraged. Top managers and CEOs must show that they respect diverse views by actually listening to managers who disagree with their own points-of-view. They must not feel threatened by a challenge, and set a good example through their own behavior for all managers to follow in a positive way.

All leaders must take responsibility for when their predictions and actions are wrong, to circumvent the tendency towards blaming one another that another symptom of the paradox. They must communicate to their employees that every employee is responsible for all of the actions taken by the organization on some level -- the excuse 'I had nothing to do with it' doesn't hold water if employees are silent in the face of mounting evidence that a decision is a bad one.

Creating a culture of change, where new ideas are solicited and channels of communication are kept open (rather than closed in the symptomatic paradox) creates a place where 'retreat' is acceptable from a bad decision. Treading water, or sticking with the same plan that worked many years ago is not only negative because it fails to take into consideration the economic current reality, but also because an intransigent organization that never changes sends the message that new ideas and new information is never welcome, once a decision has been made. Such an organization relies upon procedures and bureaucracy, not upon evidence and hard data. Fear of taking a personal risk in voicing dissent often arises from a general organizational fear of taking risks to change from the plan.