Brent Wieland

The Abilene paradox was first identified by Jerry Harvey in 1974 when the family

took a trip to Abilene to get food (Martin, 2006). At first they all said yes, but when they

got home everyone stated they didn’t want to go in the first place and they only said yes

to please everyone else. The Abilene paradox is a dilemma where a couple of people say

one thing and the others go along with their decision just to come to an easy agreement.

In present time, the Abilene paradox presents a problem in many places. Specifically, the

Abilene paradox is affecting the workplace in a way of causing companies to go in the

wrong direction.

When people get into groups they tend to go with the majority opinion rather than

explain their own. People naturally want to belong in groups and have their voices heard,

and they want to work collaboratively together to get to a decision. When people are

working together in a group such as in a business meeting, a decision is what they are

generally trying to accomplish. However, the Abilene paradox comes into play when the

decision is about to be made and half of the people think it is a good idea and the other

half privately thinks that it is not a good idea, but they say yes to it just to fit in and end

the meeting. The group members are contradicting themselves when they say yes and

mean no, according to Rakow, “the team members take actions in contradiction to what

they really want to do and therefore defeat the very purposes they are trying to achieve”

(Rakow, 2011). The group member’s failure to assert their own opinion might put the

organization at risk by not speaking up to a possibly flawed decision. People also behave

in a way that “they want to be told what to do” (Talbot, 2003) so naturally they will go

with the majority and accept the decision because they are now being told what to do and

do not have to think of something themselves. This effects staffing and HR in a way that

Brent Wieland

the employees who say yes to a decision and it turns out to be a bad one, they will suffer

and might say that they never wanted this in the first place, impacting the relationships

between employees. Also, this impacts HR functions because employees might blame

one another for agreeing to a decision that turned out to be a bad one so there will be

finger pointing throughout the company.

Group mentality is a contributing factor to the Abilene paradox because pressure

from other group members influences others to make a decision that is not based on what

they actually believe. Butler and McAvoy states that, “One of the main symptoms of

group thinking is pressure to conform to the group’s views” (Butler, McAvoy, 2007).

When people are in groups there is a tendency to conform to the majority ruling even

though some people might not believe it, they still “agree” to the majority. Often, they are

influenced by peer pressure that is not purposely done, but when everyone around you is

saying that this is a good idea let’s do that, then that is indirect peer pressure because you

are now pressured to agree. Individuals often censor or change their own opinions and

beliefs fearing that they are wrong and are afraid that they will be rejected for stating it.

The leader of the organization should make room for disagreement and Ballowe states,

“encourage your people to stand up for their convictions” (Ballowe, 2009). The leader

should tell their employees to assert their opinions and thoughts to assure them that their

ideas are welcomed and will not be met with hostility. If hostility arises against another’s

opinion, then the leader needs to be able to handle conflict well and keep the situation

under control and suggest ways to come to a compromise. In a group setting, people often

think to themselves that they are the only one who is thinking that way and that it is

negative. This is damaging to the individual and organization as it brings down the

Brent Wieland

personal feelings of the individual and dampens potential creative and helpful ideas that

could help the company. Once the meeting has concluded and a decision has been met,

then the leader should ask the group if there is anyone who opposes the ideas set forth in

the meeting. This will potentially create second thoughts with anyone who originally

disagreed but really they agreed.

People have a natural tendency to be anxious and this is especially evident when

they are faced with the task of coming up with their thoughts and opinions in a group

setting. Action anxiety in groups is another contributing factor to the Abilene Paradox

because the anxiety causes the individual to state an opinion that is opposite of their own.

The individual might give suggestions even though they might not understand the issue at

hand or what is being discussed. People in group settings become anxious when they are

making their decision and opinions; they feel as though they are in the spot light so they

create decisions quickly without deciphering the facts of the situation. This leads to

decisions and opinions that are misguided and potentially hazardous. Individuals in group

settings also create negative fantasies when faced with creating their opinions and feel

that their assertion might cause negative implications among the other members of the

group. Negative fantasies can cause the person to make a decision or state an opinion that

is very different than what they believe, such as, “they foresee loss of face, prestige,

position, etc.” (Rakow, 2011). The individual fears that they will lose their job or become

an outcast if they state their opinion or ideas that differ from all the others, so they go

with the flow and agree. Anxiety cause people to create unmanaged thoughts and ideas

that lead the person to agree on something without using any cognitive thoughts to

process the proposed idea. Also, anxiety causes the person to create embellished negative

Brent Wieland

scenarios that are driven by fear and mismanagement of their imagination. In order to

alleviate these negative aspects of decision making, the individual needs to get a hold of

their emotions and imagination and construct creative thoughts that are going to help

themselves and work well with the groups ideas. This harms HR functions because false

ideas of an individual can lead to failure of the group’s dynamics and trust creating

problems in the future.

Another important aspect of the Abilene paradox is the fear of being ostracized.

When people are in groups they naturally do not want to be separated by saying

something inappropriate. People want to be connected with everyone in the group even if

it requires them to say yes when they mean no just to be able to stay connected to the

group. The fear of being fired comes up during this thinking process, as Martin states

“they fear loss of face, being called disloyal or even being fired” (Martin, 2006). We

naturally do not want to be discredited for the thoughts we create and speaking up for

what we stand for or even fired from the job. This is part of the Abilene paradox, when

we follow the group’s ideas it will result in some sort of punishment or separation.

Anxiety can cause group members to suppress their own ideas in the meeting and in

doing that; creative thoughts will not contribute to the success of the company. Also, it

can possibly lead to depression of the individual because they are unable to express their

thoughts because of the anxiety they are feeling. Furthermore, the depression brought on

by the anxiety can possibly affect the performance of the employee in their respected job

leading to more problems in the workplace. Leaders and managers in the workplace can

be trained to identify employees who are acting anxious during group thinking processes

and help them to be able to express their thoughts in a productive manner. Also, the

Brent Wieland

leader and manager can reassure the employee that their thoughts and opinions are highly

valued and they will not be met with hostility. During the meeting, the leader of the group

can first start by telling everyone that his or her input is highly valued and will be

respected by everyone.

The mentality of follow the leader is prevalent in the Abilene paradox; it is the

basis on how the paradox works. When people are in groups and are faced with the task

of coming up with a making a unanimous decision, some people are passive and go with

the flow. Typically in a group there is an individual who has a vibrant personality and

good speaking skills, and they are usually the ones who make suggestions and are the

first ones to agree on something. Furthermore, the passive people, or the ones who are

afraid to be ostracized, will agree with whatever the leader is saying regardless of their

own opinion and thoughts. If this is happening in an organizational meeting, whoever is

conducting the meeting should hear the outspoken person’s ideas or opinions and then go

around the room asking everyone individually for their thoughts and opinions so that

everyone’s voice can be heard. This can lead to blaming other people and the sub

committees when Ballowe states that, “as a result of taking actions that are

counterproductive, organization members experience frustration, anger, irritation and

dissatisfaction with their organization” (Ballowe, 2011). The anger and dissatisfaction

between the formed subcommittees will cause harm to the whole company and harm HR

functions in a way of handling employee disputes and possibly a high turnover rate. To

counter act the issue of “following the leader”, the manger conducting the meeting can

ask, “is anyone vehemently opposed to this?” (Ballowe, 2011). In doing this, the manager

can entice the passive or fearful people to express their truthful opinions. Having one

Brent Wieland

strong person in the group can negatively impact the dynamics of the group by interfering

with everyone else’s thoughts or opinions.

There are symptoms that an organization can look out for to spot the Abilene

paradox and catch it before it becomes an unmanageable issue. When conducting

meetings, encourage everyone to speak their mind and express their opinions freely. The

manager can be on the lookout for individuals who give a different opinion while they are

in the group decision process, varying from what they expressed in a one on one meet. In

doing this, the manager can spot the Abilene paradox in its early stages and figure out if

there is a problem concerning communication. Another way to spot the paradox is to see

if there are any employees who are showing opposition to management, since “members

seem frustrated or resentful towards management and other team members” (Ballowe,

2006). If there is a program or process that was passed during a team meeting and there is

hostility towards it, then that could be a sign that the program or process is a by-product

of the Abilene paradox. If members have a lack of trust among one another then

everything that is proposed will not be trusted, leading to management to lose credibility

among their employees. Also, if the employees are avoiding responsibilities given to

them by their superiors then that is a sign that the trust has been lost between the

employee and manager. When group meetings require a unanimous decision to be made

then bad things can come. Ballowe indicates that “leadership by committee can breed

horrible decision-making” (Ballowe). Members are now incentivized to come to a

decision to end the meeting in the fastest manner or just to get something they want even

though it is a bad thing for the company. Simple body language can be observed as well

to spot the Abilene paradox. When a manager proposes a new idea and asks if everyone

Brent Wieland

likes it, they can watch the eye movements of everyone. If someone is looking around

frantically to see everyone else’s opinion and then he or she come to an opinion, then

they most likely are in disagreement with them. If someone seems preoccupied when the

manager and group are discussing the proposals and only come to attention at the time of

decision-making then they most likely will not have any idea what was being discussed

and will make rash decisions based on nothing.

There are numerous ways to fight the Abilene paradox and solve it in a positive

manner. The organization can combat the paradox by identifying properties of

groupthink, the first signal of groupthink is the company fails to create an alternative to

the plan, there is a lot of pressure form employees for others to conform to decisions,

there is individual censorship of the alternative opinions being proposed by the group,

and there is “excessive rationalization of decisions” (Ballowe, 2006). Groupthink can be

hazardous in coming up with a decision and if a company can spot the elements of group

think then they might be able to stop the paradox. Managers at the company can make

room for disagreement during meetings and “encourage [their] people to stand up for

their convictions” (Ballowe, 2006). Encouraging your employees to speak their mind is

very important for a manager to do, so they can overcome their mental barriers and get

their thoughts heard. Another way to fight the paradox is to not use “rule by committee”

(Ballowe). When this term is used by a manager or a leader then the group is incentivized

to make a decision that they do not necessarily agree on. Incentivizing the agreement

process is damaging to the organization because not everyone is going to agree with

everyone else and in this case they are going to because they are not going to want to

slow down the meeting, and they want to get out as soon as possible. Also, managers

Brent Wieland

should not pressure their employees to come to a decision too quickly; they need ample

time to create an honest opinion that is their own. If a manager is pressuring employees to

come to a consensus, then the manager is creating the perfect environment for the

Abilene paradox to form.

There is something now called the “value police”, a term coined by Thomas D.

Morton president and CEO of the Child Welfare Institute. The value police are people

who call out others for their own values and replace the values with theories that are not

typically considered the norm. If people are challenged on something that they believe in

then they might become hostile because they believe that their own opinion is the correct

one, (over the past two decades values have increasingly replaced theory and evidence as

the basis for many child welfare practice and program strategies” (Morton, 2015) Morton

is giving an example on how the “value police” are changing the thinking behind the

creation of programs and the strategies that are created for the program. This raises the

risk of the Abilene paradox taking holds in an organization by the “value police” because

they will speak up to something and it is not necessarily correct, but others will go along

with them. When a good opinion or program is created and it is up to a group to come up

with a vote to get it implemented, and one person speaks out against the good program

then the other group members might follow that one-person idea. This is when the

company will go to Abilene; the good idea was voted against because the program went

against one person’s values instead of going with the theory of it. Companies can

alleviate the issue of the value police by conducting training programs that emphasize the

importance of analyzing a program or suggestions for what they consist of and what they

are intending to do, and do not allow your own personal values cloud your thinking

Brent Wieland

process. However, if it is a bad program or suggestion, then still do not let personal

values get in the way of you making an opinion, just focus on the negative aspects of the

program solely for what they stand for.

The negative implications of the Abilene paradox can have damaging effects on

employee relations, hiring and attainment of employees, and overall company operations.

The organization might be taken somewhere far worse than “Abilene” if the wrong

policies are agreed on and implemented. In order for companies to not fall victim to the

Abilene paradox, they need to watch out for the symptoms of the paradox and know how

to handle conflict. The impact from the Abilene Paradox on employee relations can really

hurt connections and relationships. Once all the team members are participating in a

meeting in which they are required to come up with an opinion on something proposed

by management, then the group members who might not care about the topic or is a

afraid to speak up will possibly affect the relationships among the employees. This might

cause others to place blame on the employees who did not give an honest opinion on the

subject, and finger pointing will cause HR department to be inundated with employee

conflict claims. The Abilene paradox could also impact the hiring and attainment of

employees of individuals who are seeking employment at a company that is in the grips

of the Abilene paradox, and then they may not want to get involved with that company.

Current employees will not want to work in an environment where there are failed

policies and procedures and the company could lose valuable employees if they do not

get the effects of the paradox under control. The HR department might not have enough

people to conduct interviews to replace the lost positions due to the hostility caused by

the paradox. This impacts HR because if they cannot handle the amount of conflicts

Brent Wieland

going on internally, then quality employees will be lost and desirable applicants will

probably not go to that company because of the high turnover rate.

Ever since the discovery of the Abilene paradox, companies have been dealing

with the question of why individuals will say something different in a group setting.

Research into the Abilene paradox have found many reason to why people “follow the

leader” and why they say yes when they mean no. Companies must be able to overcome

the paradox by spotting the symptoms early on in order to prevent any damage that it may

cause. Leaders and managers at the company should practice group mentality exercises

so that the employees will feel comfortable in speaking their mind in a group setting. HR

departments, leaders, and managers in a company can work collaboratively to combat the

effects of the Abilene paradox, team work of the managing components of the company

is critical to overcome the paradox.

In summary, The Abilene paradox is a very damaging element to the current and

future workplace. Researchers have been able to identify the paradox and figure out how

it works to help HR and companies to prevent it. This topic is very important for HR

departments and companies to put a lot of research in to train their managers and leaders

in how to identify the symptoms of the paradox and how to prevent it. Companies do not

intentionally go down the wrong road but they do unknowingly because of the Abilene

paradox.

Brent Wieland

References

Ballowe, T. (2009, July 7). How to identify groupthink: An introduction to the Abilene

Paradox | OnStrategy. Retrieved from http://onstrategyhq.com/resources/how-to-

identify-groupthink-an-introduction-to-the-abilene-paradox/

Ballowe, T. (2009, August 7). Combat the Abilene Paradox by Promoting Individual

Thought | OnStrategy Resources. Retrieved from

http://onstrategyhq.com/resources/combat-the-abilene-paradox-by-promoting-

individual-thought/

Martin, C. (2006, July). The Abilene Paradox: Does Everyone Really Agree? Or Are

They Just Being Nice? – Library Worklife:. Retrieved from

http://ala-apa.org/newsletter/2006/07/17/the-abilene-paradox-does-everyone-

really-agree-or-are-they-just-being-nice/

Talbot, C. (2003). How the Public Sector Got its Contradictions- The Tale of the

Paradoxical Primate. Integrating the Idea of Paradox in Human Social, Political

and Organizational Systems with Evolutionary Psychology. Human Nature

Review, 3, 183-195.

McAvoy, J., & Butler, T. (2007). The impact of the Abilene Paradox on double-loop

learning in an agile team. Information and Software Technology, 49(6), 552-563.

Brent Wieland

Rakow, B. (2011). Abilene Paradox - Why Do We Say Yes When We Mean No.

Retrieved from http://drbj.hubpages.com/hub/Abilene-Paradox-Why-Do-We-Say-

Yes-When-We-Mean-No

Tom Morton | Child Welfare Institution | ZoomInfo.com. (2015). Retrieved from

http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Thomas-Morton/1211873

Brent Wieland

Brent Wieland