The Importance of Being Real: The Abilene Paradox

It is a scorching, dusty July day in Coleman, Texas. Four people are waiting out the heat, sipping lemonade in the shade of a farmhouse porch. At one point, someone suggests they drive to Abilene, 53 miles away, to have a bite in a cafeteria there.

The others think it’s a crazy idea, but they say nothing and go along. They drive all the way to Abilene in a non-air-conditioned car through a dust storm, have a mediocre meal and drive back to Coleman hours later, tired, hot and unhappy.

When they return home, they reveal that they didn’t want to go in the first place but did because they thought the others were eager for the drive.

Of course, this gap in communication was someone else’s fault.

Here we have the Abilene Paradox, a phenomenon of group dynamics first identified by Jerry Harvey of George Washington University in 1974. The paradox is that people go along with a bad decision, knowing full well that it was a bad decision in the first place. The result is the complete opposite of what was intended at the outset: half-baked support, uninspired ideas, and wasted time and money on results that fall short of expectations.

On The Road To Abilene

We’ve all experienced the Abilene Paradox, especially in decision-making meetings. We struggle to make a decision, come to an agreement only to find, in our heart of hearts, that we did so only because of what we assumed about the desires and opinions of others.

If you’ve said to yourself in those situations, “Who cares; it’ll be okay whatever we decide,” or “Guess I’ll go with the flow,” you are on your way to Abilene. We assume the others really do want to go to Abilene, even though we don’t, but we agree to go anyway. And, if each individual has the same misguided assumptions, then the action is something that no one wants. We agree as a group, but as individuals, we have regrets. One can say this is an absurd situation.

Why do people actually support things that go against what they desire? What happened to the outspoken individual with ideas to contribute and concepts to roll around in? A rare bird in groups.

According to Harvey, in group settings, expressing your real beliefs creates some degree of anxiety. Should you maintain your own integrity and self-worth by speaking your mind, or do you compromise your values and go with what you think is the consensus?

The anxiety comes from the magical belief that something disastrous will happen to you if you do reveal your real thoughts. “Oh, I’ll get fired if I do that. I’ll get labeled a maverick. I’ll look like a fool. I’ll be unlikable.” Since you believe those things will happen if you speak your true mind, you wind up not being honest about what you really think. These magical consequences provide an excuse for being quiet.

And what do those magical and negative consequences represent? Alienation, separation, ostracism; these are powerful, underlying fears, so powerful that we will act against our own interest to avoid the risk of not being “part” of something.  Of course, doing so winds you up in Abilene.

When Compromise Becomes Unhealthy, You Are Heading Down the Road

But isn’t compromise part of work life?  Don’t we go against our own interests when we agree to go along?  In her new book, The Compromise Trap, Elizabeth Doty draws a line between healthy compromise that is necessary for accomplishing goals and unhealthy compromises that betray beliefs and values.  When unhealthy compromises pile up, the conflict inside your head can cause stress and many trips to Abilene (as well as the very alienation, separation or ostracism you feared in the first place!). 

Her approach is to recognize when you are pressured to play by rules that undermine your beliefs and/or common sense, and play a different game by being true to yourself, no matter how difficult the circumstances. The key to playing this different game is to question your assumptions.  Is this decision really in the group’s interest? Are others committed to this or just feeling pressed to go along? What are the costs to me if I go along, including the costs to my self-respect and others’ ability to trust me? And finally, will I really get fired, ostracized, or marginalized if I focus on helping the group reach its goals?

In her book, Elizabeth shows numerous examples of professionals who questioned their assumptions and discovered the consequences of speaking up were not as bad as they first appeared, at least not in comparison to dust and heat of Abilene.

So, how do you know your team is on the road to Abilene? Here are some indicators:

Soft and ambiguous language. Is vagueness and opacity on the agenda versus clear and descriptive words? Vagueness leads to low comprehension that leads to uncertainty about how to react.  Collateralized Debt Obligations, anyone?

Missed opportunities. Do people come out of meetings saying something like, “What I really wanted to say was…?” We individually and privately have a completely different opinion than the one we expressed in the team.

No fun. Are meetings are formal, serious, procedural and somewhat intimidating? Is there any room at all for spontaneity of expression?

Authority plays. Beware the authority figure who subtlety deflects ideas, inserts his/her own preferences, and uses forceful language to press home points with no repartee from the group.

Looking for a scapegoat. We were all in on the crummy decision; we are all to blame. Under those circumstances, it’s not a good sign to be placing blame. That’s a sign you’ve been to and maybe are still in Abilene.

Low involvement. Are there people in the meeting who do not contribute? Why?

Low questioning and probing. What’s the ratio of question asking to contributing ideas?

Awareness of process. Do people realize they are producing agreements that no one really wants?

The point is that you need to step in with your true point of view, whatever it is. To get people to listen, be diplomatic, choose your words carefully and back up your thoughts with logic and data. People won’t listen to ideas being forced on them.

We Visit Abilene Too Often

Unfortunately, the Abilene Paradox plays itself out in real life situations where ersatz decision-making has severe consequences. One well-publicized example was the Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961. Here is what a CIA officer wrote about the final stages of the decision-making process.

“It is hard to believe in retrospect that the president and his advisers felt the plans for a large-scale, complicated military operation that had been ongoing for more than a year could be reworked in four days and still offer a high likelihood of success. It is equally amazing that we in the agency agreed so readily.”

For more information about the Abilene Paradox, see The Abilene Paradox and Other Meditations On Management by Jerry Harvey.  For more on unhealthy compromises, see The Compromise Trap by Elizabeth Doty.

What Leaders Do: A Field Guide To Basic Leadership

Want to know what leaders do? Look it up on Amazon. Today there are 324,526 results that pop up. Where to start?

It seems that there are so many concepts about leadership that getting a grip on the central idea is a bit illusive. From “Lincoln and Leadership” to “Leadership Secrets of Attila the Hun,” to “Good to Great”, everyone who wants to write a book on leadership has a different slant.

Yet, we all know what leadership is when we see it. When someone on your work team sees a new way of doing things and gets everyone to try it, that’s leadership. When a person fixes something that has been done wrong, is not quite right or has been broken for a long time, that’s leadership. Anytime someone stands up for a principle, that’s leadership. When someone makes a positive contribution and difference to an outcome, that’s leadership, too. Of course, leadership is also leading companies to new growth and sports teams to excellence. So, what is this we’re talking about?

After reviewing popular leadership models from many well-known sources, it is clear to us that people need a simple concept of what leadership is, something they can literally carry around in their heads, and, most important, apply to situations they face every day.

To fill that need, we’ve come up with what we call the Leadership Lens, and it describes actions that anyone can do to demonstrate leadership.

The Leadership Lens has three main parts.

1) Create The Fundamental Idea:

A leader’s role is to scan the environment, learn the “ground”, recognize opportunities, and from that, create a focused direction. The implication goes beyond the idea of a vision statement; a leader is the source of the vision, the set of eyes that is always looking for opportunities. Once that vision is clear in the leader’s mind, it has to be formulated in  a way that others can see it as well. It doesn’t matter whether you are a shift manager in a fast-food restaurant or an admiral of a vast fleet, your leadership action is to spot opportunities, create a purposeful direction and communicate that tangibly and clearly to the people working with you.

2) Sets, Imposes and Aligns Operating Values, Practices, Principles:

A leader is the tone-setter and rule-maker of an organization. As we know from organizational climate research, management creates a feeling of what it is like to work in the organization based on the rules and practices the leader puts in place. This feeling of climate is a key to motivation. A leader figuratively puts the operating manual of the organization in place or changes what is already there to something more productive.
W. Morrell and S. Capparell’s study of Antarctic explorer Ernest Shackleton, Shackelton’s Way, depicts a leader who created a work environment where all crew members, regardless of role, had to perform menial tasks and, at the same time, where all were expected to be positive, cheerful and cooperative with each other. At the same time, a service supervisor will “run” his or her team with explicit expectations; it won’t be long
before maintenance techs learn what kind of behavior isn’t tolerated and what is rewarded. Even on a team with peers, a team member can enforce what’s “right” by setting an example and refusing to participate in the “wrong” behavior. That kind of behavior sends a message to everyone on the team.

The key here is that these operating practices and principles must be clear and consistently applied across the organization. When reinforced by management behavior, these practices and principles form the organizational climate. When that climate “feels good”, engagement and motivation drive performance up.

3) Demonstrate An Emotional Edge:

Every leader creates an emotional reaction in his or her followers, based on the level of commitment and dedication he or she overtly displays. The leader can demonstrate high moral values, boundless energy, steady and calm resolve, affection for employees or courage; there isn’t a right way to demonstrate an emotional edge.

What counts is how the leader shows up as a person, exposing his or her commitment, beliefs and energy. When a leader captures his or her employee’s or team mates’ attention and respect, their motivation will follow. The idea of emotional edge is completely subjective; it is one of those factors that you know when you see it. Who could not feel moved by Rudi Guiliani’s sense of command and compassion on September 11? Who could not feel impressed and excited by Steve Jobs’ announcement of another innovation? Even a night shift manager in an assembly plant can demonstrate dedication to quality by personally thanking his each one of his/her workers for a good night’s work.

These three elements and the more specific behaviors which further describe them, taken together, represent an easy to remember and describe model of what leadership is all about.

The Leadership Lens has three parts: Leaders have a Main Idea; they have rules and consciously create a work climate based on those rules; and they are “present”, showing up a people who are committed to outcomes. Our model is “portable” so people could carry it around with them in their memories and recall it
when they are faced with challenges.

Next time you watch someone who you think is a leader, look through that Leadership Lens to see what actions define them. Despite all those many theories and models, leadership can actually be seen all around, every day. You just have to know what to look for.

Five Pitfalls of Action Learning

While the Action Learning methodology  presents significant opportunities for a truly memorable experience, it can also be remembered as painful to all those involved.  Having observed and  coached a number of teams involved in Action Learning, we have  noticed several themes emerge to which sponsors, planners and participants need to pay specific attention.

Wrong team size

An Action Learning team can be too big or too small.  Like Goldilocks,  designers must determine what size of team is just right.  A seven to  nine member team that engages in a challenging project runs the risk of  having up to a third or more of the team riding on the efforts of others  over the course of the experience.  This is the reality of a large team  being asked to squeeze in a large project while facing a full calendar in their regular work.

A team of three to four members might be overwhelmed by the volume  of work required for a quality outcome on a large project.  If planners  think that more rather than fewer team members are needed to produce successful deliverables on a large project, then that should be a signal  that the project itself is probably too big for this purpose.  On the other  hand, if the project looks as if it might be relatively manageable for  three to four team members, then planners should question what the  real effort and project outcome is going to be.  As we will see below,  projects tend to get bigger, expanding scope as the team discovers  aspects of the problem they have been asked to address.

An ideal minimum starting point for an Action Learning team is five  members.  This number can be expanded to seven or eight, depending  on the initial description of the project deliverables.  Once again, if the  project appears to require more effort and therefore more people, it is  probably the wrong scope.

Too long until completion

The intense interest and effort of work at the beginning of a project  soon diffuses when the routines of meeting, doing research and making  decisions about how to proceed take over the calendars of team 
members.  Team members generally feel challenged at the beginning of  the effort, willing to engage intellectually with the topic as a problem to  solve.  However, even with clear interim deadlines and progress  milestones, ennui and project fatigue can creep into the team’s  experience.  After all, the subject matter is probably not related to what most team members are doing every day; in fact, the topics being  addressed may be of marginal interest to some members.  After  conducting research and discussing insights, the very act of producing  a report with recommendations—the expected outcome of most Action  Learning projects—eventually becomes an editing, word-smithing,  production process, not the most exciting work for dynamic  executives.  Consequently, an Action Learning project can overstay its welcome.  

We suggest that a five-month deadline is definitely too long for a viable  Action Learning project.  We have seen teams struggle to maintain  interest for four months.  Once again, depending on the project, 10 weeks to 12 weeks is probably the right duration.

Charge too vague

An Action Learning team is usually asked to investigate a topic for  senior management in an organization.  For example, senior  management may be interested in how a product is being received or what to do about entering a new market.  Without a clear sense of what  the underlying questions that need to be answered are, a team can go  off in a thousand directions.  The root cause of this is that the sponsors of the project are not truly clear themselves about what they are  looking for.  This is natural and should be expected; they’re pursuing  something that is of interest, unsettling or not well understood, a strategic issue that needs clarity or insight they don’t currently have.   However, there is a difference between an inquiry that is best suited for  a consulting engagement and one being handled by an Action Learning team.

While teams we have worked with report that it is beneficial for them to struggle with the project outcome definition, too broad a charge may  mean they will provide an unfocused response to the sponsor.  We recommend that Action Learning planners brief sponsors about the type  of question that can best be managed by a small team working above  and beyond their normal work.  The project designers should spend some time bringing an additional level of clarity to vague inquiries while not, at the same time, handing the team a checklist assignment.

Too Much Work

Even if a question is clear, the team the right size, the deadlines appropriate, an Action Learning project can run into trouble because of the sheer volume of work needed to develop a recommendation.  Most, if not all, Action Learning projects require a fair amount of research—digging for data, compiling information from a number of sources or conducting original research.  When the team sets off to search for data, it can become a time sink, especially if the organization is not used  to opening its files.  For example, finding the right person to talk to,  getting through to that person’s manager for permission, explaining the project, gaining access to the right data and repeating that cycle for several different sources can be daunting.  One team we worked with  had the idea of conducting a survey.  The process of writing the survey items, having them approved through several layers of management, installing them on a website, getting respondents to rate it and getting the results literally took the entire time line of the project.  In addition, it is axiomatic that a project tends to get bigger in scope as more corners  of the problem are illuminated by data.  We have seen teams pursuing these new areas of interest without being sensitive to workload implications. At the very least, a team should be advised to keep their data inquiry within reason rather than inflicting themselves with the burden of a significant dive into the corporate or academic stores of information.  Once again, while there is definitely a learning point about accessing information in an organization, Action Learning team members also have day jobs that demand attention.

Too Distant From The Sponsor

Probably the biggest pitfall of all is a distant sponsor.  A sponsor is the member or members of management who works with the Action Learning team, providing it with the initial charge and receiving the final presentation.  A sponsor who is unprepared for the task can make the  Action Learning experience quite negative for the team.  In effect, the  sponsor has the ability to shape the project, from the clarity and  crispness of the topic to be addressed, to maintaining the right level of  expectations and attitude about the outcome.  To be a good sponsor,  the Action Learning planners have to work closely with them, recruiting the right executive, explaining the goals and process of Action Learning, clarifying the role of sponsor as mentor-teacher-advisor-client, and designing a process that links the sponsor, formally and informally, with the team’s progress.  Without that level of commitment and interactivity, a sponsor can arrive at the final presentation without 
understanding what has transpired over the course of the project, what changes have been made to the original charge, and what challenges the team was or wasn’t able to surmount.

Avoidable Problems

Most of the pitfalls mentioned above are avoidable.  Avoiding them, however, is not without its own challenges.  Many designers of Action Learning experiences become enamored with the methodology, losing sight of its learning and development objectives.  Many senior executives view the experience as an opportunity for free consulting, getting the answers to questions they themselves have not been able to address. And finally, many participants view Action Learning as a stage for them to perform upon, viewing the opportunity as an audition for promotion, rather than as a chance to learn how the organization works at a deeper level.

We recommend that planners and designers of Action Learning experiences take to heart these cautions.  Done well, Action Learning can provide a refreshing and productive interlude for any level of  employee where they can refine their analytic and communication skills, develop new relationships with different levels of management and become invigorated by ideas and innovative thinking.  

Current Issue: More Surprises for the New Hire College Graduate

In Office Space, the zany comedy about work place 
culture and rebellion, Peter, the very twenty-something 
main character asks the next cubicle occupant, Milton, 
the office nebbish, to turn down his radio.  “I was told I 
could keep it on at a low volume,” stumbles Milton in flat 
rejection of common courtesy.  Peter just rolls his eyes 
and glances at the clock.  It’s only 9:15 am.

Indeed, to many college graduates, the culture of work 
is filled with many such unpleasant surprises.  Our 
recent survey of new hire graduates surfaced a number 
of frequently mentioned revelations.

For example, former students said they didn’t realize 
how much attention—and money—was devoted to 
dressing professionally and “looking good.”  The idea of 
working in a cubicle affected several respondents.  
“Environmentally disappointing,” was how some in this 
environmentally-sensitive group described their space.  
They also reported bosses weren’t as understanding as 
professors, and co-workers weren’t as friendly as 
classmates.  In fact, one person reported people at his 
job weren’t eager to help new people out.  The need to 
learn fast and learn a lot was part of the package, and it 
was expected that they would take the initiative to learn.  
“There’s no end at work.  When you achieve a result, 
you are given more work.  At least in school it ends,” 
was one comment.  Indeed, the engine never stops. No 
one was providing a lecture for them to capture 
knowledge; for many, it was a do-it-yourself learning 
experience.  The need to work in teams—effectively 
communicating with colleagues—required a new set of 
responses far different from school.  Of course, 
diplomatically listening to and playing office politics and 
mastering red tape were challenges of their new world.

Even more disappointing, many respondents said that 
work was “essentially meaningless,” boring, not 
challenging and not using any of the knowledge gained 
through years of study.  “Every day is pretty much the 
same.”

Finally, new workers found that the amount of income 
they received for their labor was an unpleasant 
disappointment.  After taxes, retirement plans, dues and 
health insurance, take home pay was reported as much 
less than expected.  Bills, living expenses and payments 
on student loans made that amount even smaller.  One 
person put it this way:  “I make significantly less than I 
thought I would with my degree.”  With loan payments 
looming, you can understand how that obligation makes 
these new workers look at work in a bitter-sweet way.  
Yes, there is a job that brings in a salary, but they are 
not making that much when all is said and done, and the 
background pressure is always there to make sure they 
don’t lose their paycheck because of student loans.

Of course, new workers also have a sense of freedom 
from papers, tests, homework and “no more school.”  
But you wonder what the amplified pressures of working, 
learning how to survive in a somewhat alien—and 
sometimes unfulfilling—work culture and living on much 
less than expected can do to even the most confident 
new worker.

It would be useful if someone told them that finding 
friends at work makes a huge difference in how 
engaged they feel at work.  Or, an avuncular manager 
might offer advice on finances, giving them some control 
over money.  Unfortunately, that happens only by 
chance. Why don’t we build it in to our onboarding 
processes?

Yes, people adjust over time, but it appears that 
expectations are frequently adjusted downwards.

And at what price?  Surely, there must be a better way 
to welcome the new folks aboard.  

College Graduates: How Do You Like The Real World Of Work?

At the end of the wonderful French movie, Auberge Espanole, a young college graduate is shown showing up for work in a tomb-like, corporate glass and steel office. His new boss awkwardly crushes him with an embrace in his stiff, new suit, the drab office workers enthusiastically describe what the different color folders on his desk mean and then exchange opinions about the best setting for the air conditioner. Two seems to be the consensus.When the workers look up from adjusting the thermostat, the new employee is gone. The next scene shows him frantically running away.

New college graduates are coming into a world of work that is purposeful, efficient and frequently relentless. It's surprising that more of them don't leave after their first morning. The transition to adult employment is abrupt and, for many, a dismal and permanent change to their lives. Doesn't it make sense for employers to look at the impact this transition has on graduates? It would be helpful to know what those thermostat moments are, making it easier to soften the landing.In our study of recent college graduates, we asked these new workers to identify the biggest surprises and disappointments they experienced when they settled into their cubicles. What they said was interesting, if not provocative.Probably the biggest surprise about going to work was how hard life had suddenly become. To many, just getting a job had been a long and difficult process. Some reported taking work in a field they didn't want and didn't plan to stay in for the rest of my days. When graduates did get a job, there was little free time; people reported they were not used to being anywhere for eight hours at a time and actually heads down working for the whole time. One person found it hard to get his mind around the idea that he had to be at work no matter what. Someone was expecting me to be somewhere at a certain time with no flexibility and no rescheduling. That's different for me,said a new worker.Another said that the magnitude of projects and amount of work that had to be done was something he was totally unprepared for. Indeed, life had changed; new workers didn't have the energy they had at school, they didn't exercise as much, they came home pretty exhausted. No more naps during the day; no more schmoozing with friends. Work schedules found former night owls needing to get to bed early and forgoing a social life for the sake of getting up with a clear head. Work had taken time away from their lives.Of course, instead of being overwhelmed by the change, these new hires can chose a productive response. They can build exercise into their schedules, ask for help or offer their time on an interesting project and figure out how to adapt to the loss of so much free time. Action, although perhaps hard to take on during overwhelm, is hard. At the same time, it is what will make a difference in easing the transition from student to employee.And, what are we, people who have been in the organization for years doing to recognize the thermostat syndrome and help them?