Abilene Paradox Summary

We present with pride the following reprint of an article from our Summer 1974 issue. If you haven’t already read this classic article on the management of agreementand the catastrophes that result when it is mismanaged-you’re in for a treat. If you have read it, you’re in for another treat: Harveys epilogue, which immediately follows the article, and commentaries by Rosabeth Moss Ranter and Arthur Elliott Carlisle, immediately following the epilogue. Together, the commentaries by Kanter and Carlisle form, in effect, an ‘Abilene Defense’Lor ways to fend off an Abilene Paradox. No actual silver stake is recommended, just some canny advice on how to maneuver to keep people fxom rushing into agreementout of politeness, a misguided sense of the
And for most of those organizations, the negative consequences of such trips, measured in terms of both human misery and economic loss, have been much greater than for our little Abilene group. This article is concerned with that paradox- the Abilene Paradox. Stated simply, it is as follows: Organizations frequently take actions in contradiction to what they really want to do and therefore defeat the very purposes they are trying to achieve. It also deals with a major corollary of the paradox, which is that the inability to manage agreement is a major source of organization dysfunction. Last, the article is designed to help members of organizations cope more effectively with the paradox’s pernicious influence. As a means of accomplishing the above, I shall: (1) describe the symptoms exhibited by organizations caught in the paradox; (2) describe, in summarized case-study examples, how they occur in a variety of organizations; (3) discuss the underlying causal dynamics; (4) indicate some of the implications of accepting this model for describing organizational behavior; (5) make recommendations for coping with the paradox; and, in conclusion, (6) relate the paradox to a broader existential
Organization members agree privately, as individuals, as to the nature of the situation or problem facing the organization. For example, members of the Abilene group agreed that they were enjoying themselves sitting in front of the fan, sipping lemonade, and playing dominoes. 2. Organization members agree privately, as individuals, as to the steps that would be required to cope with the situation or problem they face. For members of the Abilene group “more of the same” was a solution that would have adequately satisfied their individual and collective desires. 3. Organization members fail to accurately communicate their desires and/or beliefs to one another. In fact, they do just the opposite and thereby lead one another into misperceiving the collective reality. Each member of the Abilene group, for example, communicated inaccurate data to other members of the organization. The data, in effect, said, “Yeah, it’s a great idea. Let’s go to Abilene,” when in reality members of the organization individually and collectively preferred to stay in Coleman. 4. With such invalid and inaccurate information, organization members make collective decisions that lead them to take actions contrary to what they want to do, and thereby arrive at results that are counterproductive to the organization’s intent and purposes. Thus, the Abilene group went to Abilene when it preferred to do something else. 5. As a result of taking actions that are counterproductive, organization members