I shared recently a post on “Is the Need for Team Variety a Myth?” in which I used the nutrients as a metaphor for team variety. As the human body needs different sources of nutrients so, teams do.
This post builds on ideas I derived from selected comments on that post and extends the discussions to probing the Abilene Paradox.
With the Abilene paradox, people do not agree with the plan or idea presented to them. They notice their defects but choose not to speak up because they believe others support the plan or ideas.
David Ford, P.E. is credited for mentioning the paradox in his comment “I like your analogy to vitamins and I absolutely agree Ali Anani, PhD that teams must have members who bring a variety of skills to the table. I like the salty idea – someone who is willing to speak their mind when the team is starting to fall into groupthink. It reminds me of the Abilene Paradox or Road to Abilene as some call it. Everyone wanted to play nice with the others and no one was willing to say, “Stop, we don’t need to be doing this”.
There is a paradox lying behind The Abilene Paradox. The paradox that no one says watch out there is a problem in the suggested plan. Even teams enjoying variety of skills this happens. The big question relates to why such talents and skills fall into the trap of assuming. Assuming other members agree with no verification or proof of this assumption is confusing.
This leads to the conclusion that for discussions to be meaningful we need to include “salty People”. Those people do not have reservations about not speaking their minds. Those salty people are the assurance that we do not fall into assuming.
The missing out of having salty people in discussions is far-reaching. They include making the wrong decisions by falling into the trap of the Abilene Paradox. The failure of the plans based on wrong assumptions leads to the loss of the cohesion of teams, spreading a culture of blame and losing the cohesion of team members.
One other way out of the Abilene Paradox is adapting communication styles. The credit for this idea goes to Aldo Delli Paoli. He wrote in a comment “Effective business collaboration involves team members adapting their communication styles to each other so they can understand each other’s points of view. The fusion of these different thinking styles is what makes up the most successful teams, provided you can manage them effectively”.
Mr. Paoli reminded me of individual nutrients that are great for our health. However, if we consume them at the same time they cancel the effectiveness of each other. The same applies to team members if they do not align their communication styles we lose the input of the team members.
What other idea do you have to deal with assumptions that lead to the Abilene Paradox?
Ali,
The use of the word “self-interest” needs to be defined. There are many who out of “self-interest” have dedicated their lives to helping others. I think fearful self-interest is a continuing issue, but I also think people change with wisdom, information, and opportunity.
Mary
Thank you, Mary
I believe the xontext defines what is meant by self-interest as you have explained so well n your comment
Thank you
In order to encourage open discussion and the manifestation of divergent thinking, I could appeal to my legal practice and propose the so-called devil’s advocate technique, which is a typical revolt towards enhancing the role of those who bring a different vision.
A single person (normally the one who stands out for the greatest sense of responsibility and belonging), or even a subgroup, is entrusted with the task of critically analyzing the proposals and arguments of the remaining part of the group, trying to bring to light every weakness and omission. The group then tries to counter constructively, reviewing and modifying its proposals: the critical analysis is repeated until both parties are satisfied with the proposals and the related arguments.
Great idea Aldo Delli Paoli and I enjoyed the “devil’s advocate technique”.
The paradox here is that we give them bad names such as salty or devils when in reality they do a great service to us.
The idea of revison of proposals in stages sounds great. It is a filtering system that is worthy of attention by other specializations.
Ali,
I think informed self-interest can be developed through dialogue. Of course, there are exceptions where limited self-interest dominates. I just think that is a small percent. What I find is that people do not examine the risks and benefits before closing their minds, so keeping an open mind helps to open the minds of others.
Mary
Dr, Mary,
I am grateful to your clarifying explanation, which makes lot of sense. What we can control is to keep our minds open.
Dr. Jerry Harvey’s wrote the book on the Abilene Paradox after an experience it with his family in Abilene when they were deciding where to eat dinner. Everyone agreed until they got home and recognized it was not what they wanted. He recognized it from faculty meetings at George Washington University. Audiences always laughed when he told the story.
While I agree with the need for “salty” people, there is another option of adopting a team practice of requesting potential contrary views. People will speak up when it is “safe” for their career and safe with their interpersonal relationships.
Thank you Dr. Mary
Yes, I agree people have their self-interests to protect. But do not you think as long as this interests stays the problem shall keep repeating?
This is problematic as we allow self-interests to take over common interest