Sometimes groups find that they've undertaken efforts that all members privately acknowledge are wrong-headed, even though all members agreed to undertake those efforts. Prof. Jerry Harvey identified this dynamic and named it a "Trip to Abilene." (See "Trips to Abilene," Point Lookout for November 27, 2002, for more.) Many factors contribute to this dysfunction. Some group members fear that raising objections to the proposed effort might lead to personally unpleasant consequences; others, possibly without foundation, fear being ejected from the group altogether; others recall, sometimes incorrectly, harsh treatment of objectors to previous group decisions; and some fantasize harsh consequences based on experiences in other groups unrelated to the present. There are numerous other factors, because the human mind is endlessly inventive.
We usually regard a Trip to Abilene as a dysfunction that arises in the context of explicit group decisions. But sometimes groups face choices that lie entirely outside their collective awareness. One example is the choice to "keep doing what we're doing." When a group — by default — keeps doing what it's doing, when all members would regard that choice as wrongheaded if it were proposed and undertaken openly, that group is Staying in Abilene.
How does this happen? Here are some examples of perspectives that limit a group's ability to avoid Staying in Abilene.
- I'm no expert
- Some group members might believe that their uneasiness about Staying in Abilene is due to their own inferior grasp of the situation. They see that everyone around them is content. Believing that some of their colleagues are better positioned to judge the wisdom of Staying in Abilene, they set their own uneasiness aside.
- I'm outta here
- Some group members are approaching retirement, or are seeking, or have already found, employment elsewhere. They've detached from the group, emotionally if not formally. Even if they feel certain that Staying in Abilene is wrong-headed, their commitment to the group is so low that they have little interest in expressing their concerns.
- Tunnel vision
- Some group members are so involved in their own responsibilities that they have only limited situational awareness. Others with more global responsibilities might be willfully focused on small slices of their portfolios, and therefore unaware of the need to leave Abilene.
- Among the more Some group members might
believe that their uneasiness
about Staying in Abilene is
due to their own inferior
grasp of the situationinsidious of mechanisms contributing to Staying in Abilene is self-censorship of thought and feeling. If we let ourselves consciously experience our uneasiness about Staying in Abilene, we might feel obliged to express our uneasiness to others. And that can be so frightening that we choose instead to deaden ourselves to our own uneasiness.
Staying in Abilene can actually arise from changes in conditions that once justified a prior decision. Suddenly, we can find that we're in Abilene even when we never intended to go there. Are you in Abilene? Top Next Issue
For more about Trips to Abilene, see Jerry B. Harvey, "The Abilene Paradox: The Management of Agreement," in Organizational Dynamics, Summer 1988, pp. 17-43.
Is every other day a tense, anxious, angry misery as you watch people around you, who couldn't even think their way through a game of Jacks, win at workplace politics and steal the credit and glory for just about everyone's best work including yours? Read 303 Secrets of Workplace Politics, filled with tips and techniques for succeeding in workplace politics. More info
Your comments are welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenTmXDIkMCbTeOGfJLner@ChacMLAiHgnZFfNqkXaFoCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.
About Point Lookout
Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.
Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.
Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.
More articles on Workplace Politics:
- When we offer a contribution to a discussion, and everyone ignores it and moves on, we sometimes feel
that our contribution has "plopped." We feel devalued. Rarely is this interpretation correct.
What is going on?
- Nasty Questions: I
- Some of the questions we ask each other aren't intended to elicit information from the respondent. Rather,
they're poorly disguised attacks intended to harm the respondent politically, and advance the questioner's
political agenda. Here's part one a catalog of some favorite tactics.
- How to Undermine Your Subordinates
- People write to me occasionally that their bosses undermine them, but I know there are bosses who want
to do more undermining than they are already doing. So here are some tips for bosses aspiring to sink
- What Insubordinate Non-Subordinates Want: I
- When you're responsible for an organizational function, and someone not reporting to you won't recognize
your authority, or doesn't comply with policies you rightfully established, you have a hard time carrying
out your responsibilities. Why does this happen?
- Impasses in Group Decision-Making: IV
- Some impasses that develop in group decision-making relate to the substance of the discussion. Some
are not substantive, but still present serious obstacles. What can we do about nonsubstantive impasses?
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming January 24: Understanding Delegation
- It's widely believed that managers delegate some of their own authority and responsibility to their subordinates, who then use that authority and responsibility to get their work done. That view is unfortunate. It breeds micromanagers. Available here and by RSS on January 24.
- And on January 31: Nine Brainstorming Demotivators: I
- The quality of the output of brainstorming sessions is notoriously variable. One source of variation is the enthusiasm of contributors. Here's Part I of a set of nine phenomena that can limit contributions to brainstorm sessions. Available here and by RSS on January 31.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenBsGKQYkdwLyBwkMGner@ChacpKssYiTCDvATgllVoCanyon.com or (617) 491-6289, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.
Get the ebook!
Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:
- Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, USD 28.99)
Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info
- The Power Affect: How We Express Our Personal Power
- Many people who possess real organizational power have a characteristic demeanor. It's the way they project their presence. I call this the power affect. Some people — call them power pretenders — adopt the power affect well before they attain significant organizational power. Unfortunately for their colleagues, and for their organizations, power pretenders can attain organizational power out of proportion to their merit or abilities. Understanding the power affect is therefore important for anyone who aims to attain power, or anyone who works with power pretenders. Read more about this program. Here's a date for this program:
Beware any resource that speaks of "winning" at workplace politics or "defeating" it. You can benefit or not, but there is no score-keeping, and it isn't a game.