The Plague of Misidentification

Causality Part 11

In today's TPOM, I will introduce you to the Abilene Paradox. It is a strange little big deal that happens very often in our reality. I bet you will be able to find an example in your own life over the last three days! Once we understand the Abilene Paradox, we can then apply it as a mental model to dynamic systems of human interaction. 

The Abilene Paradox

The Abilene Paradox occurs when the members of a group agree to do something based on their perception of what the others in that group want to do. In this instance, each member does the thing they don't want to do to appease each other group member when, in reality, no group member wants to do the thing at all. 

Said another way and by its discoverer, "Organizations frequently take actions in contradiction to what they really want to do and therefore defeat the very purposes they are trying to achieve."

The Abilene Paradox first shows up in the writings of Jerry B. Harvey. He first recounted this story in a 1974 article titled "The Abilene Paradox: The Management of Agreement." The following is the rather miserably amusing story that sets it all in motion in his own words exactly as originally printed:

"The July afternoon in Coleman, Texas (population 5,607) was particularly hot— 104 degrees as measured by the Walgreen's Rexall Ex-Lax temperature gauge. In addition, the wind was blowing fine-gained West Texas topsoil through the house. But the afternoon was still tolerable—even potentially enjoyable. There was a fan going on the back porch; there was cold lemonade; and finally, there was entertainment. Dominoes. Perfect for the conditions. The game required little more physical exertion than an occasional mumbled comment, "Shuffle 'em," and an unhurried movement of the arm to place the spots in the appropriate perspective on the table. All in all, it had the makings of an agreeable Sunday afternoon in Coleman—this is, it was until my father-in-law suddenly said, "Let's get in the car and go to Abilene and have dinner at the cafeteria." 

I thought, "What, go to Abilene? Fifty-three miles? In this dust storm and heat? And in an unairconditioned 1958 Buick?" 

But my wife chimed in with, "Sounds like a great idea. I'd like to go. How about you, Jerry?" Since my own preferences were obviously out of step with the rest I replied, "Sounds good to me," and added, "I just hope your mother wants to go."

"Of course I want to go," said my mother-inlaw. "I haven't been to Abilene in a long time." 

So into the car and off to Abilene we went. My predictions were fulfilled. The heat was brutal. We were coated with a fine layer of dust that was cemented with perspiration by the time we arrived. The food at the cafeteria provided first-rate testimonial material for antacid commercials. 

Some four hours and 106 miles later we returned to Coleman, hot and exhausted. We sat in front of the fan for a long time in silence. Then, both to be sociable and to break the silence, I said, "It was a great trip, wasn't it?" 

No one spoke. Finally my mother-in-law said, with some irritation, "Well, to tell the truth, I really didn't enjoy it much and would rather have stayed here. I just went along because the three of you were so enthusiastic about going. I wouldn't have gone if you all hadn't pressured me into it." 

I couldn't believe it. "What do you mean 'you all'?" I said. "Don't put me in the 'you all' group. I was delighted to be doing what we were doing. I didn't want to go. I only went to satisfy the rest of you. You're the culprits." 

My wife looked shocked. "Don't call me a culprit. You and Daddy and Mama were the ones who wanted to go. I just went along to be sociable and to keep you happy. I would have had to be crazy to want to go out in heat like that." 

Her father entered the conversation abruptly. "Hell!" he said. 

He proceeded to expand on what was already absolutely clear. "Listen, I never wanted to go to Abilene. I just thought you might be bored. You visit so seldom I wanted to be sure you enjoyed it. I would have preferred to play another game of dominoes and eat the leftovers in the icebox." 

After the outburst of recrimination we all sat back in silence. Here we were, four reasonably sensible people who, of our own volition, had just taken a 106-mile trip across a godforsaken desert in a furnace-like temperature through a cloud-like dust storm to eat unpalatable food at a hole-in-the-wall cafeteria in Abilene, when none of us had really wanted to go. In fact, to be more accurate, we'd done just the opposite of what we wanted to do. The whole situation simply didn't make sense."

Psychology

Each person in the story above did something they didn't want to do because they perceived the others wanted to do that thing. You can see this sometimes expressed as "go along to get along." The situation was one of complete misery because not one of them spoke up and said what they needed and wanted to say, which was that it was too hot, dusty, and miserable outside to take a long trip in a car with no air conditioning. The end result of this was that they were all unhappy and wished they had not gone at all. They were all suffering along the way from the elements, the drive, and the underlying psychology that was the true driver for why no one said that they didn't want to go. What a trip! I am sure that we can all relate and, in fact, have all been in this position; if not recently, then certainly in the past. 

Before we dig into the psychology, let's ask a few questions: 

• What was at the core of every person's decision to "go along to get along?"

• Could we learn a few things from taking apart this happening from each person's perspective?

• What started the entire event?

• What are the key statements from each person that elucidate what they may well have been thinking?

• Were the conditions that would bring about misery clear to all involved before they undertook their trip?

• Is it benevolent to go along with others in a situation like this one?

• Is it malevolent to go along with others in a situation like this one?

• Is anyone in this situation thinking "for" the other person or people?

• Is it wrong to think "for" other people?

• What is the right way to handle a situation like this one? Is there more than one right way?

• Why the crappy cafeteria? I may never know, but I bet I can guess based upon the present data. 

• What does "I only went to satisfy" mean in reality?

We have a few good questions to dig into here, and per usual, many, many more pertinent questions could and should be asked about this situation.

I wonder if we couldn't incorporate some of our thinking tools into this investigation. What about using our mapping application? I bet we could find a good use of that in this scenario. Do you think it is possible that we could come away with more information about this situation than Mr. Harvey had when he wrote it all down? One thing is for sure: as we move forward, we need to keep our minds focused upon the critical distinctions between conjecture and proven facts. We can certainly learn from both, but we wouldn't want to confuse ourselves about what went on and what we think went on, would we? 

The Components

We should start with the first things of the story. We have Jerry, Jerry's wife, Jerry's father-in-law, and Jerry's mother-in-law. In the whole story, we only have four participating characters. That will make things somewhat navigable. 

Next, what is the location of this story? Coleman, Texas.

What, if any, are the other locations? Abilene, Texas. 

How did they travel? By car. 

What time of the year? It sounds like mid-summer.

Why did they travel? Well, there is the distal why, which is to go to Abilene to eat at a cafeteria. Then, there is the proximal why, which is co-dependency. This is also known as damn good reason vs. real reason thinking. More to come on that one. In short, it attends that there are two reasons a person does everything that they do: 1. the damn good reason, and 2. the real reason. 

Let's move over to our mapping software and build this out as we go. 

Here is the master map for perspective.

Next, here is the first drill-down into the story.

Next, we outcrop the dialog and connect it to each stage of the story via connecting lines.

We see in the above all was well until the father-in-law tried to fix what wasn’t broken.

The next stage of the dialog unfolds. Take the time to note what happens and when.

Jerry is not happy but caves when he thinks others want to go.

Further into the unfolding, Jerry’s wife speaks.

It is getting messy. Though it all looks a certain way (pleasant) at this point in time, we can see that the setup is almost complete.

In the next stage, mother-in-law enters, and we are off.

Well, that cinches it.

Let the co-dependency rain down freely. Hell awaits, and it was not a good visit.

We see that conditions were predictably brutal. "It was a great trip, wasn't it?" This is my favorite statement. This is the exact type of disingenuous stuff we say, and it is painfully well-intentioned from all of the wrong places, which is what makes it darkly hilarious.

Next, the facade cracks and it all starts to fall down.

In true mother-in-law fashion, the silence is broken and the facade exposed.

Let’s see how this next step plays out.

Uh oh.

It gets messier.

It seems getting called a culprit didn’t go over well.

In like a falcon after a pika in a snowstorm, the pissed and focused father-in-law has something to say.

It seems no one wanted to go at all, and everyone had a horrible time.

Where are we left after all of this?

How have we made it this far without destroying the whole earth? When this can happen so easily, it truly does beg the question. I find these types of situations and, more importantly, the substructures that generate them utterly terrifying, strange, and fascinating, not to mention intensely illuminating.

In future installments of TPOM, we will be checking back in on the analysis of the Abilene Paradox. We will take each person’s behavior apart using a theory of triangulation along with doing a little of all of the types of logical reasoning we will learn. For now, take your time and study what has been written carefully. There is much more to this powerful mental model than initially meets the eye. My best to you in your endeavors.

We will continue.

B.S.R.