I don't know if there is anybody who has managed to survive a fire-service education program without hearing about the proverbial “trip to Abilene.” Those who recall it will remember it as a story about “going along to get along,” and the negative consequences of such behavior. The trip to Abilene often has been characterized as a “group-think scenario” in which a bunch of people who don't want to do something convince each other that they should do it because they all agreed that it needs to be done. Afterwards they all regretted it. Have you ever been there yourself?
The Abilene paradox first was introduced in 1988 by management expert Jerry B. Harvey in his article, “The Abilene Paradox and other Meditations on Management.” The name of the phenomenon comes from an anecdotal story that Harvey used to illustrate the paradox. I always found it interesting that the story actually started in Coleman, Texas, but that is only a personal bias.
Many trips to Abilene start around staff tables in fire departments. One of the characteristics of the trip to Abilene is that individuals are not honest with each another about their true feelings and subsequently allow consensus for the wrong thing to be built up. Harvey suggests in his theory that some of our problems emerge from not being able to manage agreements as well as we should.
It is bad enough if you take a trip to Abilene. But it is even worse if you, as fire chief, are buying the bus tickets for everybody else to take the same trip.
This month's column is really aimed at the idea that consensus building has another side. That side is consequence assessment of group think. Let's take an issue, any issue on which you need to obtain consensus to move forward. What can you do to avoid the Abilene phenomenon? The answer is amazingly simple and at the same time intensely complex. The solution to avoiding the trip to disaster is getting the organization to operate with a trusting mood before the crisis occurs. You have to develop candidness in communication. But creating candidness and comfort at the same time is not an easy task.
In previous columns I have talked about concepts of trust and loyalty. I suppose I am suggesting that you revisit both of these concepts in the context of this topic. This is because trust and loyalty are not the sort of thing that you build up under crisis. They are built up under the best of circumstances, in which individuals feel free to express their opinions without negative reaction. When negative reaction does exist, it can create a poor environment for consensus building. Sometimes people are afraid to speak their minds - the result invariably is group think.
What I am talking about is the process of engaging in meaningful dialogue when involved in a crisis. Most everyone today recognizes that polarization has many negative consequences. All one has to do is take a look at the political world today and realize that polar politics are making it almost impossible to develop good public policies.
My recommendation for dealing with controversy is that both sides set clear guidelines regarding human behavior before they attempt to resolve the problem. Those guidelines should stress that both sides of the debate should frame their arguments based on facts, instead of on their emotions. When two or more people can deal with each other with the confidence that they both are looking at the same facts, people feel more comfortable expressing their opinions. Further, candidness requires both parties to simultaneously be accountable to listen to the other side's point of view — even if they don't like it.
If there has ever been a time when the fire service needed to avoid bad consensus building, it is now. This phenomenon plays itself out in labor relations, budget reduction exercises dealing with organizational change and a whole host of activities.
The next time you are sitting down around the table and you are beginning to face a problem that you realize is going to have consequences, will you perform a mental health check to make sure that everybody is looking at the problem the same way? If you can't honestly say that you know what to expect during a meeting, then it is possible that you got on the bus to Abilene.
Going along to get along might be desirable at the beginning of the trip but it is unlikely to be a satisfying experience when you arrive at the destination. Harvey followed up his article with a book entitled, How Come Every Time I Get Stabbed in the Back, My Fingerprints are on the Knife. I can't help but think that he recognized that many trips to Abilene were initiated by the very person that is supposed to stop them from happening. That person is the leader.
Ronny J. Coleman has served as fire chief in Fullerton and San Clemente, Calif., and was the fire marshal of the state of California from 1992 to 1999. He is a certified fire chief and a master instructor in the California Fire Service Training and Education System.
Subscribe
Subscribe
Subscribe
Subscribe
Subscribe
Subscribe
