Абилен қарама-қайшылығы: қателі коммуникация салдарынан туындаған жалған келісім

False consensus due to communication failure

The Abilene paradox is a collective fallacy, in which a group of people collectively decide on a course of action that is counter to the preferences of most or all individuals in the group, while each individual believes it to be aligned with the preferences of most of the others. It involves a breakdown of group communication in which each member mistakenly believes that their own preferences are counter to the group's, and therefore does not raise objections, or even states support for an outcome they do not want. A common phrase related to the Abilene paradox is a desire to not "rock the boat". Like in groupthink, group members jointly decide on a course of action that they would not choose as individuals. However, while in groupthink, individuals undergo self deception and distortion of their own views (driven by, for example, not wanting to suffer in anticipation of a future they sense they cannot avoid by speaking out), in the Abilene Paradox, individuals are unable to perceive the views or preferences of others, or to manage an agreement. The name of the phenomenon comes from an anecdote that Harvey uses in the article to elucidate the paradox:

The Abilene Paradox consists of five components:

The first component refers to mutual agreement of a group that the current situation is not acceptable. However, on the individual level, the members may be satisfied with the existing setting after they have compared it with proposed alternatives. The second component stands for ineffective communication within the group when several members express considerable support for a decision because they assume that is the desire of others. This process of communication reinforces assumptions that individual thoughts are a minority in the group. The third component of the Abilene Paradox is the vocalisation of group sentiment which arose from inaccurate assumptions or incorrect interpretation of the "signals" given by other members. The fourth component refers to the decision maker's reflections on the actions taken, usually in the form of questions as follows: "Why did we do this? ", "How can we justify our decision to others?". The fifth component refers to the defeat of the group leader to poor decision making in order to avoid making similar decisions in the future. There are several factors that may indicate the presence of the Abilene Paradox in the decision making process:

The study at Makerere University Business School described the case of the Abilene Paradox in the process of decision making in 2006: The institution was in a dispute with its parent institution, Makerere University, over its status as an independent university. A meeting of the MUBS Academic Staff Association (MUBASA) was called to discuss the issue, and the attendees voted to support MUBS council's decision to sue the Ministry of Education for interfering in a high court pronouncement. Each member of the association was to contribute towards the legal costs. By interviewing 68 employees, the researcher found that the majority of them never considered it a solution but thought that others strongly support the idea of starting the trial. Chen and Chang conducted a study about the effects, causes, and influences of the Abilene paradox, if any, on their elementary school; and this study involved twelve faculty members. Results of this Abilene paradox study showed a negative effect on the school’s operation, through poor communication, inadequate interaction, isolation, exclusion, and rising gossip.

The theory is often used to help explain poor group decisions, especially notions of the superiority of "rule by committee". For example, Harvey cited the Watergate scandal as a potential instance of the Abilene paradox in action. The Watergate scandal occurred in the United States in the 1970s when many high officials of the Nixon administration colluded in the cover up and perhaps the execution of a break in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters in Washington, D. C. Harvey quotes several people indicted for the coverup as indicating that they had personal qualms about the decision but feared to voice them. In one instance, campaign aide Herbert Porter said that he "was not one to stand up in a meeting and say that this should be stopped", a decision that he attributed to "the fear of the group pressure that would ensue, of not being a team player". The other frequently cited example is the case of Challenger disaster, thought in that case researchers use both the concepts of groupthink and the Abilene paradox as possible explanation of the events. The phenomenon of the Abilene paradox can also be used in information systems development, to conceptualise and operationalise the relationship between systems analysts, users, and other organisational stakeholders in situations of illusory agreement.

Other theories add to the Abilene paradox’s explanation of poor decision making in groups, notably, such phenomena as groupthink and pluralistic ignorance. The concept of groupthink posits that individuals correctly perceive the preferences of others, undergo some form of motivated reasoning, which distorts their true preferences, and then willingly choose to conform; hence, they generally feel positively about the resulting group decisions. The success of groupthink also hinges on the long term homogeneity of the group, which seeks to keep that same cohesiveness and therefore to avoid all potential conflict. However, while groupthink, to some extent, depends on the ability of individuals to perceive attitudes and desires of others, the Abilene paradox hinges on the inability to gage true wants and intentions of group members. The concept of pluralistic ignorance, on the other hand, is also defined as the situation where an individual underestimates the extent to which their views are shared by the other members of the group or organisation. In some ways, pluralistic ignorance can be considered as a factor inciting situations where the Abilene paradox occurs — individuals’ inability to correctly estimate the share of potential supporters lead to the assumption of ‘the worst case scenario’ and in advance mitigation of potential risks of dealing with the opponents. Some researchers consider pluralistic ignorance to be a wider ranging concept: while both groupthink and the Abilene paradox are usually discussed as the detriments to successful group decision making, pluralistic ignorance is sometimes evaluated neutrally.