The Abilene Paradox and Groupthink seem very similar and even some researchers confuse the two concepts. To make this vagueness clear, this article seeks to make distinctions between the two concepts. The differences between the two involve nine point: (1) group cohesiveness; (2) leadership style; (3) stress from external threats; (4) private views vs. group illusion; (5) coerced vs. voluntary; (6) dissatisfaction vs. satisfaction; (7) passive vs. active attitudes; (8) blamer vs. mind guards; and (9) fear of separation vs. cohesiveness. This article concludes that the group in the Abilene Paradox is in a state of “low energy” and the group in Groupthink is in a state of “high energy.”
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
DyerWilliam G. (1987). “Overcoming Unhealthy Agreement,” Team Building Issues and Alternatives, 2nd ed. Boston: Addison-Wesley.
2.
FestingerL., RiechenH., and SchacterS. (1956). When Prophecy Fails.Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press.
3.
GolembiewskiRobert T. (1979). Approaches to Planned Change, Vols. 1 and 2. New York: Marcel Dekker.
4.
GolembiewskiRobert T. (1996). Ironies in Organization Development.Mew Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
5.
HarveyJerry B. (1974, 1988). “The Abilene Paradox: The Management of Agreement.” Organizational Dynamics17 (Summer): 16–34.
6.
HarveyJerry B. (1977). “Consulting During Crises of Agreement,” in BurkeW. Warner (ed.). Current Issues and Strategies in Organization Development.New York: Human Science Press.
7.
HarveyJerry B. and AlbertsonRichard (1971). “Neurotic Organizations: Symptoms, Causes, and Treatment.” Parts 1 and 2. Personnel Journal50.
8.
JanisIrving L. (1982). Groupthink.Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
9.
MirandaShaila M. and SaundersCarol (1995). “Group Support Systems: An Organization Development Intervention to Combat Groupthink.” Public Administration Quarterly19(2) (Summer): 193–216.
10.
RavenBertram H. (1974). “The Nixon Group.” Journal of Social Issues30(4).
11.
RossBernard H. (2000). Cases in Organization Development.New York: F.E. Peacock.
12.
SauserWilliam I.Jr. (1988). “Injecting Contrast: A Key to Quality Decisions.” Advanced Management Journal53 (Autumn):20–23.
13.
ShafritzJay M. and StevenJ. Ott (eds.) (1996). Classics of Organization Theory.4th ed.Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace.
14.
TjosvoldDean (1986). “Constructive Controversy: A Key Strategy for Groups.” Personnel63 (April):30–44.
