A few years ago, I served on the board of a trade association. At one meeting, a proposal was made that the group print a directory of its members to be distributed to potential customers. I, along with a number of others, was ambivalent. After all, why publish a paper directory in a digital world?
Initial discussion centered on this issue. But the person proposing the idea persisted. He forcefully rebutted every concern expressed. He spoke eloquently and passionately and refused to yield a single point. After 30 minutes, we relented partially, I suspect, out of not wanting to foster hard feelings. The funds were approved. The directories were printed and half the 4000 copies were distributed to prospective customers. The response? “Why don’t you put all this on-line?” they asked. “That’s where we search for vendors.” The remaining 2000 directories? They currently sit in a member’s garage.
This is an example of the Abilene Paradox where a group of people decide on a course of action that is counter to the preferences of many in that group. We’ve all done this, probably multiple times. But what impact does this practice have on everyday decision making? In our conflict-avoidant society, it is costing us time, money, effort and, I would argue, personal success. After all, if you relent and just go along with the gang, what are you sacrificing?
The antidote? Speak your mind. Challenge the veracity of those arguing for the proposal. Compel them to provide rational arguments. Will this, at times, cause discomfort? Sure, but so does giving in. Holding your position when you’re not convinced accomplishes more than fostering healthy discussion. It may very well discourage the group from acting on a costly or destructive proposal. Going along when you’re not convinced harms others and damages your integrity.