There are two discussion questions. Please answer both on separate documents. I have attached the questions on a word document as well as the group article. At least 300 words for each Question 1 and

The situations that led to these non-working meetings tend to fall into three categories:1\)dissenting voice.

2\) as anyone can remember \226 therefore we must be \223right\224 now.

3\) After biting our tongues through these exasperating meetings, the next thing we know something blows up \(figuratively or literally\) and we berate ourselves for not having said something. What causes this ineffective \226 actually, dysfunctional \226 behavior and how do we stop it? Let\222s start by putting names to those three situations described above. Avoiding AbilenePage 2 Bea Carson 5/22/2006 \251 2006 Carson Consultants 1187 Neptune Place 410-349-1326 Annapolis, MD 21401 www.carson-consultants.com Scenario 1 \226 Abilene Paradox Your boss recently heard about a great new technology. At a meeting, he asks if that system would accelerate a project that is already behind schedule. Your gut tells you \223this is a bad idea,\224 but no one else seems troubled. Moreover, the undercurrent you believe you heard was \223we must do it.\224 Good money is thrown after bad, trying to blend this new technology into the floundering project. As time goes on, it gets harder to bring it to the attention of your boss.

Finally, when all is lost, the project is scrapped. During the post mortem, the truth comes out \226 everyone had seen the writing on the wall, but had relied on everyone else\222s \223good sense\224 and opted to go along with what they believed was the majority. Dr. Jerry Harvey captures this behavior in the story of Abilene.

The Parable of the Abilene Paradox is a short story about Dr. Harvey\222s family living in West Texas in the early 60s. Four adults \(Jerry, his wife, and his in-laws\) are sitting on a porch in 104-degree heat in the small town of Coleman, Texas, some 53 miles from Abilene. They are engaging in as little motion as possible, drinking lemonade and playing dominoes. At some point, his father-in-law suggests they drive to Abilene to eat at a cafeteria there. Jerry thinks this is a crazy idea but everyone else seems to want to go, so he agrees that it sounds like a good idea. They get in their family car \(which lacks air- conditioning\) and drive through a dust storm to Abilene. They eat a mediocre lunch at the cafeteria and return to Coleman exhausted, hot, and generally unhappy with the experience. It is not until they are back home that it is revealed that none of them really wanted to go to Abilene \226 they were just going along because they thought all the others were eager to go.

Dr. Harvey used this wonderfully simple parable to illustrate what he believes is a major symptom of organizational dysfunction. He warns of the dangers of \223management of agreement\224 \226 as opposed to management of disagreement or conflict.

His unique perspective shows us how we do not engage in deep inquiry or self-disclosure when attempting to come to a consensus with others. If we are certain that everyone else is in agreement, we do not express our own conflicting opinion.

Contrast that with the phenomenon of \223groupthink,\224 where the members of the group all truly believe they are doing the right thing. Avoiding AbilenePage 3 Bea Carson 5/22/2006 \251 2006 Carson Consultants 1187 Neptune Place 410-349-1326 Annapolis, MD 21401 www.carson-consultants.com Scenario 2 \226 Groupthink You have just joined a new team. The first meeting you attend you are down. You hear the history: \223When we brought this to market, we were five years ahead of the competition. We are still regarded as the experts in the field. Our customers adore us and will do whatever we say.\224 Then y Within minutes it is clear to you that \223the gurus\224 are viewed as gods and nothing they say or do is open to question. You take your cue and join the flock in following the lead. Janis identified this phenomenon as \223groupthink.\224 Janis shows that in a mid- to highly-cohesive group the presence of specific foregone conclusions creates a greater probability that the group will demonstrate the symptoms of groupthink. Janis defines the term \223groupthink\224 as \223a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group \205 members\222 striving for unanimity overrides their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action \205 a deterioration of mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment that results from in-group pressures.\224 More simply, if they have always been right, but you suspect that something is amiss, how can you challenge their track record? You are trapped into agreement even if you strongly suspect there is a problem.

In groupthink, the defective decision-making is a result of the participa alternative paths. Rather, they have become so convinced of their prowess that they do not believe they are capable of making a bad decision.

This contrasts the phenomenon known as Organizational Silence, where the group is afraid to contradict a decision made by an authority figure. Avoiding AbilenePage 4 Bea Carson 5/22/2006 \251 2006 Carson Consultants 1187 Neptune Place 410-349-1326 Annapolis, MD 21401 www.carson-consultants.com Scenario 3 \226 Organizational Silence The VP of engineering has invited you into his inner circle; you see this as an extraordinary opportunity The VP gives you an assignment that is totally off the wall. Everyone in the room seems to agree with the VP.

You have some questions, so you raise your queries anyway. Rather than a discussion ensuing \226 the VP chews you out. He gives an ultimatum \226 take the assignment or you are off the team. You acquiesce. As the team leaves the meeting and the VP heads back to his office, the mumbles start. Everyone is agreeing how inane the project is \226 as well as the insanity of the boss.

But \226 the boss is the boss. Morrison and Milliken identified this phenomenon as \223Organizational Silence.\224 Morrison and Milliken illustrate the concept of organizational silence through the story of the Emperor\222s New Clothes . In this story, the emperor believes he has purchased a spectacular garme fools. This being the case, the emperor marches through town in his \223new clothes\224 to see the reaction of the fools among the local gentry. The townsfolk praise the emperor for his exceptional taste in clothing. In organizational silence the same phenomenon is seen. Employees do not speak the truth to their superiors in an effort not to appear foolish. Frequently, they go to the extreme of praising the executive\222s decisions in spite of being aware of the pitfalls associated with it.

Argyris first defined this phenomenon more than a quarter of a century ago. He discussed that there are often powerful norms that prevent employees from saying what they know about issues. This was true for both technical and political issues.

\223don\222t rock the boat,\224 using numerous examples of organizational cultures that espouse that paradigm. Some disguise this under the heading of \223organizational commitment.\224 As Redding points out, employees are expected to be committed to the organization \226 but not the other way around. Under this imbalance of power, employees quickly learn to keep their opinions to themselves. Avoiding AbilenePage 5 Bea Carson 5/22/2006 \251 2006 Carson Consultants 1187 Neptune Place 410-349-1326 Annapolis, MD 21401 www.carson-consultants.com Problem Solving Traditional methods of problem solving tend to follow a similar pattern. A memo is issued indicating \223we\224 need to get together to solve a specific problem. When the group enters the room, typically two or three people have already determined what the solution is. These ringleaders tend to have very dominant personalities and spend the session talking past each other, each attempting to prove that he has the right solution. In the best of circumstances this will lead to a lively debate; traditionally, it leads to one of the dysfunctional scenarios described above.

The key consequence experienced by dysfunctional organizations is defective decision- making, which arises because:

1\) 2\) been stifled; 3\) 4\) All lead to poor decision-making.

In the Fifth Discipline, Peter Senge describes a learning organization \226 where individuals continually expand their ability to create, where continual learning is not only encouraged but also nurtured. Collective aspirations are set free and individuals are always supported in their efforts to discover how to learn with each other.

To end the dysfunctional behaviors that have led to defective decision-making, the organization needs a significant change in culture. The philosophy needs to be changed from one that has prized the old way of doing business to one that values the elements of a learning organization. Action Learning is a powerful tool for creating this change in culture. It breaks the old mold of doing business and replaces it with one that respects and values questioning. Avoiding AbilenePage 6 Bea Carson 5/22/2006 \251 2006 Carson Consultants 1187 Neptune Place 410-349-1326 Annapolis, MD 21401 www.carson-consultants.com ACTION LEARNING Action Learning is a dynamic process for problem solving, building teams, and developing leaders. It consists of six components:

1\) 2\) 3\) 4\) 5\) 6\) Action Learning is a powerful method of building mutual respec training program. It teaches people to continually question, creating an environment where \223because that\222s the way we have always done it\224 becomes an unacceptable answer. I employees to handle the permanent white water that is part of everyday life. I motion that allows strategies to be continually flexible.

Action Learning is effective for solving dilemmas of all sizes. It is most powerful for solving problems that require creative, out-of-the-box solutions. \(It is ineffective for puzzles, that is, problems with a single solution.\) Senge describes a need to get away from institutional training and generate a learning environment; Action Learning crea environment. It teaches people to question and think about how to do it better, rather than blindly continue the old way of doing tasks. Action Learning Coaching The Action Learning coach brings the power of individual coaching to the group level, but is even more powerful because Action Learning groups work only on real problems requiring real solutions. The action learning coach not only establishes rapport with the group members but also builds empathy between group members. Through the Action Learning process the group members self-awareness is not only raised by the coach, but also by virtue of the of the process. Rather than setting goals for the group, the coach leads the group to set its own goals. The feedback from the coach takes the group to a deeper level of learning. Instead of just focusing on \223what\224 has transpired, the coach leads the group to understanding the \223how\224 and \223why\224 of its actions. Finally, by focusing the group on learning, rather than just solving a problem, the coach takes the group to extraordinary levels of renewal and growth.

The Action Learning process on the surface appears fairly simple but, in truth, is extremely powerful. Avoiding AbilenePage 7 Bea Carson 5/22/2006 \251 2006 Carson Consultants 1187 Neptune Place 410-349-1326 Annapolis, MD 21401 www.carson-consultants.com Action Learning Process A typical action learning session starts with the coach esta coach will have one participant state, in two to three minutes, the problem the group needs to consider. \(The time limit on this prevents the team members from being led down a pre-resolve path.\) At this point, the problem solving begins, with team members asking questions of each other, as well as the person who presented the problem. In addition, the presenter asks questions. With each question, the seeds of the solution are planted.

During the questioning, the coach listens for learning opportunities; they present themselves in several forms. The simplest is an early intervention. This one takes place typically within the first ten minutes of a session. The purpose is to determine how the group has started as a team, but more important, it is a time to insure everyone is participating.

The other two opportunities the coach looks for are:1\) 2\) On each occasion, the coach will test how the group feels it is doing \226 digging deeper. Through this process, the team will discover if there are issues they have been hiding below the table and surface them, allowing the air to be cleared of the tension, and the group to focus energies on being a better team and solving the prime issue.

The problem solving is done in two stages. The first focuses on coming to a consensus as to what the problem is. As has been seen in many Action Learning sets \226 the conflict that is typically presented is merely a symptom of the true problem. The coach plays a key role in insuring the group reaches consensus on the problem before allowing the group to move to the solution stage. The coach accomplishes this by recognizing when the conversation shifts from dissecting the problem to moving to a solution. When the coach becomes aware of During this intervention, the coach will have each person write down what he or she understands the problem to be. Once everyone has written his or her concept of the issue, each member will read what he or she has written. This exercise of writing and reading \223the problem\224 forces individuals to each consider what each believes is the conflict. Avoiding AbilenePage 8 Bea Carson 5/22/2006 \251 2006 Carson Consultants 1187 Neptune Place 410-349-1326 Annapolis, MD 21401 www.carson-consultants.com Typically, the participants do not have consensus during a first intervention of this nature.

The power of this exercise is seen in the questions that follow this intervention. As the participants hear what others believe the problem to be, they recognize aspects they had not previously seen. Many first time participants of Action Learning find this process frustrating; they are used to jumping into the solution mode of problem solving without considering what the real problem is. What they quickly discover is that as they dissect the troubling situation, they are actually planting the seeds for the solution. Regardless of how certain the participants were of the nature of the problem when they entered the problem-solving session, this exercise quickly opens their eyes to other possibilities. Pattern of learning Action Learning groups tend to show similar patterns. The process starts slowly \226 the members typically find it hard to ask questions. After the first intervention, the process begins to pick up; the coach draws all members into the conversation and helps them figure out how to communicate better. In addition to determining how to ask better questions, and work better as a team, the coach probes to insure the members know why certain actions will work better. Action Learning coaches restrict their participation to asking questions, and letting the members find the answers for themselves. This questioning process forces the participants to reflect \226 thinking about the impact of their actions. With each intervention, the participation becomes more intense.

Particularly exciting sessions occur when a group reconvenes after taking a night off. The subconscious \226 having worked all night on the learnings and the problems \226 creates an intense fire when the group reconvenes in the morning. This new relationship between the group members infiltrates their day-to-day activities from that moment forward; conversations shift from statements to questions because those who have participated in action learning realize the real power is determining what is not known, not showing off what is known. The Action Learning coach is the catalyst who causes this transformation to occur. Action Learning \226 Answer to Organizational Dysfunction Action learning focuses on questions \226 asking questions to fully understand the problem before moving to a solution phase. As Marquardt stated, in Action Learning in Action , "By focusing on the right questions rather than the right answers, action learning focuses on what one does not know, as well as what one does know." Action learning is more than problem solving; Pedler tells us it encourages the participants to also reflect on the learning and personal Avoiding AbilenePage 9 Bea Carson 5/22/2006 \251 2006 Carson Consultants 1187 Neptune Place 410-349-1326 Annapolis, MD 21401 www.carson-consultants.com development. This questioning and reflection is so new to many of us that the first time participants engage in an action learning session they tend to start very slowly. Groups must be able to identify and confront their dysfunctional behavior.

Empowerment One of the key elements of Action Learning is that the group must be empowere something about the decisions they reach. More than just being empowered, the group is required to define, specifically, what will be done as a result of their action learning set. For Action Learning to work at its peak, the groups should work only on real problems that are in their purview to resolve. The group will take greater ownership in the process if it will be expected to follow through with the solutions that were determined. This requirement can be met in one of two ways \226 either the person with authority is a member of the Action Learning set or the person with authority gives authority to the group.

Within an Action Learning set, all participants are equal. Eve hierarchies within the organization are present, their rank is quickly forgotten during the problem processing. If this equality does not happen naturally through learning interventions, the coach will ensure that it happens. The coach does this simply by asking questions that bring the group to understanding the power bestowed by working as equals. Diversity The coach generates participation of all members through learning interventions. During these interventions, the coach draws everyone into the conversation. The coach accomplishes this in two ways: the first, through asking questions that all members must answer; the second, by asking questions during the learning interventions that lead participants to understand the importance of diverse views. Negative Feedback Avoidance The coach helps the group to come to better means of proce within the group. As these issues, which lie below the surface are recognized, the coach will ask questions to expose the internal conflict. This airing of these issues allows the team to move past them \226 preventing them from further interfering with the interactions of the group members. Cultural Issues A marked change can be seen in how members of the group behave in all future encounters.

This change is seen not only in verbal communications, but also in written communications.

After participating in an Action Learning set the members quickly discover the power of questions.

They learn that the true power in problem resolution is to ask questions about the aspects they do not Avoiding AbilenePage 10 Bea Carson 5/22/2006 \251 2006 Carson Consultants 1187 Neptune Place 410-349-1326 Annapolis, MD 21401 www.carson-consultants.com understand. They come to understand that by making statements and showing off what they know, they learn nothing new. This shift in attitude has been seen repeatedly with Action Learning groups \226 chance meetings in the hall as well as email exchange focus on asking questions to expand knowledge as opposed to making statements that simply shifted approach to problem solving brings the group to discover powerful out-of-the box solutions they had not considered in the past. Conclusion As Barnard stated, in Functions of the Executive , more than a half century ago, \223\205a fundamental element of organizational functioning is individuals with diverse skill and experiences coming together to work and solve problems.\224 In today\222s white water world of change, this definition is inadequate \226 before solving the problem, individuals must FULLY understand the problem.

The atmosphere of an Action Learning session goes beyond encouraging the use of questions to solve problems \226 it makes it a requirement. By doing this, individuals who had been afraid to question a defective decision now have a forum where it is a mandatory \226 and safe \226 mode of operating.

In each of the dysfunctional modes described at the beginning participants had stopped questioning. Worse than not questioning the solution, they did not question the nature of the problem. In the Abilene Paradox \226 no one questions because believes everyone, other than him or herself, is in agreement. In groupthink, the members of the group believe they are above question. In organizational silence, the members know better than to question the boss.

Action Learning brings back the epistemological curiosity that takes us to new heights of learning. Initially, the questioning is a mandatory the first sessions, participants embrace the power of questions, not only during planned problem solving, but also as a way of life. Avoiding AbilenePage 11 Bea Carson 5/22/2006 \251 2006 Carson Consultants 1187 Neptune Place 410-349-1326 Annapolis, MD 21401 www.carson-consultants.com RECOMMENDED READING Janis, I., 1972, Victims of Groupthink . Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Janis, I., 1982, Groupthink . Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Harvey, J., 1988, The Abilene Paradox and Other Meditations on Management . San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Marquardt, M.J., 2004, Optimizing the Power of Action Learning . Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black Publishing.

Morrison, E.W. and F.J. Milliken, 2000. Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world.

Academy of Management. The Academy Management Review, 25 \(4\): p. 706.

Senge, P.M., 1994, The fifth dis . New York: Currency Doubleday.

ADDITIONAL READING Argyris, C., 1977. Double Loop Learning in Organizations. Harvard Business Review, 55 \(5\): p.

115.

Argyris, C., 1991. Teaching smart people how to learn. Harvard Business Review, 69 \(3\).

Barnard, C.I., 1938, The functions of the executive . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Freire, P., 2000, Pedagogy of Freedom . Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publ Marquardt, M.J., 1999, Action Learning in Action . Palo Alto, CA: Black-Davies Publishing.

Pedler, M., 1997, Action Learning in Practice . Brookfield, VT: Gower.

Redding, W.C., 1985, Rocking Boats, Blowing Whistles, and Teaching Spreech Communication., in Communication Education. National Communication Association. p.

245.