Marketing to Abilene
The Abilene paradox was introduced about 20 years ago by Jerry Harvey. In a nutshell, it describes the all-too-common phenomenon of groupthink whereby a group of individuals agree on a course of action that none of them truly believes in. It’s a consensus based solely on the lack of dissension. The Abilene paradox is often used to point out the flaws in committees and other working groups, but I think it most importantly points to the organizational need for devilish marketers.
Every successful organization needs a strong devil’s advocate – someone who can stir things up, muddy the waters, and throw a couple of monkey wrenches into the mix just to see what happens. That role should be played by marketing-minded rainmakers. The most effective and successful marketers function as change agents who question every aspect of their business. They have the ability to view the business from the perspective of a disinterested third-party or, even more valuably, as an aggressive competitor hoping to gain market share. Effective marketers understand that it’s their role to lead the organization via strategic insight not via groupthink and vacuous cheerleading.
If, after you’ve given the devil his day in court, everything stills looks perfect and you’re more resolved than ever to proceed as planned, that’s great. But if things look a bit murky, there’s still time to tweak the idea or trash it entirely.
And if you have any doubts about the power of avoiding Abilene-like marketing decisions, consider how differently things might have worked out if someone had asked a devilish question within the following companies:
• AIG: “Does anyone really understand how all this derivative crap works?”
• General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler: “Would it freakin’ kill us to fly to Washington on a commercial jet?”
• Washington Mutual: “Do we really want to be writing mortgages at 105% of home value?”
• Yahoo: “And why exactly do you think we should turn down $44 billion?”
June 21st, 2009 at 20:19
Unfortunately, asking challenging thinking is often career limiting. Internal questioners at Enron were ignored or stomped on. Internal controls at Andersen were ignored and those who tried to enforce them moved out of the way to give client Enron what it wanted.
Ford Harding