Breaking the Slience
"Creating a Culture of Inclusivity and Empowerment for Camp Staff and Campers"
Key Takeaways:
Encouraging open dialogue and diverse perspectives among camp staff can help prevent the pitfalls of pluralistic ignorance, the Abilene paradox, and groupthink, ultimately leading to better decision-making and improved camp experiences.
By providing training, mentorship, and a safe space for staff to voice concerns, camps can build a culture where everyone feels empowered to speak up, challenge traditions when necessary, and contribute to a positive and inclusive camp environment.
Harvey and his family are sitting at home in Coleman, Texas. It's super hot. There is AC, but it's not keeping up with the demand. It's 1974, and there is nothing on the three TV channels. Everyone is hot and bored, but no one has the energy or motivation to do anything. Harvey suggests that they take a trip to neighboring Abilene to get ice cream at the place they all like. His wife thinks it 'sounds like a great idea,' and the rest of his family agrees and quietly climbs into the car to make the hour-long drive in the 100-degree heat. Remember, this is the 1970s, so think vinyl faux-leather seats and no AC.
They get to Abilene and eat their ice cream, but no one seems that happy, including Harvey. So he asks them if they are having fun, and as he expects, everyone gives him a moderated answer. Harvey realizes that no one wants to be there, that they have taken a trip that no one wanted to go on, to eat ice cream that no one asked for. Each mistakenly believed that their own preferences ran counter to the group's, and therefore didn't raise objections to prevent the trip from happening. No one wanted to rock the boat.
The family had fallen victim to the Abilene paradox - succumbing to an action that none of them desired simply because they all thought everyone else wanted to do it. As Harvey drove his cranky, overheated family back home, he reflected on how they could have avoided this situation with better communication.
‘Harvey’ is Jerry B. Havey, and he first wrote about the Abilene paradox in 1974. The paradox outlines a similar idea seen in psychology known as Pluralistic Ignorance. This is a psychological phenomenon that occurs when individuals privately reject a belief, idea, or norm but incorrectly assume that others have accepted it. This results in people going along with something they do not personally agree with.
There are several key connections between pluralistic ignorance and the Abilene paradox:
- They both involve people conforming publicly to something they disagree with privately because of incorrect perceptions about the beliefs of others.
- In both cases, people are behaving in ways that contradict their internal preferences due to these mistaken assumptions.
- Pluralistic ignorance reinforces groupthink and silences dissenting voices, just as the Abilene paradox does.
Here is a video of the Asch conformity experiment, a classic example of this, and an example of conformity on steroids.
And here is another where despite the clear danger, most participants did not react or raise alarms as long as confederates ignored the smoke.
So what's this got to do with Camp?
Everything.
Because as Camp staff, we are largely agreeable people that work closely together so can easily fall victim to both these phenomena. Second, we assemble large groups of young people that are at a stage in their lives where they worry about fitting in and being part of the group.
So let's start small and work our way to scary and then try and combat this.
Meetings.
Most meetings are a waste of time. They are too long, could be an email or a quick chat, and why do we schedule them in 60-minute blocks? Why not 17 minutes? Oh well, whatever, never mind.
But that's not even close to the real problem. Looking at meetings through a Pluralistic ignorance/Abilene Lens, we see the true dysfunction of so many of our meetings. They are dysfunctional because we go into them with the goal of building consensus in a short period of time. We call a meeting, the supervisor suggests an idea, maps out its execution, and asks for thoughts or feedback. Often, agreement is reached because no one speaks out against the plan, and then a small amount of time is spent refining the plan's rollout.
We have often reached a false consensus simply because no one has spoken out. Younger and less experienced team members may not have voiced their doubts or disagreements regarding plans, ideas, or suggestions because they came from leadership or an experienced colleague. Team members from minority groups sit in silence, feeling their alternative perspective will not be fully understood or even welcomed, and everyone goes along assuming everyone else is on board. Remember, our industry is a world leader in "that's how we have always done it," so we must be extra vigilant.
At Camp, our small isolated teams also become our circle of friends, which creates additional pressure to conform and reach quick consensus, often glossing over unresolved conflicts, and further silencing minority viewpoints. People worry about appearing negative or obstructionist if they critique suggestions or slow down the process. Discussions gravitate towards maintaining social cohesion versus weighing facts because there is a good chance that right after the meeting, we are all leaving together to serve lunch and wash dishes, and we need to remain on speaking terms as much as possible.
But it doesn't need to be this way, and we can easily combat our groupthink if you make yourself aware of the Abilene paradox and the Pluralistic ignorance. If you see a team member that seems to disagree or looks uncomfortable and is remaining silent, you can invite them to speak up and give their position. 'Breeze, you seem in thought; we would love to hear any concerns you have.' Or you can state the alternative yourself, playing devil's advocate, opening the door to a wider discussion. When others speak out, even if it's in opposition to your idea, listen to what they are saying, acknowledge what they have said, and thank them for speaking up.
I have developed, for better or worse, a reputation as the person that speaks up in meetings. But this isn't something that comes naturally to me. It's something I developed over time. It's because I remember what it was like to be the minority and junior voice. But when I do give a contrarian view in meetings, it's amazing how fast others agree and how quickly the direction of the conversation changes to explore other avenues.
We can also do a lot outside of meetings. One of the things that all my teams have developed over time is radical candor. This is partly because I have no filter and my teams quickly learn to live with me saying out-of-pocket shit that challenges them and flies in the face of orthodoxy, but they also learn the advantages of doing the same, and we are able to have very open conversations all the time. Calling each other out for misdeeds and bad ideas and making jokes about issues that reveal truths that would be uncomfortable if they were addressed directly. To the outsider, it may look dysfunctional, but I feel it's always been our secret sauce, and cultivating a workplace with open and honest dialogue quickly turns teams into superstars if done safely (I might write about how this works another time).
I also believe we should all have strong opinions loosely held. It's pretty easy to change my mind about most things, as long as you present good data and a good vision. This can be frustrating for my teams, but I think we need to regularly check our thinking and verify we still have consensus on a subject. People's thinking doesn't stop at the end of the meeting, and they may take time thinking something over before they see all the options. If you're in charge, don't be annoyed if someone changes their opinion, and don't be afraid to admit that someone has had a better idea even after you have started something. We have a tendency to continue an endeavor once an investment in money, effort, or time has been made, even when continuing may not be the best decision.
For our seasonal staff, the paradox manifests differently. Camp is completely overwhelming for new staff. The culture, the songs, the living conditions, it's all a lot to take in. As veterans, we simply accept things as they are because that's how they have always been. New staff may go along with camp traditions or activities they privately don't enjoy, assuming other staff value those things. I remember in 1997 being appalled at our camp "Indian Pageant" and feeling ostracized for speaking out as others simply thought it a cool tradition with flaming arrows and a battle that involved throwing fire. I remember being relieved yet still uncomfortable when it became the "Native American Pageant" in 2001. But what I remember most was the feeling of not belonging when I spoke up and how others vilified my descent. I really thought twice about speaking out that summer. Moving on, because I clearly haven’t after 25 years.
(What i didn’t know is that my Camp Director felt the same way. He wrestled each year with the idea of canaceling at tradition that might be seen as offesive and holding on to one of the most beloved parts of camp.)
Does anyone actually enjoy making and eating s'more? Kids with fire and molten sugar is a horrendous stress for all involved, but we go along with it week after week, summer after summer. Our inexperienced staff might feel the same way about this and the myriad of little traditions and cultural norms each camp holds dear. They also conform to norms around behavior and speech even if many individuals disagree. Add staff from eight different countries into the mix; things get even more complicated. This goes well beyond laughing at a joke or banter they find offensive, thinking others find it harmless fun. When we have strong cultures of compliance and strong personalities (Camps have both), it can exacerbate the Abilene paradox and lead to detrimental outcomes.
In camps there is a pretty strict boundary between campers and staff. But there are also artificial hierarchies and power structures between first-year staff, returning staff, and elevated or senior positions. There is a power dynamic at work on every at Camp. From who is dating who, to who is hired to work in older and younger cabins, or which staff are partnered together. All the decisions we make are being analyzed through a lens of staff favor and individual prestige by those who it effects. Small, insignificant decisions we make have weight and social consequences. This is because most of our staff culture is built when we are not present. It's the on-the-job training from peers, and the conversations at meals during orientation that have the most infulence on our new staff. It's the staff that didn't get promoted over the winter telling staff that 'though that's what they have told us, that's not what we really do.' Our staff culture is also what happens at night and on weekends.
This leads to an environment where younger, newer, and more junior staff are unlikely to challenge protocols or speak up when instructions seem questionable or harmful. In these situations, they default to group obedience. When vocal or opinionated (and sometimes aggressive) team members push certain agendas or solutions, others may acquiesce to avoid conflict even if they have expertise showing a different path is better. It is at these times we need strong staff the most. It’s the times when we hear someone standing on a roof yelling 'hey guys, check this out,its when staff get into a crowded car with a drunk driver, its when our staff are lined up to jump from a bridge into dark water, its these times when we need staff to say stop, yet its these times they are most likely to be silent. Our staff are afraid to be the dissenting voice because the drive to be part of the group is so strong. Its not just poor meetings, this is the dark side of these two priciples
At weekends, either on or off camp, this gets amplified further. Camps with European staff, who come from countries with different drinking ages and drinking cultures, go out with people that are the same age but without the same experiences. We have staff unsupervised away from home, often for the first time. As staff succumb to the pressure of fitting in, things can turn dark quickly, and we cannot expect staff to speak out to stop things happening right in front of them.
(Warning - This video can be quite distressing. It's Jackie Fox (Jackie Fuchs) discussing the events immediately after she was sexually assaulted in high school. Jackie doesn't talk about being raped in this video. Jackie talks about the other people that were there, saw it, and said nothing. It shows the powerful effects of Pluralistic Ignorance. Though difficult to hear, it's important that we watch videos like this because it shows us that we can't expect our young staff to speak out due to the overwhelming need to be part of a group.)
What can we do to keep our meetings productive and our kids and staff safe?
Leaders should set the expectation that disagreement and debate are welcome rather than shamed. Make it psychologically safe to voice concerns. Emphasize this in trainings, model it yourself. Ask for anonymous feedback using surveys to uncover what people really think before or after meetings, and about the culture. This avoids distorting effects of perception. This also starts to create an environment where staff feel that coming forward is safe and beneficial to everyone. Do this with small things, and people will come forward with big things.
In meetings, designate someone to play devil's advocate to question assumptions and challenge the prevailing view. Take turns articulating the counterargument or minority viewpoint to practice advocacy skills. Slow down decision-making and take breaks to ensure actual consensus rather than rushing into false agreement.
During staff summer training, teach about pluralistic ignorance, discuss hypothetical scenarios involving the paradox and how to shift the dynamics. Share examples of times the paradox led the group astray to underscore the need for transparency. Use camper interactions as an example for learning. Teach staff to look for body language that signals a camper is uncomfortable at the ropes course, and then extend this to signs that a camper is uncomfortable going along with the group's version of an event following an incident. Use campers as the model for creating a safe space that allows people to speak up.
The key is making it normal to question, doubt, and debate respectfully. Developing these discussion habits prevents the Abilene paradox from emerging.
