Silence isn’t Golden
Often, we assume silence is agreement, and that is a mistake. Worse still, silence can appear metaphorically in polite, verbalised agreement, which carries even higher risk. Let’s take a look at subpar decision making from the angle of mismanaging agreement, rather than the more often discussed mismanagement of conflict.
Take the Abilene Paradox. This was coined by Jerry Harvey, Professor of Management Science at George Washington University. The premise is this: while visiting his in-laws, they all left a comfortable afternoon playing dominoes in front of a fan to go on a stifling four-hour round trip to a café across the desert, when none of them wanted to go.
How did this happen? Manners. Manners are what happened, along with poor communication. The father-in-law thought his guests might be bored, suggested the trip, and then all the others agreed and went along with it, despite it being uncomfortably hot and time-consuming, while the food at the destination itself was below average.
The subpar decision making was not due to an inability to manage conflict, but an inability to manage agreement.
“Applying this to organizations, the Abilene Paradox can be stated succinctly as follows: Organizations frequently take actions in contradiction to the data they have for dealing with problems and, as a result, compound their problems rather than solve them.” (Harvey, 1974)
Symptoms of the Abilene Paradox
The problem is not conflict; it is mismanaged agreement. Organisations caught in the Abilene Paradox are not arguing but they are not speaking up and thus aligning around something nobody actually wants.
Here is what that looks like:
1. Private clarity
Individually, people know the situation is fine. They are content and no real problem exists. A change has been decided on, too quickly, with no stress testing or clear strategic vision.
2. Private solutions
Individually, they also know the sensible course of action. Often, it is simply to continue as they are.
3. Public distortion
But they do not say this and instead, they signal agreement with a direction they do not believe in.
4. Collective misfire
Based on that distorted data, the group makes a decision that none of them actually support.
5. Frustration and blame
The outcome is irritation, resentment, and finger-pointing. Subgroups form, blaming authority and each other.
6. Repeat cycle
If the pattern is not surfaced, it repeats and the intensity gets worse.
This becomes particularly dangerous at board level and during transformation. Strategic shifts are often framed as necessary momentum, and dissent can be misread as resistance. Directors may privately question pace, sequencing, or risk exposure, yet publicly endorse the narrative of urgency. The result is change without clarity. Transformation then becomes activity rather than strategy. At board level, the cost of mismanaged agreement is not discomfort; it is capital allocation, reputational exposure, and long-term value. The discipline is simple but rare: surface real concerns before committing to irreversible decisions.
How to Mitigate
Abilene is prevented upstream and leaders must actively separate courtesy from consent. Ask for disconfirming views. Invite private positions before public votes. Normalise phrases such as, “What problem are we actually trying to solve?” and “If we did nothing, what would happen?”. This means that agreement should be tested, not assumed.
Harvey, J. B. (1974). The Abilene paradox: The management of agreement. Organizational Dynamics, 3(1), 63–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(74)90005-9