Imagine this: your boss invites you to her housewarming party. She intentionally seeks an intimate gathering and isn’t particularly thrilled about your presence, yet she invites you because she thinks you might want to join the fun. So, you attend, even though you’d rather take a scenic hike with your kids, convinced that your boss is genuinely excited to have you there.
This scenario illustrates a curious phenomenon where individuals in a team make choices that contradict their true desires. Each person assumes that the others are on board, so they stifle their honest feelings to fit what they believe is the group consensus. There’s a sociological term for this phenomenon: The Abilene Paradox.
Take another scenario: in a meeting, the HR manager suggests a wellness program designed to reduce stress, trusting it’ll be a crowd-pleaser, even though she thinks it’s a bit foolish. Each team member harbors doubts, seeing the program as a distraction, but nobody speaks up. Afraid of being seen as a downer, they all nod in agreement, despite thinking it’s a terrible idea. In this case, a group makes a collective decision that contradicts the individual preferences of its members, often due to poor communication and a desire to avoid conflict.
The Abilene Paradox is a groupthink mistake that highlights the pitfalls of collective decision-making, resulting in wasted resources and frustration within the team. George Washington University management professor Jerry B. Harvey coined the term in his 1974 article, “The Abilene Paradox: The Management of Agreement.” The name stems from an amusing anecdote about a family trip, which can be summarized as follows.
On a blistering summer afternoon in Texas, a husband and wife languished on their porch, feeling utterly bored. The husband suggested a road trip to Abilene, thinking it would provide a refreshing change of scenery. Little did he know, his wife had reservations but kept quiet, hoping to please him. Their daughter, eavesdropping on their conversation, also opted not to voice her disinterest, believing she should join them if her parents wanted to go.
They packed the car and hit the road, despite none of them truly wanting to embark on this adventure. The journey was filled with discomfort and dissatisfaction. Finally, as they settled down to eat in Abilene, the truth came to light: none of them had wanted to go in the first place. Each family member had gone along with the plan, driven by false assumptions and a desire to avoid conflict, leading to a decision that nobody genuinely supported.
The Abilene Paradox underscores key ideas:
- People may wrongly assume everyone agrees, creating a false sense of consensus—False Consensus.
- Individuals often stay silent to avoid conflict, leading to decisions no one truly supports—Desire to Avoid Conflict.
- Poor communication keeps people from sharing their real thoughts, reinforcing the paradox—Communication Breakdown.
To combat the Abilene Paradox and avoid agreeing to decisions that no one truly supports just to evade conflict, foster a culture that encourages open disagreement—your team should feel safe voicing differing opinions. You’ll make decisions that genuinely reflect the group’s interests. You’ll avoid false consensus and ensure you gain authentic buy-in from everyone involved.
Consider a tense cricket match as an example. Two batsmen at the crease find themselves in a dilemma when one hits a powerful shot toward deep cover. Both instinctively start to run, assuming the other wants a run, but they’re well aware of the risk of a run-out. Yet, neither communicates their intentions. The fielder hits the stumps just as one batsman reaches the crease, resulting in a narrow run-out. This example illustrates that clear communication—such as calling “yes” to run or “no” to stay put—could’ve prevented the misunderstanding and reduced the risk of a run-out.
Idea for Impact: Just because everyone’s enthusiastically agreeing with you doesn’t mean they genuinely support your idea. Keep that in mind when everyone claims to love your latest and greatest suggestion.
Defining a problem with a specific solution already in mind can limit your perspective and obscure the real root causes. This narrow focus often results in quick, ineffective decisions that miss the mark.
Creativity is hardwired in us. Watch a four-year-old for an hour, and you’ll see a mind brimming with inventions—imaginary friends, wild stories, makeshift gadgets. Without fear or judgment, she’ll explore, question, and reimagine the world.
The makers and operators of the RMS Titanic were so confident in their shipbuilding that its Captain, Edward Smith, one of the world’s most experienced sea captains at the time, had famously declared a few years earlier about another company ship, the RMS Adriatic, “I cannot imagine any condition which would cause a ship to founder. I cannot conceive of any vital disaster happening to this vessel. Modern shipbuilding has gone beyond that.” Well, we all know how the Titanic’s maiden voyage turned out.
When someone asks, “What’s your leadership or managerial style?” the best response often comes down to, “It depends.”
Whenever someone uses that insidious phrase, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” I hear a message of 
In .jpg "'Because Internet' by Gretchen McCulloch (ISBN 0735210934)")
Age and creativity 
You can’t solve a problem unless you fully understand it. The quality of your solution is usually tied to how well you define the problem, as the often-misattributed quote goes, “If I had an hour to solve a problem, I’d spend 55 minutes thinking about the problem and five minutes thinking about solutions.
The prevailing belief suggests that the more access we have to information, the greater our knowledge and, subsequently, our wisdom.