Understanding the Abilene Paradox: Why Our Decisions Often Lead Us Astray

In other words, it's a failure to manage agreement: people go along with a proposal to avoid rocking the boat, only to discover later that everyone privately opposed the plan. The result is often frustration, wasted effort, and outcomes that leave all parties bewildered at how they ended up on a road nobody wanted to travel.

Business leaders and HR professionals encounter the Abilene Paradox more often than they might realize. A project gets green-lit because no one voiced objections in the meeting -- later, it turns out every team member had doubts. Or an HR policy is adopted with unanimous smiles, while behind closed doors everyone grumbles. Understanding why our decisions often lead us astray in such scenarios is crucial. This report delves deeply into the Abilene Paradox: its origins, psychological underpinnings, impact on organizations, and -- most importantly -- how to prevent group decisions from derailing due to mismanaged agreement. We'll explore scientific research and real-world case studies, providing business-focused insights into avoiding this all-too-common trap.

The Origins of the Abilene Paradox

The term "Abilene Paradox" was coined by management expert Jerry B. Harvey in 1974, based on an illustrative anecdote from his own life. Harvey recounted a hot afternoon in Coleman, Texas, where he and his family were comfortably relaxing on the porch, enjoying lemonade and a game of dominoes. Suddenly, his father-in-law suggested a 50-mile trip to the city of Abilene for dinner -- a long, dusty ride in 104° heat.

Jerry had reservations about this idea (the drive would be miserable, and he wasn't even hungry), but he kept those thoughts to himself. Not wanting to seem unsupportive, he said, "Sounds good to me," assuming the others really wanted to go. His wife also felt it was a crazy idea but agreed for the sake of keeping everyone happy. The mother-in-law, in turn, said she was on board, thinking the rest were enthusiastic. In truth, no one wanted to go -- each family member only agreed because they thought everyone else was eager.

The group embarked on the long drive through West Texas dust. As Harvey later described, the journey was unpleasant and the food at the cafeteria in Abilene was mediocre -- exactly what each person had feared. After returning home exhausted, they finally broke the silence. "It was a great trip, wasn't it?" someone offered unconvincingly. That opened the floodgates: one by one, each confessed that they would rather have stayed home but went along because they didn't want to disappoint the others. The father-in-law admitted he only suggested Abilene because he thought the rest might be bored sitting at home. In that moment, the family sat back in stunned realization: they had all agreed to a plan that none of them wanted, simply because each person assumed it was the preference of the group.

This innocent family tale holds a powerful lesson. Harvey used it to illustrate a bizarre group dynamic: a form of collective miscommunication and misperception so absurd that it's termed a paradox. He called it "the Abilene Paradox", after the unintended destination of that ill-fated road trip. Harvey's 1974 article, titled "The Abilene Paradox: The Management of Agreement," outlined how organizations often get trapped in similar situations of mismanaged agreement. The paradox highlights that organizations can take actions counter to their actual objectives simply because members fail to voice their true feelings. Importantly, Harvey noted that the inability to manage agreement -- rather than conflict -- is usually the culprit behind these dysfunctional decisions.

In the decades since Harvey's article, the Abilene Paradox has been observed across countless group settings -- from corporate boardrooms to government agencies -- where everyone privately disagrees with a decision but no one speaks up. It remains a cautionary tale for teams: going along to "be a team player" can ironically lead the entire team to a poor outcome that nobody wanted in the first place.

Key Characteristics of the Abilene Paradox

At its core, the Abilene Paradox is about a breakdown in group communication and perception. There are several key characteristics and symptoms that define this paradox in action:

• False Agreement in Public, Different Beliefs in Private: Group members collectively decide on a course of action that contradicts the preferences of most (or all) individuals. However, each person thinks their own reservation is unique. In the Abilene story, everyone would have preferred to stay home, but each believed they were the only one uneasy about the drive. This leads to a false consensus, where silence is mistaken for agreement.
• Misperception of Others' Desires: A hallmark of the Abilene Paradox is that each individual assumes that their private doubts are counter to the group's wishes. Because no one voices dissent, people take others' outward acquiescence at face value. In reality, the silence or polite nods in the room mask a plurality (or entirety) of disagreement. Researchers describe this as a form of pluralistic ignorance -- everyone is thinking "this is a bad idea," but believes "I'm alone in thinking that".
• Desire Not to "Rock the Boat": A common phrase encapsulating the paradox is "not wanting to rock the boat." Members go along with what they think the group wants out of politeness, fear of conflict, or a desire to be seen as a team player. In Harvey's anecdote, each family member remained agreeable to maintain harmony ("they agreed to be agreeable," as one commentary put it). This reflects an underlying action anxiety -- an anxiety about taking action contrary to the (perceived) group will.
• Communication Breakdown: Ironically, groups caught in the Abilene Paradox often experience an abundance of agreement on the surface -- meetings are calm, decisions appear consensual -- yet this calm is deceptive. The real issue is poor or inaccurate communication. Individuals do not express their true opinions. In fact, they may even explicitly voice support for an option they secretly dislike, sending misleading "signals" that reinforce the false group preference. This breakdown means the group never debates the idea's merits or alternatives; the absence of open conflict is mistaken for consensus.
• Collective Decision Contrary to Data: Because of these misperceptions, the group proceeds to make a collective decision that is counter to what all of them want or what the evidence supports. Essentially, the organization "boards the bus" to its own version of Abilene -- embarking on a course that nobody believes in privately. In Harvey's words, organizations caught in this paradox "frequently take actions in contradiction to what they really want to do and therefore defeat the very purposes they are trying to achieve".
• Resulting Frustration and Blame: After the undesirable outcome manifests, participants typically feel frustration, resentment, and confusion. Because the decision ran counter to everyone's actual desires, people begin to blame each other for the fiasco. Harvey observed that, post-decision, group members form cliques or "subgroups" to commiserate and cast blame on others for the dilemma. In the family's case, once they realized the mistake, there was likely some mutual bafflement ("How did we let this happen?"). In organizational settings, this stage often erodes trust and morale -- colleagues might privately say, "I knew it was a bad idea, but you all wanted it!"
• Self-Reinforcing Cycle: If the underlying issue -- the failure to communicate honestly -- isn't addressed, the Abilene Paradox can become a repetitive cycle. Harvey noted that unless an organization deals with the generic issue of mismanaged agreement, the cycle repeats itself, often with greater intensity. Each "trip to Abilene" sets a precedent that stifling dissent is expected, making it even harder for individuals to speak up the next time.

Another useful way to understand the pattern is through Harvey's original six symptoms (or "landmarks") of organizations on the road to Abilene:

1. Private Agreement: Paradoxically, everyone privately agrees on the reality of the situation and the preferred solution. (In the anecdote, all family members quietly agreed that staying home was best.)
2. Public Misrepresentation: Despite private agreement, members fail to communicate their true desires. Instead, they do the opposite -- they voice support for the alternative, leading others to misperceive the group's reality.
3. Collective Mis-decision: Based on these false signals, the group makes a decision that nobody actually wants, producing a result counter to the organization's genuine goals.
4. Negative Outcomes: The group action leads to undesirable consequences, essentially validating everyone's initial doubts. (For example, the project fails or, in the family's case, everyone endures a miserable trip.)
5. Frustration and Blame: Group members experience dissatisfaction and anger about the outcome, and they blame each other or higher-ups for the debacle. Importantly, the blame is misplaced, since all contributed to the false agreement.
6. Cycle Continuation (if Unchecked): If the team doesn't recognize and address the pattern of false agreement, it's likely to happen again, creating a recurring dysfunction in decision-making.

In essence, the Abilene Paradox is characterized by agreement without alignment -- the group appears to be in agreement, but that agreement is not aligned with anyone's actual preferences or the facts at hand. This is what makes it a paradox: by trying to avoid conflict or discomfort in the short term, the group ends up courting a larger conflict with reality -- taking actions that none of them wanted and suffering the consequences.

These characteristics distinguish the Abilene Paradox from healthy consensus or even other decision-making pathologies like groupthink (which we will contrast later). In a healthy decision process, either genuine consensus exists (people truly agree) or disagreements are aired and resolved. In Abilene Paradox scenarios, neither of those happens -- instead, individuals remain silent about their true concerns, and the group marches off in the wrong direction under an illusion of unanimous support.

Real-Life Examples of the Abilene Paradox

The Abilene Paradox might sound like an abstract concept or a one-off family mishap, but in reality it occurs in many high-stakes organizational settings. Here we explore a few real-life and historical examples that highlight how pervasive and damaging this paradox can be:

Other Examples: The Abilene Paradox has been invoked to explain other organizational blunders. In the UK, for instance, the 1989 Hillsborough disaster's aftermath (where authorities mishandled and covered up the truth of a stadium tragedy) has been described as involving compliance by many individuals who privately had misgivings but did not speak up against the official narrative. In business, one might imagine a team launching a flawed product to market even though every engineer and manager privately has concerns, or a company continuing with a merger that all executives suspect is a mistake because no one wants to voice opposition. In everyday life, even a group of friends can fall into an Abilene situation -- e.g., everyone agrees to go to a restaurant none of them likes, each thinking it's what the others want.

These examples underscore that the Abilene Paradox is more than just a theoretical idea. Its fingerprints are found on small decisions and large-scale failures alike. Whenever you see a baffling group decision and hear people later say, "I only went along because I thought you wanted it!", you are witnessing this paradox. The costs can range from a wasted afternoon (as in the family road trip) to millions of dollars lost, ruined projects, tarnished reputations, or even human tragedy (as with Challenger). Next, we will delve into why groups fall into this trap -- the psychological drivers and group dynamics that fuel the Abilene Paradox.

Psychological Factors Behind the Abilene Paradox

Why would intelligent, well-meaning people collectively decide on something that none of them actually want? The Abilene Paradox arises from a convergence of powerful psychological factors within individuals. Understanding these factors can help us recognize the early warning signs in ourselves and our teams. Some key psychological drivers include:

• Action Anxiety -- Fear of Speaking Up: Harvey identified "action anxiety" as a core factor. This is the anxiety one feels about taking action in line with one's true beliefs if those beliefs differ from the (perceived) group direction. In simple terms, it's scary to stick your neck out and say "I disagree" -- you anticipate backlash, awkwardness, or disapproval. In the Abilene anecdote, each family member felt a twinge of anxiety at the thought of objecting ("What if I upset everyone by saying no?"). This fear of rocking the boat leads to inaction (silence) instead of action (speaking up). Socially, humans often learn to avoid open conflict, especially in professional contexts where dissent might be conflated with disloyalty or negativity.
• Negative Fantasies (Imagined Worst-Case Scenarios): What feeds action anxiety are what Harvey called "negative fantasies" -- essentially, our mental doomsday scenarios about what will happen if we do speak up. For example, an employee might imagine, "If I tell the boss this plan is flawed, I'll get fired," or "If I object, my colleagues will ridicule me or hate me." These imagined outcomes are often exaggerated or entirely unfounded, but they can paralyze us. In reality, voicing a dissenting view might simply lead to a healthy discussion, but under the spell of negative fantasies, we convince ourselves that speaking up will have dire consequences. Such catastrophizing reinforces the decision to stay quiet and "go along." As one management commentary notes, "Elaborate negative fantasies are conjured up -- dire predictions that become excuses for inaction." In Abilene-like situations, people essentially scare themselves into silence by overestimating the social risks of honest communication.
• Fear of Separation and Being a "Bad Team Player": Beneath those fantasies lies a primal social fear: the fear of being ostracized or separated from the group. Psychologically, humans have a deep need for acceptance and belonging. We dread being labeled "not a team player" or becoming an outsider. This "separation anxiety" is, as Harvey put it, the root cause of the risk avoidance that drives the Abilene Paradox. In prehistoric times, being cast out of the tribe could be life-threatening; today, the "tribe" is our workplace or family, and ostracism threatens our emotional or economic well-being. Thus, we often prefer the internal discomfort of self-silencing over the possibility of external exclusion. In one analysis, researchers noted that in modern groups, "the fear of being separated from the group has become the primary threat... We worry that we'll be seen as disagreeable, contrary, uncommitted, or 'not a team player.'" This explains why in many Abilene scenarios, individuals actually know the plan is bad (cognitive dissonance is present), but they choose the discomfort of going along over the fear of speaking up.
• Real Risk versus Imagined Risk (Reversal of Risk): Interestingly, groups in an Abilene Paradox often invert their perception of risk and certainty. The imagined risk of speaking up feels so large and certain that they opt for the "safe" route of saying nothing. But in truth, that route often leads the group to a very real, and often worse, risk: a poor decision and its consequences. This is what Harvey humorously termed the "psychological reversal of risk and certainty." We treat the avoidance of confrontation as if it's the safe, no-risk choice -- when in fact it virtually guarantees a bad outcome (the group drives to metaphorical Abilene and suffers for it). Meanwhile, we treat speaking up as if it's a dangerously risky move -- when in many cases it could have saved the group. The paradox lies in misjudging these risks. By avoiding the short-term, interpersonal risk of honest dissent, we incur a larger long-term risk to the organization's goals. This confusion contributes to the paradoxical behavior.
• Pluralistic Ignorance: Psychologically, the Abilene Paradox is a prime example of pluralistic ignorance -- a situation where most group members privately reject a norm or decision, but each believes that others accept it. Everyone is essentially ignorant of the fact that everyone else shares their doubts. This can create a self-reinforcing loop. Each person's silence convinces the others that the group consensus is to proceed. Social psychologists have shown pluralistic ignorance at play in everything from classroom situations (students not asking questions because they think everyone else understands the lecture) to public behaviors. In organizations, pluralistic ignorance can cause an unhealthy "spiral of silence" -- the more people assume they're alone in dissent, the more they stay quiet, which further confirms the (false) norm that everyone's on board. It's easy to see how quickly a team can slide into an Abilene decision under these conditions.
• The Need for Harmony (Avoiding Conflict): Many people have an innate or conditioned aversion to conflict. In workplace teams, there can be pressure to appear cooperative and positive. This can lead to self-censorship of criticism. Sometimes team members think they are doing everyone a favor by "keeping the peace" and not being the naysayer. Especially in cultures or families where conflict is seen as destructive or disrespectful, there is a strong impulse to maintain surface harmony -- even at the expense of truth. The irony, of course, is that this conflict avoidance creates a bigger problem. Harvey emphasized that the core symptom of the Abilene Paradox is mismanagement of agreement, not conflict. In other words, healthy conflict is not the enemy -- failing to have any conflict when it's needed is the real danger.

Moreover, this psychological trap can be compounded by group size and decision order. The larger the group, the easier it is for an individual to assume "majority must be in favor, it's just me who disagrees." And if someone is the first to speak in a meeting, they are more likely to honestly state their view, whereas those speaking later may adjust to what they think is the group leaning. This suggests that social cues early in a discussion can set a tone -- if the first few speakers all express enthusiasm for an idea (whether sincere or not), others may feel increased pressure to nod along.

In summary, the Abilene Paradox is driven by internal fears and misperceptions: fear of negative consequences if one speaks up (action anxiety rooted in fear of social isolation), false assumptions that others are in favor, and the human tendency to avoid minor immediate conflict even at the expense of larger future problems. Each person's psyche says, "Keep quiet, it'll be fine," but collectively this becomes a recipe for disaster. Recognizing these psychological red flags in oneself ("Why am I afraid to voice my concern? Am I assuming others want this when maybe they don't?") is the first step toward preventing a trip to Abilene.

Impact of Group Dynamics on Decision Making

While individual psychology sets the stage, group dynamics act as the catalyst that turns quiet misgivings into full-blown paradoxical decisions. Certain team and organizational conditions can greatly increase the likelihood of an Abilene Paradox. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for leaders who want to spot and stop the problem early.

Some group factors that impact decision-making and can contribute to the Abilene Paradox include:

• A Culture of No Conflict (Artificial Harmony): Teams that operate under a "no conflict" norm are especially prone to mismanaged agreement. If open debate or dissent is implicitly (or explicitly) discouraged, lack of debate is mistaken for consensus. One description notes that in a group with no-conflict decision-making, "the lack of diverse opinions becomes the foundation for mismanagement of agreement," leading to the "I will go along with that" attitude prevailing. Such teams may pride themselves on being "harmonious" -- but that harmony can be superficial. In the absence of healthy debate, disagreements go underground and, as we've seen, can yield disastrous decisions. An over-emphasis on team unity or "playing nice" can thus ironically plant the seeds of a collective blunder.
• Overbearing or Dominant Leadership: The role of the leader is pivotal in group dynamics. If a leader is very dominant, voicing a contrary opinion can feel extremely risky for subordinates. In the classic Abilene Paradox pattern, sometimes the leader themselves might be misreading the team's desires. For instance, a strong-willed manager might say "This project is my vision, and I think it's great," and even if they invite input, team members may (wrongly) perceive that dissent is unwelcome. The literature points out that an overriding leader or a very strong organizational culture can "intimidate other members to the point of submission," creating an inclination to support the leader's idea even if privately people disagree. The power imbalance amplifies pluralistic ignorance -- each person assumes "Well, the boss seems committed, everyone is nodding, I better not be the one to object." Leaders who telegraph their preferences too strongly can thus accidentally manufacture false agreement.
• Group Homogeneity and Lack of Diversity: Homogeneous teams (where members have similar backgrounds, perspectives, or personalities) are generally more susceptible to both groupthink and Abilene-like scenarios. Homogeneity can breed a high desire for cohesion and a reluctance to stand out. "Such groups tend to achieve consensus rather than searching for the 'right' decision," one analysis notes. Without a mix of viewpoints, there may be fewer overt disagreements -- but not because everyone truly agrees, rather because they share similar social norms that value agreement. Diverse teams (in expertise, culture, gender, etc.) tend to have more built-in differences of opinion, which if managed well, can surface issues before a bad decision is made. In contrast, a very uniform team might more easily slip into silent acquiescence. Everyone in the room might be equally hesitant to "be the odd one out."
• Strong Pressure to Be a "Team Player": Many organizations explicitly promote values like teamwork and unity. While positive in moderation, these values can morph into a pressure cooker where no one wants to be the squeaky wheel. If employees perceive that management rewards "yes-men" and frowns on dissent, they will quickly learn to nod along even when they shouldn't. In one corporate culture example, if failure is "not an option" and admitting doubt is seen as weakness, employees will strive to maintain an appearance of consensus at all costs. They'll "throw good money after bad" on a project, as one writer described, because admitting failure or disagreement is punished. Over time, this creates an environment where pretended agreement is the norm. The Abilene Paradox thrives in such climates of implicit coercion, where speaking up is perceived to jeopardize one's standing or career.
• Presence of an Authority or "Messiah" Figure: Sometimes a group has an expert or senior person who is highly respected -- a technical guru, a founding visionary, etc. Other members might defer excessively to this person's opinions. Harvey et al. (2008) noted that when a group handles complex tasks, often one person or a small group has the expertise and others acquiesce to them (what they termed the "feeling of a messiah" in the organization). This can create a dynamic where followers assume the expert or leader must be right and keep any doubts to themselves. Meanwhile, that expert might mistakenly interpret silence as genuine agreement that their plan is good -- when in fact colleagues simply didn't want to question their authority. Again, miscommunication ensues. This dynamic played out in the earlier Ozyx Corp example: the president didn't want to upset his VP, the VP didn't want to challenge the president -- each treated the other as the "authority" on the project's fate, leading to mutual silence.
• Signals of Artificial Agreement -- "Groupthink" Dynamics: It's important to distinguish the Abilene Paradox from groupthink, a related but distinct group dynamic problem. In groupthink (a concept developed by Irving Janis), group members actually convince themselves to agree with a decision, often out of a desire for harmony or under real peer pressure. They may suppress doubts but also internally rationalize the group's decision as correct. People in a groupthink scenario typically feel loyal and positive about the final decision (until it fails). There is an active distortion of judgment -- members convince themselves the group's plan is good to preserve harmony. Also, groupthink tends to occur in highly cohesive groups, often with a strong leader, where dissent is actively or implicitly punished. Think of it as "consensus at any cost" -- conflict is so avoided that the group even lies to itself to maintain the appearance of unity.

Both are problematic; however, solving them might involve similar measures (encouraging dissent), but also some different emphases. For groupthink, breaking the illusion and critical thinking are key; for Abilene, drawing out hidden opinions is key. As one source noted, groupthink involves conscious agreement (often due to direct pressures or a dominant culture), whereas Abilene involves conscious disagreement that is kept private due to assumed pressures.

• Pluralistic Ignorance (Revisited): As explained earlier, pluralistic ignorance is the cognitive error where individuals wrongly believe their view is in the minority. In Abilene Paradox cases, it's often the crux of the issue -- each person doesn't realize that most others actually agree with them and share their hesitation. This is slightly different from classic groupthink, where individuals might correctly perceive others' doubts but still go along due to actual pressure or a belief the group as a whole knows best. In Abilene situations, the tragedy is that there was plenty of agreement in the group -- just on the opposite side of the chosen action, but nobody knew it. Pluralistic ignorance feeds that tragedy by convincing everyone that their caution is singular when it's in fact universal. Some researchers consider pluralistic ignorance a broader concept than either groupthink or Abilene Paradox -- it can apply to various social beliefs -- but it directly incites Abilene scenarios by creating a worst-case assumption: "No one else is worried, so I'd better not speak up".
• "Yes Man" Syndrome and Preference Falsification: These terms are often used in organizational contexts. A "yes man" culture is one where subordinates feel they must always agree with the boss. It's related to Abilene, but not identical -- yes-men often privately disagree but publicly agree to curry favor or avoid punishment. In that sense, they are knowingly engaging in preference falsification -- expressing a preference they do not hold. Abilene Paradox can be seen as a group-scale preference falsification fueled by mutual ignorance. Yes-man behavior contributes to Abilene outcomes when multiple people are doing it simultaneously and none realize others are also faking agreement. Essentially, everyone is "yes-ing" each other to death, and the result is a collective march into a bad decision.

Understanding these distinctions isn't just academic hair-splitting; it helps in diagnosing the problem in a given situation. For example, if you're a team leader and you notice a decision sailed through too easily, ask yourself: did everyone really buy in (maybe too quickly, hinting at groupthink)? Or did everyone just keep quiet (hinting at Abilene)? The remedies and preventive steps -- which we turn to next -- will address both scenarios, but you might place extra emphasis on certain tactics depending on which dynamic is more at play.

Impact of the Abilene Paradox on Organizations

The consequences of the Abilene Paradox for businesses and organizations are significant. When teams and leaders fall prey to this paradox, the negative impacts hit both performance and people. Some of the major impacts include:

• Poor Decisions and Project Failures: The most obvious impact is that the group's decision, being misaligned with the facts and the members' true insights, is usually suboptimal or outright wrong. Organizations end up pursuing strategies that contradict their own data and intuition, often leading to failure or losses. Resources get wasted on initiatives that no one believed in to begin with. In Harvey's observation, the "negative consequences of such trips, measured in terms of human misery and economic loss, have been much greater" than the trivial example in his story. Think of the Ozyx Corp case: continuing a doomed R&D project cost them money, time, and talented staff. In many industries, an Abilene-style decision can mean missed market opportunities (because the team didn't voice concerns that could have led to a better plan), failed product launches, or preventable crises. It's essentially a self-inflicted performance problem.
• Destabilization of the Organization: Paradoxically, the attempt to avoid conflict often creates bigger organizational disruption down the line. Projects that implode or initiatives that have to be reversed cause instability. In the worst cases, as Harvey quipped, groups take "side-trips or occasionally a terminal journey to Abilene" -- implying that some companies may never recover from the collective misstep. A bad strategic decision can sink a business. Even on a smaller scale, when a team goes off-track and fails to meet goals, it can upset the stability of that unit.
• Erosion of Trust and Morale: Morale suffers greatly after an Abilene Paradox episode. Once the truth comes out ("None of us actually supported this, did we?"), team members often feel resentful -- both toward the situation and toward each other. Trust is eroded because everyone essentially lied (by omission or commission) about their true feelings. Colleagues might think, "Why didn't you speak up if you knew it was a bad idea?" People feel betrayed or let down that no one voiced what "everyone was thinking." Additionally, individuals may lose trust in leadership: "How did the boss allow this to happen?" or "We just wasted months of work because nobody would tell the VP her idea was flawed." This blame game can create rifts. Indeed, one outcome noted is the formation of factions and scapegoating. One clique might whisper that it was all Management's fault for pushing the idea, while leaders might quietly blame the team for lack of input -- a poisonous dynamic.
• Frustration and Resentment: In the immediate aftermath, team members experience unexpressed frustration and simmering resentment. They are angry at the wasted effort and at themselves for not speaking up. That frustration, if not addressed, can lower motivation. Employees disengage because they feel their insights don't matter (after all, their silence led to disaster) or they feel the process is broken. People might adopt a fatalistic attitude: "Decisions here are a joke; we always end up doing the wrong thing because no one speaks honestly."
• Lowered Psychological Safety: Psychological safety in a workplace refers to an environment where individuals feel safe to take interpersonal risks -- like speaking up with a dissenting idea. The Abilene Paradox both stems from and reinforces low psychological safety. Before the bad decision, a lack of safety (perceived or real) stops people from voicing concerns. After the decision blows up, the fact that no one spoke up sends a message: It wasn't safe to disagree. As one source notes, because no one spoke up, it "unconsciously reinforces that it's unsafe to do so". People think, "Everyone kept quiet, that must have been the expected behavior." This further chills future communication. The result is a vicious circle: each trip to Abilene makes people even less likely to voice dissent next time, because now they have a precedent of silence.
• Communication Breakdowns and Gossip: With honest communication stifled, you often see an uptick in back-channel communication after the fact -- the hallway grumbling, the "I knew it but didn't say anything" conversations at the water cooler. If an external researcher comes in (like in the MUBS case), they'll hear all the disagreements that were never aired in the official meeting. This kind of culture breeds gossip and politics rather than open dialogue. A study of an elementary school's decision-making, for example, found that when the Abilene Paradox occurred, it led to poor communication, isolation, exclusion, and rising gossip among faculty. In companies, too, when people don't feel safe speaking in meetings, they talk in private, which can create cliques and undermine team unity.
• Reduced Innovation and Problem-Solving Ability: Teams caught in the Abilene Paradox repeatedly will likely become more and more risk-averse and less creative. If voicing new or critical ideas is discouraged implicitly, creativity and innovation suffer. People stop bringing up unconventional ideas or potential problems (why bother if we're just going to do the wrong thing anyway?). The organization may fall into a pattern of group stagnation -- doing what they think everyone wants rather than what actually makes sense. Also, problem-solving becomes ineffective because problems aren't openly discussed; the real issues stay hidden under polite agreement. Over time, this can compromise an organization's competitiveness and adaptability.
• Wasted Talent and Lost Employees: In extreme cases, good employees will leave rather than stick around in a culture of mismanaged agreement. Talented professionals who value integrity and results will not want to be part of a team where speaking truth is unwelcome. In the Ozyx case, they literally lost their best technical people after the debacle. More commonly, people mentally "check out," becoming disengaged even if they don't quit -- which is a loss of human capital in a different way.

In summary, the Abilene Paradox's impact is both tangible (failed projects, financial loss) and intangible (demoralized staff, broken trust, toxic culture). Harvard professor Rosabeth Moss Kanter aptly noted that in such scenarios, there are two problems: "First, employees make inaccurate assumptions about what others believe. Second, even though they disagree, they don't feel comfortable speaking up." Both parts have ramifications -- the wrong decisions get made, and the environment that allowed it remains dysfunctional.

The lesson for organizations is stark: a failure to manage agreement can be just as destructive as open conflict -- perhaps more so, because it is insidious. As Jerry Harvey later wrote, the inability to manage agreement is "the single most pressing issue of modern organizations". The good news is that, unlike many external business challenges, this is a solvable, internal problem. By cultivating the right culture and practices, leaders can avoid these costly missteps. Let's turn to strategies and solutions to prevent riding your organization's "bus to Abilene."

Strategies to Avoid the Abilene Paradox

Preventing the Abilene Paradox requires deliberate effort to change the group's communication norms and decision processes. The goal is to ensure that real opinions are expressed and heard, and that groups don't march toward unwitting consensus on a bad idea. Here are several proven strategies and best practices to avoid falling into the Abilene trap:

1. Create a Safe Environment for Dissent: Psychological safety is the foundation. Team members must feel safe to disagree without fear of ridicule or reprisal. As one HR advisory put it, "If an individual is hesitant to share an opposing viewpoint, they must be encouraged by creating a safe environment for them to do so." Encourage a culture of trust, collaboration, and empathy, with team leaders leading by example. Leaders should explicitly invite critique -- for example, saying in meetings: "I want to hear any concerns or negatives. Disagreeing will not be viewed negatively." Encourage a culture where respectful debate is framed as a positive -- "productive conflict" -- rather than disloyalty. You can even share the Abilene Paradox story with your team to make the point that speaking up is a duty to the group. When people trust that raising a caution will be met with open consideration (not punishment or eye-rolls), they are far more likely to voice their true thoughts.
2. Actively Seek Feedback and Clarify Preferences: Don't assume silence equals consent. Proactively solicit feedback and explicitly ask individuals for their stance. Go around the room and hear from each person, phrased in a way that invites honesty: e.g., "On a scale of 1-10, how comfortable are you with us proceeding with this plan? And what are your reservations?" Another tactic is to have private one-on-one check-ins for sensitive matters -- someone might be more candid with a manager in private than in front of peers. The key is to draw out hidden information. In the Makerere University case, only through later interviews did the true opinions surface; incorporate that step before finalizing decisions. As a leader, you can also share your own initial doubts ("I wasn't sure about this aspect; what do you all think?") to signal that it's okay to have reservations. Always clarify the decision-making process too -- let people know how their input will be used and that honest input is valued. This transparency reduces the fear that voicing concerns is futile.
3. Normalize and Expect Dissent: Make it clear that disagreement is not just tolerated but expected in a healthy team. One guideline from people management experts is to literally expect some dissent as a sign of diverse thinking. You might say, "If we all agree too quickly, I get nervous -- it probably means we haven't examined the idea from all angles." When teams "analyze disagreement... to enrich the final decision," they tend to make better choices. Emphasize that devil's advocates save us from blind spots. By normalizing dissent, team members won't feel like they're sticking out their neck when they voice a contrary view -- it will feel like just another part of the process.
4. Assign a Devil's Advocate (or Several): A classic technique to avoid groupthink and Abilene scenarios is the devil's advocate role. Deliberately designate one or two people to challenge the emerging consensus. Rotate this role so it's not always one person (to avoid that person being branded negatively). The devil's advocate should have time and resources to build a real counterargument or highlight risks. Kanter suggests formal debates: "Choose sides and formally air out the pros and cons" of an option. This structured conflict forces issues into the open. Importantly, a devil's advocate provides cover for dissent -- they have permission to disagree, so others may chime in. Even if most people secretly agree with the dissent, hearing it voiced can break the illusion of unanimity and spark an honest discussion. Some organizations take this further by having "red teams" or "pre-mortems" (imagining a future failure and asking what might cause it) to actively surface potential problems in a plan.
5. Encourage Anonymous Input Channels: To bypass the pressure of speaking up in front of others, introduce anonymous feedback mechanisms when appropriate. This could be a suggestion box, an anonymous online poll, or a confidential survey about a pending decision. For example, before finalizing a decision, you could ask team members to anonymously vote or list pros/cons. If you see in anonymous results that 8 out of 10 people actually have concerns, that can be a wake-up call to halt and discuss. According to guidance from BetterUp, having regular feedback processes -- even informal surveys -- "ensures everyone has a chance to express opinions and concerns before decisions are made". The anonymity reduces fear of judgment. However, be sure to bring the results back to the group to discuss openly (e.g., "Our anonymous poll showed many of you have reservations about timeline feasibility -- let's talk about those"). This validates the concerns and integrates them into the decision process.
6. Leader Speaks Last and Listens First: Leaders and managers should be mindful of their influence on group discussions. A simple but powerful rule is: if you're the senior person in the room, speak last, not first. By withholding your opinion upfront, you avoid unintentionally swaying the group or signaling that only one answer is acceptable. Instead, ask others to share their thoughts first. This increases the likelihood that you'll hear genuine opinions. If a leader always opens with "Here's what I think we should do...", employees may just echo that back. By speaking last, you can take in the full spectrum of input (and often someone will voice exactly the concern you had, validating that speaking up was safe). When you do speak, acknowledge dissenting viewpoints appreciatively ("Thanks for that perspective -- it's crucial we consider that"). This demonstrates that raising concerns is not career suicide. Some leaders also deliberately refrain from immediately closing a discussion even if consensus seems reached; instead, they might say, "I've heard a lot of agreement on Option A. Before we finalize, does anyone have any nagging doubts or an alternate view? It's okay if you do -- we'd rather discuss now than discover later."
7. Use Structured Decision Techniques: Structured techniques can prevent steamrolling over dissent. For example, brainstorm ideas or solutions individually before group discussion. This way, the initial pool of ideas or opinions is generated without social influence. Then bring those ideas to the group. This was recommended to avoid both groupthink and Abilene situations -- it ensures the starting discussion isn't anchored by a few vocal voices. Another technique is multi-voting or ranking choices privately, then discussing disparities. Nominal Group Technique (NGT) is also effective: each person writes down their decision or opinion independently, then they are collected and revealed, and then the group discusses the results. These methods reduce the pressure to conform in the moment and encourage a wider range of views to surface.
8. Diversify the Team: As mentioned, homogeneity can be a risk factor. Ensure your teams are diverse in background and thinking styles. When people with different perspectives are present, it's naturally harder for everyone to assume everyone else is on the same page. Diversity brings in a healthy mix of viewpoints that can challenge assumptions. Research suggests that cross-functional or heterogeneous groups, while not immune, have a broader range of experiences to draw on and may be less likely to unanimously misjudge a situation. However, even diverse teams need the right environment; diversity helps only if people actually voice their diverse opinions. So diversity paired with inclusivity (everyone's voice is heard) is the goal.
9. Reward (and Don't Punish) the Messenger: It's vital to positively reinforce people who have the courage to voice a dissent or unpopular opinion. Kanter advises to "make confronters into heroes --- even if you disagree with the message, reward the process" of speaking up. This could mean thanking someone in a meeting for raising a tough point, or even structuring recognition (like an award) for "constructive truth-telling" if your culture allows. Conversely, never retaliate or ridicule someone for expressing concern. Leaders should also examine their own reactions: if you tend to get defensive or dismissive when someone disagrees, work on responding calmly and appreciatively. When employees see that raising a red flag earns respect, not scorn, more red flags will be raised in time to save the group. It's far better to hash out concerns early than to face failure later. Cultivating a bit of collective pride in candid communication can help -- e.g., "In our company, we're proud that we challenge each other to get to the best answer, rather than just saying yes."
10. Clarify Decision-Making Processes and Roles: Sometimes people keep quiet because they are confused about how the decision will be made or whether it's their place to weigh in. Be clear about who the decision-maker is and how input will be considered. For example: "We will discuss, and then I as project lead will make a decision, but I commit to integrating what I hear." Or, "This will be decided by consensus -- which means if you disagree, it's your responsibility to say so now because silence will be taken as agreement." Clarifying that dissenting views will be taken into account (and how) can reduce the hesitation people feel. It also reduces the diffusion of responsibility: if you explicitly say you want each person's viewpoint, then each knows it's their role to provide it. Process transparency ensures all team members understand their role and the value of their contributions, reducing the likelihood of groupthink and encouraging honest discussion.

By implementing these strategies, organizations can short-circuit the Abilene Paradox before it takes hold. For example, one consulting firm recommends simple methods like creating a factual "decision fact sheet" listing pros, cons, and dissenting opinions before finalizing decisions -- a way to force consideration of multiple angles. The common thread in all solutions is open, honest communication. It may feel easier in the moment to gloss over disagreements, but that only stores up trouble. As the saying goes, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." A five-minute frank discussion today can save a project from an Abilene detour that lasts months.

It's also important to tailor these interventions to your team's context. Some groups might need a heavy dose of devil's advocacy; others might need training in how to disagree constructively (so that they feel more comfortable doing so). Teaching skills like active listening and respectful debate can make dissent less personal or confrontational, easing the fear of speaking up.

In summary, avoiding the Abilene Paradox is about making the invisible visible -- drawing out silent opinions -- and building a culture that values truth over the appearance of harmony. Next, we will look at the specific roles that communication and leadership play in sustaining these healthy practices.

The Role of Communication in Effective Decision Making

Clear, open communication is the antidote to the Abilene Paradox. Since the paradox is fundamentally a communication failure (everyone miscommunicating or not communicating their true thoughts), improving how the team communicates is paramount. Here's how effective communication practices can counteract the paradox:

• Encourage "Real" Conversations: Teams should strive for what's sometimes called robust dialogue -- conversations where people say what they really mean in a respectful way. This involves not just speaking, but also listening actively. Show that you truly want to hear dissent. For instance, after stating a plan, ask: "What concerns do you have about this idea?" rather than a generic "All good?" (to which people may nod out of habit). When someone does voice a concern, acknowledge and explore it. Paraphrase their point to ensure you understood it ("So you're worried about the timeline, correct?") and thank them for bringing it up. This encourages others to chime in and validates that this is the discussion you want.
• Avoid Leading Questions and Passive Language: Be careful not to phrase things in a way that leads the witness or signals a preferred answer. For example, asking "We're all okay with this plan, right?" is likely to elicit agreement, even if reluctant. It's better to ask open-ended questions like, "How do each of you feel about the plan? Does anyone see any pitfalls we need to consider?" Also, pay attention to body language and tone. If a manager's posture or tone implies that only one answer is acceptable, that will stifle honesty. Keep an open, neutral tone when soliciting input.
• Explicitly Check for Agreement: Before finalizing a decision, do a round-robin check or ask for a show of fingers (like 5 fingers = fully agree, 1 finger = strongly disagree) to gauge support. If anyone shows hesitation, invite them to elaborate. The simple act of explicitly checking can surface doubts. In many Abilene situations, decisions slide through without any check-in -- everyone assumes if there was an issue, someone else would have spoken. By checking, you force the issue (in a good way). For example, "On a scale of 1 to 10, how confident are we about going forward? Let's have everyone state their number and any reasons." This encourages those who might only be a "5" in confidence to speak up about why.
• Use Communication Tools to Capture Input: Written communication can supplement oral discussion. Sometimes, asking people to write down thoughts before a meeting and share them can provide more candid input (people might articulate things in writing they hesitate to say aloud). Even a shared document where team members anonymously (or with names) list pros and cons of a proposal before meeting can jump-start honest communication. During meetings, tools like sticky notes or real-time polling (e.g., via apps) can gauge where people stand. These are ways to get communication flowing beyond the traditional raise-your-hand format, which some might shy away from.
• Foster One-on-One Communication: Managers should periodically have one-on-one chats with team members and ask open questions: "Is there any idea or concern you have that you didn't feel comfortable bringing up in the group? I value your perspective." Some people are much more candid in private. These conversations can alert leaders to any brewing Abilene situations ("Actually, our whole department has concerns about that new policy, but in the all-hands no one brought it up..."). Once aware, you can address it in the larger forum (without singling anyone out). The key is to remove fear of reprisal -- explicitly tell them you appreciate frankness. Over time, as trust builds, those concerns will start coming out in open meetings.
• Clarify and Re-clarify: Miscommunication often happens because people use vague language or make assumptions. Make sure during discussions that ideas are clearly stated and understood. If someone says, "I'm fine with whatever the group wants," that's a red flag -- probe a bit: "We appreciate your flexibility, but we want to know your take -- there are no wrong answers." If a discussion had little input and ended quickly, recap what was decided and actively ask, "Is there anyone who has any uncertainty about this? I'd rather hear it now. It's okay if you do." By double-checking and summarizing decisions, you create an opening for someone to speak up with "Actually, I'm not 100% on board..." even at the last minute.
• Train and Model Good Communication Behavior: HR professionals might implement training sessions on communication, assertiveness, or giving/taking feedback. These can empower more junior or reserved team members to find their voice. Leaders should model vulnerability in communication -- admitting when they don't know something or when they were wrong. This sends a powerful signal that honesty matters more than appearing infallible. Also, leaders can share anecdotes of times when speaking up averted a disaster, reinforcing the value of open communication.
• Document Decisions and Rationale: Writing down what was decided and why (including any noted concerns and how they were addressed) can also mitigate the Abilene effect. It forces the group to articulate, "We decided X because Y." If nobody can articulate a good "because Y," that might trigger reconsideration. It also provides a record that can be revisited -- if later someone says "I never really wanted this," you can refer back to meeting notes: were those concerns raised? If not, use it as a learning moment to improve future communication ("Let's ensure next time those concerns make it into the notes by being voiced").

In essence, effective communication is about ensuring that what people really think finds its way into the discussion, rather than remaining in their heads. It's also about listening between the lines. If you sense hesitation or see non-verbal cues (like exchanged glances, or someone looking uncomfortable), don't steamroll ahead -- pause and invite that input: "I noticed some of you exchanging looks -- it's okay to share any concerns you have." It might feel awkward, but it's far better to flush out concerns than to proceed under false pretenses.

Good communication practices turn potential Abilene Paradox moments into productive dialogue moments. Instead of driving to Abilene, the group can course-correct and maybe decide to stay home or take a different trip altogether, with everyone actually on board. The difference lies in that moment of truth in a meeting where someone is thinking "This is a mistake" -- will that thought be communicated or not? By building a culture and process where the answer is yes, it will be communicated, you dramatically reduce the risk of collective misadventures.

The Role of Leadership in Mitigating Poor Decisions

Leadership is the linchpin in preventing and overcoming the Abilene Paradox. Leaders, whether they are formal managers or informal team influencers, set the tone for whether voicing honest opinions is acceptable. Here's how leadership can specifically mitigate poor group decisions:

• Lead by Example in Truth-Telling: Leaders should model the behavior they want to see. This means being candid about their own opinions and inviting critique. A leader might openly discuss his or her initial doubts about a proposal, demonstrating that even the boss can question things. By showing vulnerability (e.g., "I wasn't sure this strategy would work until I saw some data, and I still have a concern about X aspect"), they signal that the team doesn't have to pretend to be 100% confident either. Leaders should also share lessons from past mistakes, including times when they or the organization went to Abilene and what they learned. This shows that acknowledging and learning from dissent is valued.
• Establish Clear Values and Expectations: A leader can explicitly set expectations that team members voice their genuine thoughts. In team charters or kickoff meetings, make it a ground rule: "We owe it to each other to speak up if we have reservations or see potential problems." By framing it as a responsibility to the team, it becomes part of the work ethic. Some leaders go as far as implementing policies like "If everyone around the table initially agrees on a decision, we will take a pause and find at least one counter-argument before proceeding." Such policies institutionalize vigilance against false agreement.
• Empower and Protect Dissenters: Good leaders don't shoot the messenger; they protect them. If someone junior in rank disagrees with the consensus, a leader should amplify that voice rather than squash it. For example: "I'm glad Susan brought that up -- it's a valid concern. Let's examine it." This protects Susan from peers possibly rolling their eyes. Moreover, leaders can reward team members (even informally with praise or thanks) who provide a needed reality check. We mentioned making "confronters into heroes" -- that requires leadership support. If others in the group see that dissenters are respected by leadership (not punished or sidelined), they too will feel safer to speak.
• Use Leadership Authority Wisely: Ironically, while a domineering leader can cause Abilene scenarios, a too hands-off leader can also let false consensus slip by. Leaders need to actively facilitate discussions and sometimes call out the elephant in the room. If a meeting is ending with suspiciously quick agreement, a leader might say, "I sense some of you might have reservations that we haven't heard. I'd rather we address them now -- what haven't we talked about yet?" Essentially, leaders should be facilitators, not just decision-makers -- drawing out input and ensuring the process is sound. They should also be willing to override a consensus if they have evidence it's false or harmful. For instance, if a leader privately hears multiple employees express the same hidden concern, that leader can bring it to the table ("I've heard some worry from the team about the timeline -- let's discuss that") without naming names. This prevents a team from marching into disaster just to maintain the appearance of consensus.
• Flatten Hierarchy During Discussions: Encourage an atmosphere where, during brainstorming or problem-solving, titles are left at the door. Some companies adopt the idea of "everyone is a peer when we're figuring out the best solution." A practical way is to invite junior team members to speak first in discussions, so their views are heard before senior ones that might color the debate. Leadership can also encourage mentoring and coaching, so that employees build confidence to contribute. When leaders make it clear that good ideas (and valid concerns) can come from anywhere in the org chart, it reduces the intimidation factor that often silences lower-ranked voices.
• Intervene in Meetings if Necessary: If a leader notices groupthink or Abilene-like behavior, they should intervene. For example, if only one perspective is being expressed, the leader might play devil's advocate themselves ("Let me voice a possible concern: what if our assumption is wrong?"). If a typically vocal person is quiet, a leader might directly ask for their view ("Chris, I know you have a lot of experience in this area -- what's your take?"). Sometimes leaders might even break the group into subgroups to discuss and come back, to make it easier for quieter folks to share in a smaller setting and then report out. The leader's job is to ensure the decision-making environment is balanced and inclusive.
• Foster a Learning Culture: Leaders should frame decision processes as learning opportunities rather than trials of judgment. If a decision turns out wrong, instead of blame, a learning-oriented leader says, "What can we learn from this? How could we have caught this earlier?" By doing so, they remove the stigma of having been the dissenter or the proposer. It's not about personal vindication ("I told you so") or shame ("You were wrong") -- it's about collectively learning to do better. In a learning culture, employees are more likely to speak up with concerns because they see that even if the group goes a different way, raising the concern was still helpful for learning.
• Be Mindful of Decision Deadlines and Pressure: Sometimes time pressure or external stress can push groups into hasty false agreements ("We have to decide now, no time to debate!"). Leaders must manage these pressures by allowing sufficient discussion time for important decisions. If a decision truly is urgent, acknowledge the lack of time and perhaps schedule a follow-up review (e.g., "We'll go with Plan A for now, but in one week we'll reconvene and honestly assess if it's working or if we need to adjust -- please everyone gather your observations"). That way, even if initial input was rushed, people know there's a chance to course-correct, which might make them more willing to voice concerns in that second round.

In essence, leadership sets the tone, pace, and safety for decision-making. A leader who is approachable, listens more than they talk, and thanks people for candor will rarely have an Abilene Paradox under their watch. On the other hand, a leader who is easily offended by dissent, or who signals that decisions are just a formality, will inadvertently encourage silent acquiescence and trip after trip to Abilene.

One illustrative case: Intel's legendary CEO Andy Grove institutionalized a culture where vigorous debate was common, encapsulated in the phrase "disagree and commit." Employees were expected to argue their viewpoint (disagree) and once a decision was made, everyone would commit to it. This ethos meant you had a duty to speak up during deliberation. Such leadership philosophies directly counter the Abilene Paradox by flipping the script: not speaking up is what's seen as letting the team down.

Finally, leaders must remember the power of their reaction when someone disagrees with them. Even a slight frown or dismissive remark can shut down future honesty. Conversely, a leader saying "I hadn't thought of that -- good point" in response to a dissent can light up the room with more discussion. Leadership's role is to create a climate where the best idea wins -- not the highest-ranking person's idea, and certainly not the collective face-saving idea that no one believes in.

Case Studies: Overcoming the Abilene Paradox

Examining how real organizations have recognized and overcome the Abilene Paradox can provide practical insights. Here are a couple of brief case studies that illustrate how teams pulled themselves off the road to Abilene and back onto a productive path:

Each of these cases illustrates a point: the Abilene Paradox can be recognized and addressed before or even after a bad decision is set in motion. The common thread is that someone -- a leader or a courageous team member -- disrupted the silent consensus. They asked the awkward question, voiced the doubt, or set up a process to draw out hidden views. Once that happened, the dynamic shifted from mismanaged agreement to managed disagreement, which is a healthy state for decision-making.

It's also worth noting how overcoming an Abilene Paradox can become a positive turning point for team culture. People often feel a sense of relief when the "spell" is broken -- "Whew, I'm not the only one who felt that way!" This relief can translate into renewed trust and commitment. Teams learn that speaking up saves time and that their contributions matter. A group that survives an Abilene incident and learns from it may become even more high-performing, because they've confronted a core issue in their communication and fixed it.

For business leaders and HR professionals, these stories underscore that tackling the Abilene Paradox is not just about avoiding failure -- it's about building a culture of authenticity and continuous improvement. Whether through formal processes or simply empowering voices, the solution is within reach once the problem is acknowledged.

Conclusion: Lessons Learned from the Abilene Paradox

The Abilene Paradox offers a powerful lesson: the absence of open conflict is not always a sign of healthy agreement -- sometimes it's a sign of fear and miscommunication. Groups can, and often do, make choices that nobody actually wants, all because individuals fail to voice their true thoughts. For business leaders and HR professionals, the implications are clear. It's not enough to achieve consensus; one must ensure it's genuine consensus.

In closing, the Abilene Paradox is a reminder that effective decision-making is not just about analysis and data, but also about group psychology and communication. To answer the title question of why our decisions often lead us astray: it's often because we fail to align our decisions with the actual knowledge and preferences of the very people making them. The paradox shows that it's possible for a group to defeat itself by enforced agreement. But by learning from it, we can flip the script -- harnessing the full truth and wisdom in the room to make decisions that everyone genuinely supports.

For business leaders and HR professionals, tackling the Abilene Paradox is an opportunity to unlock better performance and a more engaged workforce. When people see that their honest voice can influence outcomes, they contribute more fully. When organizations avoid trips to Abilene, they not only sidestep costly mistakes, they also foster a culture of trust, innovation, and agility. In a fast-changing business environment, those qualities can be the difference between success and failure.

In the end, the journey to Abilene is never really about Abilene -- it's about a group's journey inward, to confront its own communication. By ensuring everyone can say "Actually, I don't want to go," teams can plot a course to where they do want to go -- and arrive there together, with purpose and enthusiasm.