The Abilene Paradox is a group decision-making failure where individuals go along with a choice they privately disagree with, believing others support it. In reality, no one supports it but no one speaks up.
This leads to collective actions that satisfy no one, often due to fear of dissent or a desire to avoid conflict.
HOW IT SHOWS UP
Design
Teams overcommit to a design direction no one fully supports, simply because no one voices concerns.
Feedback cycles become superficial, with team members agreeing out of politeness or fatigue.
Designers push forward with flawed solutions that everyone silently disagrees with.
Product
Feature prioritization reflects assumed consensus but lacks actual support from stakeholders.
PMs move forward on roadmaps no one is excited about, avoiding tough conversations.
Tradeoffs aren’t challenged, leading to bloated or misaligned MVPs.
Management / Leadership
Decisions are made without surfacing dissenting perspectives.
Junior team members stay quiet in meetings, believing their input is unwelcome or risky.
Managers interpret silence as agreement, reinforcing false consensus.
WHEN TO USE THIS MODEL
Spring Planning
Use this when team members seem disengaged or hesitant to speak up. A round of silent, written feedback before locking in decisions can uncover disagreements.
Retrospectives
Ideal for identifying systemic silence. If recurring issues are never discussed openly, use this model to frame the problem and make space for dissent.
Design Critiques
Use when you notice repeated passive approval. Encourage people to write down thoughts before group discussion to separate true agreement from social compliance.
HOW TO APPLY IT
Previous
Accessibility Bias
