The Abilene Paradox: It's Not Just a Great Name for a Robert Ludlum Novel

Picture a team of marketers nodding in unison at a plan none of them truly likes. This paradox is real, and it has a name. The Abilene paradox describes a group decision that runs counter to every individual’s preference. In other words, the team ends up heading to Abilene even though everyone would rather go to Chicago (no offense, Abilene. Sorry,…some offense, Abilene). Each member mistakenly assumes the others favor the choice, and to avoid rocking the boat, no one speaks up. As management scholar Jerry B. Harvey first observed, they “go along with a decision that no one truly wants to make”. Essentially, it’s a failure to manage agreement.  Instead of honest debate, assumptions and silence rule.

This dynamic relies on a false consensus and a fear of conflict. When every person privately doubts the plan, they may nevertheless consent because they think everyone else is on board. For instance, Harvey’s own family trip to Abilene ended with everyone admitting they had detested the drive. Each one had gone along, believing the others wanted to go, so none spoke up. In meetings, this plays out similarly: one colleague proposes an idea (usually someone in a leadership position), others shrink back, and before long a group nod forms around the very idea that everyone secretly questions. The fear of creating tension or appearing disagreeable keeps real opinions locked inside. In short, every team member shows reluctance to question or disagree, leading to the suppression of dissent.

The result is often a costly mistake. An Abilene-outcome can waste time, morale and budget. Unresolved Abilene dynamics can cause economic loss, missed opportunities, and employee frustration. In a marketing context this might look like approving a bland campaign or misguided product launch that satisfies nobody. A C-suite afraid of disagreement might endorse a weak strategy rather than spark debate.

This groupthink façade of consensus masks a blunder: the decision is wrong for everyone. The paradox can be disastrous for an organization, stifling innovation and leading to poor decisions. In practice, this means brand damage, wasted ad dollars, or going ahead with a product tweak no one truly believes in.

To avoid the Abilene trap, teams need more than open discussion. They need a shared process that brings real opinions to the surface before groupthink sets in. One of the most useful tools for this is Focus Mapping, developed by BJ Fogg, PhD, a behavior scientist at Stanford University. Fogg created the Fogg Behavior Model and founded the Behavior Design Lab at Stanford. He has spent over two decades helping organizations make clearer decisions by studying how real people behave in real situations.

Focus Mapping is built for moments when the list of options has grown too long. Each idea is printed on its own card. The cards must be clear, specific, and easy to understand. The process unfolds in structured, silent rounds. In the first round, each person places their assigned cards on a shared surface, positioning them vertically based on how effective they believe each option would be. In the second round, each participant can adjust the same cards up or down if they want to refine their earlier judgment. These first two rounds focus entirely on effectiveness, with no discussion.

In the next round, the group slides the cards side to side based on how easy or difficult each option would be to implement. This round focuses on feasibility. Once all cards have been placed, the final round allows for brief discussion, some more card moving, and quick voting to make any last changes.

The outcome is a clear visual map of the group’s thinking. High-value options gather naturally in one zone. Weak or unrealistic ideas fall to the edges. No one has to argue, perform, or pretend. Focus Mapping gives the group a way to move forward without wasted time, false agreement, or guesswork.

The value is in what the map reveals. High-impact, easy-to-do items emerge without argument. Less useful options drop out of focus. The method doesn't reward the loudest voice or the most senior person. It gives shape to group opinion without letting bias drive the result. Disagreement becomes visible without anyone needing to speak up or risk being the lone dissent. When used well, Focus Mapping clears a path through confusion and gives teams the confidence to act.

So the next time everyone’s nodding along, ask yourself: are we headed to Abilene again, or just too polite to say otherwise? Teams don’t drift into bad decisions because they lack intelligence. They drift because no one wants to be the first to disagree. Silence feels safe. But the longer it lasts, the harder it is to break. Say the thing. Ask the awkward question. That’s how real alignment happens.