abilene paradox and groupthink

In the Abilene paradox, a group of people collectively decide on a course of action that is counter to the preferences of many or all of the individuals in the group.[1][2] It involves a common breakdown of group communication in which each member mistakenly believes that their own preferences are counter to the group's and, therefore, does not raise objections, or even states support for an outcome they do not want. A common phrase relating to the Abilene paradox is a desire to not "rock the boat". This differs from groupthink in that the Abilene paradox is characterized by an inability to manage agreement.[3]

Abilene paradox - Wikipedia

One important idea for understanding social behavior and conformity is preference falsification. This concept was developed by the economist Timur Kuran.
In short, preference falsification means to express beliefs you don’t actually hold in order to fit into a social group. It can be uncomfortable to disagree with others. Especially with those who you consider to be coalitional or political allies.

Facts About Minority Opinion vs. Majority Rule | Psychology Today

Abilene Paradox is an evil, especially in a work environment. Without counter opinions and presentation of individual thoughts, no company/firm can flourish. Hence, it becomes important to try and get rid of the paradox.
Agile Business gives out some easy and effective steps to check Abilene Paradox. Some of these practices involve

...

This Is Why We Agree To Do Everything We Hate When We Are In A Group

Why groupthink might be a good thing after all
An organisation that acts with unity of purpose is a better bet than one paralysed by indecision or internal division

Why groupthink might be a good thing after all | Financial Times

Opponents of the monarchy who have taken a less diplomatic position — criticizing the public for falling victim to establishment groupthink, for example — have been called out by other republicans for estranging would-be allies. “A republicanism that has no faith in the public is no republicanism at all,” wrote one columnist in Spiked, a libertarian online magazine that opposes the monarchy but often takes potshots at what it often sees as the “woke left.”

Anti-Monarchists Tread Lightly After Queen’s Death, but Their Goal Persists - The New York Times

In the seven hours of evidence he gave at the Houses of Commons, Dominic Cummings mounted a systematic attack on the decisions of the government and its scientific advisory groups during the pandemic. These decisions, he repeatedly suggested, were a result of “groupthink”. Cummings used the term 15 times (and his questioners used it a further seven). It was applied to the government in general, to the Department of Health and to Sage. It was used to explain the delay in understanding the threat posed by the virus, in locking down, in closing borders, in building a testing system, in developing vaccines – in fact, according to Cummings, groupthink was the culprit for pretty much all the failures of decision-making that led to tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths.
As a result, the term – a behavioural science concept – is becoming as familiar to people as spike proteins or the R rate. Yet there is a key difference. Groupthink is a highly contested concept in psychology that is now viewed with considerable scepticism by those who research group behaviour. It misrepresents how often groups make poor decisions, why groups make poor decisions and how to stop groups making poor decisions. So, while you can certainly agree with Cummings that the government made many disastrous decisions during the pandemic, the notion of groupthink obscures the real group psychology at work.

Blaming Covid mistakes on ‘groupthink’ lets the government off the hook | Stephen Reicher and John Drury | The Guardian

.

.

.