The Abilene paradox proves Silence is not golden-and its implications

The Abilene Paradox was first described by Professor Jerry Harvey, from the George Washington University. He described a leisure trip which he and his wife and parents made in Texas in July, in his parents’ un-airconditioned old Buick to a town called Abilene. It was a trip they had all agreed to – or at least not disagreed with – but, as it later turned out, none of them had wanted to go on. “Here we were, four reasonably sensible people who, of our own volition, had just taken a 106-mile trip across a godforsaken desert in a furnace-like temperature through a cloud-like dust storm to eat unpalatable food at a hole-in-the-wall cafeteria in Abilene, when none of us had really wanted to go”.

Hence, the Abilene Paradox describes the situation where everyone goes along with something, mistakenly assuming that others’ people’s silence implies that they agree. And the (erroneous) feeling to be the only one who disagrees makes a person shut up as well, all the way to Abilene. In short, silence is not golden, and does not always imply assent. Some practical implications of this

1. Teachers often stress that no question is a dumb question. This is partly to avoid the Abilene paradox where students often have a common doubt but the silence of other students stops them from asking, as they mistakenly think that they are the odd man out. 
2. In a contract(unless by tacit actions), silence does not imply acceptance. That is an old maxim of English contract law(and I think in other juridictions also), subject to certain carveouts to cover assenting to deception etc. 
3. Many decisions often need a certain affirmative vote-for example in the World Trade Organization(WTO), rejecting an expert panel discussion needs a majority General body vote. And corporate law(often needing charter etc) often imposes a quorum for making certain important decisions, be it at the Board level or the shareholder meeting level, to ensure that those who are silent are also made to attend(atleast in part)
4. Great investors and managers often make their team speakup, to ensure that contrary opinions are not sidelined due to groupthink/awe.
5. Good communicators often restate for understanding, to ensure that understanding gaps are ironed out and not hidden behind the wall of silence. In fact, lack of response/questioning often indicates communication gap/disinterest. 

I could go on and on, but I think that principle needs more attention and application.