The diffusion of responsibility, alignment with power, and being in the majority all incentivize people to "go with the flow" rather than optimize for good outcomes. If the decision turns out well, being on the bandwagon accrues an individual and collective benefit. If it's wrong, everyone shares the blame, making it inert. No single individual pays a reputational cost (unless they become a scapegoat).
Even if you had a crystal ball, without sufficient support for your perspective, sometimes there's no incentive to act or speak up. In most organizational settings, there's no way for a person to internalize a reward for being contrarian or unpopular but correct. In fact, being unpopular and correct is a dangerous combination that can leave you much more vulnerable to punishment if your presence threatens those who are popular but incorrect.
It's rare to find the willingness and the resources to run parallel experiments upon discovering significant disagreements about goals and strategies, but it can still be beneficial to surface those disagreements to inform a decision. The problem is, why should anyone register disagreement if they know there's no individual upside, only reputational risk?
An anonymous survey or suggestion box could address pluralistic ignorance, but you'd still need an additional step to transform compelling survey data into actual coordination.
As it happens, I'm building a tool that can surface meaningful preference signals, identify critical masses of support for different ideas and proposals, and enable pluralistic knowledge dissemination inside an organization to facilitate more rational decisions and counter the effects of political or bureaucratic dysfunction. It's called spartacus.app. I'd love to get impressions.