What are effective strategies for managing groupthink in facilitated discussions?

When defining the problem in a facilitated discussion, your role is not just that of a manager but that of a strategist and a visionary leader. Establish a framework that is both comprehensive and flexible, geared toward both immediate results and long-term growth. Ensure that financial and strategic KPIs are in place to measure the effectiveness of the discussion, just as you would in a business context. By doing so, you'll have set the stage for a discussion that not only mitigates the risks of groupthink but also aligns well with your innovative and practical approach to problem-solving.

Dissent shouldn't just be encouraged; it should be structured, managed, and aligned with the company's financial and strategic goals. When orchestrated correctly, it becomes the lifeblood of innovation and a safeguard against the stagnation that often results from groupthink.

Encouraging this is also a good way of allowing people think outside the box and bring new perspectives to the discussion. Sometimes, things are not as they appear. I love to play the devils advocate, it also encourages a lot more people to share opposing views. The goal isn’t to all agree on what’s popular, the goal is to consider all likely options till we find a good fit.

External output can be viewed in two ways: bringing outsider to the group discussion, or having discussion outside of the group. I like to prepare discussions by consulting members individually (at least key members) in advance. This allows two things: First, it give time to think on a discussion, not an email. The result is usually of a higher quality. Secondly, they can share their opinions without fear of being judged or contradicted. If they do not bring a valuable opinion in front of the group, I can shoulder that responsibility. Another way to do that is to allow time between two sessions, for more timid member to find me with the objections they did not submit in session. I can voice them if it is relevant.

I agree with this. 3rd person point of view removes any existing bias shared by the group. Largely, we all have our biases, a person who hasn’t been exposed to any of those biases can bring fresh and untainted insights to the discuss.

The review and revision stage is not an afterthought but an integral part of a robust decision-making framework. It allows us to iterate our strategies, refine our approaches, and adapt to evolving circumstances—all essential traits for achieving sustainable growth in any industry, and absolutely crucial in a sector as dynamic as the food industry.

As facilitator of 100+ innovation projects all over the world, I love to share a CHECKLIST: 15 TIPS for PERFECT FACILITATION: 1. Define a relevant challenge 2. Create with the sponsor an assignment 3. Create momentum 4. Invite people for whom it is relevant. 5. Invite people for content as well as decision-making 6. Include outsiders 7. Invite the senior problem-owner 8. A special venue 9. An psychological safe environment 10. Never at the office 11. Spend twice as much time on the convergence - as on the divergence process. 12. Apply various idea-generating techniques 13. Keep up the pace 14. Appoint an expert facilitator 15. Make the output concrete Extra Tip: Check the FORTH innovation method for a structured approach.

It involves creating a supportive and inclusive environment that encourages diverse perspectives. The facilitator should establish clear objectives and ground rules for the discussion, ensuring everyone has an equal opportunity to contribute. Encouraging active listening and constructive feedback helps prevent groupthink and promotes critical thinking. Introducing techniques like brainstorming, role-playing, or breakout sessions can stimulate creativity and generate innovative ideas. The facilitator should also manage time effectively, ensuring all participants have sufficient opportunities to share their thoughts. Regular reflection and evaluation of the process can further enhance the effectiveness of think-tank discussions.