A Case Against Consensus

In many corporate boardrooms across the world, consensus and agreement are common internal signal of “having done the correct thing”. When everyone is nodding along then you've got it right.. obviously. However when everyone in a room comes to the same conclusion given the same evidence this is often a sign of group think or even a broken system. This can lead to catastrophe.?

There are a number of strategies one can employ to combat this problem. Some have been used for centuries and others more recent.?

Batte Din

In Judaism the Bet Din is a rabbinical court which adjudicates cases involving criminal, civil, or religious law. Historically, when the court adjudicated a capital case, 23 judges were required to hear evidence and come to a conclusion. There were a number of factors which needed to be taken into consideration as well as rules to be followed, but by far the most interesting of which was that if all 23 judges came to the same verdict, then the accused would be set free. The idea being that if not even one judge could find anything exculpatory about the accused then it was an indicator of a failure of the court. The system itself had failed because at least one person should be playing the role of devil’s advocate when handing down a death sentence.?

Advocatus Diaboli

Something similar can be found in the Catholic Church, particularly with regards to the process of canonization of a candidate. It was one person’s role to play advocatus diaboli (Devil's Advocate) and they were required to find all the reasons against canonization. To uncover evidence against the candidate, character flaws or misrepresentation that may have been missed, despite their own personal beliefs.

Office of the Devil’s Advocate

One of the most famous examples of this is employed by the Israeli Defence Force who has an official 'Office of the Devil’s Advocate' whose responsibility it is to “examine the possibility of a radical and negative change occurring within the security environment even when the defense establishment does not think that such a development is likely”. The office was established to combat group think after the catastrophic failure of intelligence analysis in 1973 leading to the infamous Yom Kippur War which everyone agreed wouldn’t happen. Until it did.?

"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn’t thinking"

-- General George S. Patton

The point of all this is to demonstrate the dangers of consensus. We’re taught that consensus is good, and it can be, but it also feeds into a very human desire to please and create harmony. Sometimes with lethal consequences. When we have a differing opinion we feel the need to assume we’re wrong first and speak up later, if we even speak up at all. We don’t like to stand out or stand up when nobody else is.

The 10th Person Strategy

There's a great strategy for combatting the problem of group think and consensus while injecting creativity, and trust for dissenters, into problem solving. The 10th Person Strategy says that if 9 people are given the same evidence and come to the same conclusion it is the duty and responsibility of the 10th person to assume that the other 9 are wrong and to dig for reasons as to why - regardless of how unlikely the probability of that is. To play devil’s advocate. ?

FONA (Fear Of Not Agreeing)

That you must be wrong because everyone else must be right.?

We’ve seen countless examples of this over the years and they all have the same thing in common. People making decisions who were very wrong, and obviously so in hindsight. From incumbents like Nokia and Blackberry dismissing mobile phone competition, to investors throwing money at the likes of WeWork to Theranos.

We see it in meeting rooms all the time too. A young intern too scared to ask a question or a flag not being raised on the eve of a promotion cycle for fear of offending someone. But for the most part, it’s a fear of being in disagreement with the consensus of the group. The 10th person strategy is a great way to build-in mitigation without the pitfalls of hoping individuals will speak up.

If you're interested in following someone on LinkedIn who I think does this very well check out Tom Goodwin. When everyone is looking right, he's usually looking left.

(Bonus content)