Group Think - The Innovation Killer

Swift discussions with zero debate are a big red flag when it comes to innovation. While it might be tempting to drive an efficient conclusion to your way of thinking, you skip critical thinking and debate at your peril. We've all experienced one person sharing their point of view in a very compelling way and a group reaching a decision, only for it to emerge later that there were some unforeseen consequences and that the decision was clearly the wrong one. This happens more often that we realise.

Group Think can also be a positive indication of team cohesion, so let’s not suppress it. Let’s be aware of it and learn how to work as a team to get better outcomes. 

I once worked with a client where Group Think was the norm. It wasn’t that the team got on well. In fact, there was a lot of dissent behind the scenes. It was because people were too fearful to disagree with the CEO and this culture cascaded down the organisation. The CEO was frustrated and his teams were doing him an injustice. 

First of all, we worked with the CEO to make him aware that there wasn’t enough discussion on important topics. Meetings were efficient, for sure, but we realised that decisions were not always optimal. His openness and willingness to solve the problem, certainly helped move forward with the next steps.

Secondly, we worked on a plan of action to increase debate. Encouraging individuals to speak up had not worked, so this time I asked him to invite people to role play differing opinions, to be the devil’s advocate. This gave them a “safe” means of challenging the Group Think and it was highly unthreatening. A similar tactic was to get different members of the team to advocate for different stakeholders, such as customers, employees, vendors, shareholders or the media.

Thirdly, we tried to create some breathing space. It was clear that tight deadlines were giving people a "just get it done" mindset to complete a checkbox rather than to get the right outcome. We looked at setting more realistic deadlines and educated the executive team in how better outcomes, driven by critical thinking and open discussions, would in fact save time and money in the short term.

Fourthly, we raised awareness of Group Think, and the positive and negative consequences of it, in team discussions throughout the organisation. We encouraged team members to call each other out and highlight when there was too much consensus. This became a source of light-hearted banter with the serious positive outcome of self-awareness.

Gradually, open discussion became more of a norm. 

What do you think about Group Think? What examples do you have of Group Think in your organisations? How do you bring critical discussion into your teams? Comment below and let me know.

All views are my own