If Your Team Agrees on Everything, Working Together Is Pointless

It was a dreadful solution to a burning problem, that came out of a cross-functional project team meeting, comprising primarily of mid-level managers. “How could you not think of the consequences of this proposal, and not to mention, the time and costs involved in implementing this?” were my initial thoughts, when the team lead, Ali, brought me this assumingly brilliant plan. Concealing my feelings, I requested him to meet later in the week to deliberate over the proposed solution. In fact, I wanted to ponder over as well as discuss the root cause of coming up with such an ill-conceived proposal.

I knew the team which discussed the issue and came up with the solution. Ali was the senior most person on the team. Some of the team members were under his direct supervision whereas others were quite junior to him. After some thought and discussion with some members, I realized that the actual problem was not lack of knowledge or comprehension, it was quite subtle – it was over-respecting authority and playing nice with another.

In some cultures, people look up to their seniors or those in authority to lead a discussion or to decide on a course of action to handle a problem. The breadth and depth of discussion varies but the cultural norms of paying respect to the seniors seldom lets any meaningful debate to happen. The disagreements are not expressed vocally and assertively but rather toned down to carefully avoid any show of disrespect.

In general, no meaningful collaboration is possible in teams without some level of tension, disagreement or conflict. Those who believe passionately in anything go extra mile to defend their ideas. Disagreement is not disrespect. Sometimes disagreement helps pouring in more thought and encourage diverse views before letting an answer emerge. Playing nice with one another in teams, will seldom help find an optimal solution to a problem. However, at the same time, it is necessary to have a laser sharp focus on the problem rather than the persons. Too much inclination on getting your own viewpoint accepted will make it quite difficult to build consensus. Great minds do NOT think alike, rather, they challenge each other to do better!

As Walter Lippmann said, “Where all think alike, no one thinks very much.” Without disagreements, the teams can only achieve incremental thinking. Absence of a meaningful debate on an issue, kills creativity and innovation and the thinking process will rarely reveal any profound solution.

When deliberating on an issue in a meeting, it is necessary to respect everyone’s time. Compromising too early and avoiding an effective debate is a disrespect to everyone. The participants need to apply their minds in order to search for the best solution to problem at hand. An effective meeting should provide more value than the combined labour cost of the meeting attendees.

In a typical meeting on sales and operations planning (S&OP), Sales might be focusing on meeting customer needs, by any means possible. Production may be stressing for more standardization and uniform production cycles, whereas Finance may be worried about investment in working capital. These diverse needs from different quarters of an organization require some compromises to be made. If these compromises are based on effective debate, the organization can ensure a win-win solution for everyone. Playing nice would also require compromises. However, these may prove not to be in the best interest of the organization in the long run.

Sometimes, the agreements or disagreements in a meeting do not come from the roles assumed by different team members. These may also surface due to difference in personalities. The senior/team lead should be cognizant of varied personalities involved and should take upon himself/herself to ensure that everyone has the freedom and encouragement to speak up and make a point.

The leader should first ensure that the team characterizes a good mix of diversity, in terms of seniority, gender, functions, as well as cultural/ethnic dispositions. The leader should always endeavor to encourage participation by all and ensure that their viewpoints are respected, especially when these conflict with his/her own. The traditional way of clarifying expectations at the outset with individual team members as well as collectively with the group, may be useful. During the discussion, the leader should pay attention if seemingly vague or mediocre ideas are not challenged or that the discussion merely scratches the surface of the issue, without digging enough deep to unravel the root cause. A smart leader sometimes plays the role of a devil’s advocate and provokes discussion.

An effective team is more than the sum of the effectiveness of individual members. It is a collective responsibility of the team to foster a culture of positive disagreements within teams, while ensuring emotional maturity to face a critique.