The Neglected Power of Dissent

I grew up (as a business psychologist) during the “team” movement. Ameren/UE, the electric utility I worked for during this time, made a huge investment in engaging employees as they implemented W. Edwards Deming’s quality improvement techniques during the 1990’s. My role was to facilitate and train teams in this methodology. I led numerous teams through the “Form/Storm/Norm/Perform” stages of group development (first described by Bruce Tuchman in 1965) and scribed on the white board during countless brainstorming sessions. Overall, we saw great success as we applied Deming’s approach to large-scale business processes such as street light maintenance – a big opportunity for improvement when you have thousands of light bulbs to replace each year! However, we also spent a fair amount of unproductive time in team settings. Our training/facilitation process was very formal and required each team to have a name. Corporate legend has it that one of the teams in Human Resources burned a month of meetings to label themselves “Benefits R Us.”

But that was learning and we’ve all spent our share of time with unproductive teams so the question is – how to make teams more productive and successful? I recently revisited one of my favorite articles on group dynamics that I believe may help you in certain team settings. This piece, by Jonah Lehrer writing for the New Yorker, titled Groupthink (January 30, 2012), questions many of the long-held rules of brainstorming. But since the brainstorming critique is tied to groupthink, let’s first review the basics of that concept.

Irving Janis first described groupthink in 1972 as the tendency for groups to reach invalid conclusions or decisions based on an excessive level of cohesion in the group. Janis identified the following symptoms of groupthink:

Overestimations of the group — its power and morality

  1. Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking.
  2. Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.

Closed-mindedness

  1. Rationalizing warnings that might challenge the group’s assumptions.
  2. Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as incorrect, biased, or even evil.

Pressures toward uniformity

  1. Self-censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.
  2. Illusions of unanimity among group members – silence is viewed as agreement.
  3. Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of “disloyalty.”
  4. Mindguards – self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information.

So do any of these symptoms look familiar in teams or groups that you have worked on or led? I’m sure they do. The most cited “famous examples” of groupthink include the space shuttle Challenger disaster, where despite ample evidence that the rubber O-rings used to seal the solid rocket boosters were subject to failure in cold weather, the command team dismissed this information and pushed forward with the launch on a cold January day in 1986. Another often-cited example of groupthink, which Janis used to initially frame his theory, was the failed Bay of Pigs invasion initiated by the Kennedy administration. Several advisors to the president attempted to voice their objections to the plan but were overridden by others in the group who believed their moral compass was more accurate in decision making.

Now on to brainstorming! If you recall the technique, the fundamental requirement is not to be critical or provide negative feedback as each group member takes a turn in providing an idea or solution to the problem at hand. Only after all of the ideas are on the table is any critique or evaluation allowed. And that’s exactly how I taught the technique to hundreds of people but Lehrer’s article points out substantial research which refutes this practice.

One study cited was conducted by Charlan Nemeth of Cal-Berkley in 2003. Nemeth’s research focus is the power of dissent and that construct was strongly supported in this study. A simple design:  two groups working on ideas to reduce traffic congestion with group A given standard “no critique” brainstorming instructions and group B given “debate” instructions, i.e., they were told groups typically come up with good solutions when they actively discuss, criticize, and develop multiple ideas. Results showed the debate instructions group were more creative and produced 20 percent more ideas. Another interesting finding – when questioned individually, the debate group continued their creative fluency and were able to produce almost twice as many additional solutions further suggesting the practice of open debate and constructive criticism stimulates imagination.

So notice the nexus between brainstorming and groupthink. If groupthink is a symptom of excessive social cohesion, i.e., being too comfortable with people then our prior “don’t criticize” approach to brainstorming is the enabler. Put more simply, “going along to get along” may produce more instant gratification but it will likely produce less creativity and poorer solutions in the long run.

Think about your last group interaction. Did you hold back your dissenting opinion or different point of view alternative? What about that HR group I mentioned in the opening paragraph? I’m thinking there were likely numerous members of the group who thought, “we’re spending a month to come up with a name which is a variant of “Babies R Us” when we could be working on ideas to improve benefit offerings?” Does that approach help or hinder group effectiveness?

This note of caution, to speak up loudly but civilly, is even more necessary in the church world. I now spend the majority of my time working with church or para-church organizations. The common bond and purpose of these groups is exhilarating but it can also be limiting and clearly lead to groupthink. So my typical approach when working with these groups is to openly acknowledge the unity of purpose at the outset, but also state that purpose is best served when we all bring our ideas and opinions to the table, even those which seem different or disagreeable. And yes, I’m cheeky enough in these sessions to use the term “Devil’s advocate” frequently!

Obviously there is a need for balance in this approach. I may occasionally be the Devil’s advocate but I’m not advocating shouting, name-calling, or fisticuffs. But since groups and teams comprise much of our interaction today, I am encouraging a healthy skepticism, a polite dissent, an alternative tempered with encouragement. This approach, coupled with being on-guard for other symptoms of groupthink will likely make your team time more effective.