When decisions in government go wrong, they have the potential to go very wrong. Think along the lines of environmental degradation, armed conflict and economic collapse. Often, these decision-making failures come down to groupthink — when individuals fail to challenge one another, prioritising harmony over critical thinking.
No one is above groupthink. It can happen anywhere, at any time, in any setting, in any culture and any country. If there’s a group of people making a decision, there’s a risk of groupthink. But of course, there is also incredible benefit to decision-making as a group — arriving at a good decision requires bringing a wide range of voices to the table. So, how do you get the balance right?
Here are the best practical tips and takeaways from experts across government and academia.
Q: What do you need to do to make sure that your group ultimately arrives at a good decision?
First, ask: Who’s in your group? Having a diverse team is essential to preventing groupthink. This diversity is not just demographic — you need to be working with a group of people who possess different expertise, backgrounds and perspectives.
Often, voting within the group is seen as a possible approach to arriving at a solution. However, voting can result in a lack of nuance, turning the decision into an overly simple yes/no response. Instead, you need to manage how the group of people making the decision communicates. If you’re leading the group, you can do so by encouraging equal participation and making sure no one voice is dominant.
The bottom line is that good communication focuses on building understanding and not on persuasion. The goal of a good discussion should be sharing reasons behind opinions.
Q: How do you handle disrupting a cohesive group when you disagree with what everyone else is saying?
Taking a stand often requires a strategic approach. It’s important not only to have courage but also to present your points tactically to avoid disrupting teamwork. The goal is to introduce new perspectives without causing friction, ideally making others feel as though they are part of the idea-generation process.
Creating a culture focused on a robust decision-making process is vital. Withholding personal opinions until after others have spoken is something many leaders experiment with. As is encouraging disagreement to enhance group discussions and outcomes, using methods like playing devil’s advocate to stimulate more diverse viewpoints.
It is also worth investing time and effort in building processes that allow all team members to contribute, including those who may be quieter or less likely to speak up in meetings. Techniques like using sticky notes to collect ideas anonymously can help ensure everyone’s voice is heard, fostering a more inclusive and comprehensive decision-making process.
Q: How do you know when groupthink is happening or if you’re contributing to it?
You need to create conditions that allow you to recognise groupthink. Just as you are one part of a whole brain — the team — so too is everyone else, and they are all different and don’t approach the problem from the same perspective. If you do not see disagreement or debate taking place, it is worth reflecting on whether the conditions to express dissent exist.
Let’s imagine the following scenario. You’ve just been asked to take on managing a new team and, quite quickly, you start noticing several inefficiencies. You want to take charge and implement some changes, but your new team is incredibly resistant. What are they seeing that you are not?
At this point, it’s time to reflect on your own cognitive bias. How does the way you think influence your assessment of a situation? What are my colleagues and peers seeing that I might simply not be able to? Instead of pushing through with change, the correct approach is to create the conditions to allow them to express their dissent.
Q: If you’re not in a leadership position, what can you do to prevent groupthink without being seen as challenging authority?
While you might not have the power, you likely have the ability to influence. You should feel confident observing and sharing, explaining what you’re seeing and why you understand it this way. You should always ask questions like: Can you tell me more about why we’re moving in this direction?
Q: Is it possible time-wise to listen to every single voice? What can you do when you are time-poor?
There need to be ground rules for any discussion. Avoid repetitively debating a point that was already made. All contributions should be new and add value to the discussion, preventing the conversation from getting sidetracked. Technology can also help enhance collective intelligence. They can streamline information-sharing and decision-making processes before a meeting even takes place.
Q: How does the “wisdom of crowds” approach work?
Making decisions shouldn’t just be about saying yes or no. These kinds of decisions often miss deeper evaluations. For instance, when hiring someone, you don’t just decide yes or no. Instead, you use a scoring rubric to assess various aspects of the candidate, which helps justify your decision. This approach considers more than just a simple binary choice. Examine what’s beneath any yes/no decision and focus on gathering and evaluating those underlying factors, especially when accuracy is essential.
Q: Do you have any tips and tricks for encouraging others to check their biases, either individual or collective?
Authority does not necessarily equal leadership. A good leader must be well-informed and vigilant about recognising signs of groupthink. Tackling unconscious bias is crucial to this. Leaders should be educated about their biases and how these can influence decision-making processes within groups, potentially leading to groupthink. They also need to address their biases first before trying to influence others or implement changes.
Q: It feels safer to be in the majority. When you’re accountable — as you are in government — there is perhaps even more fear of going against the grain. Any tips?
In government settings, risk avoidance is natural. Because the public service operates under intense scrutiny, there is significant pressure on decision-making. Success might earn some acknowledgement, but mistakes are heavily criticised. This environment necessitates a certain level of bravery to challenge the status quo and advocate for change.
Leadership plays a crucial role in setting the tone for their teams and departments, shaping the organisational culture so that it encourages debate and challenges conventional approaches. While it’s important to take risks, it doesn’t mean being reckless; instead, effective risk management and contingency planning are essential.
This article is reproduced from Apolitical.
READ MORE:
