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 unforeseen consequences and that the decision was clearly the wrong one. This happens more often than we realise.

Group Think can also be a positive indication of team cohesion, so let’s not suppress it entirely. 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, we worked with the CEO to make him aware that there wasn’t enough discussion on important topics. Meetings were efficient, for sure, but decisions were not always optimal. His openness and willingness to solve the problem certainly helped move things forward.

Second, we worked on a plan of action to increase debate. Encouraging individuals to speak up hadn’t worked, so instead we invited people to role-play differing opinions and 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.

Third, we tried to create some breathing space. It was clear that tight deadlines were giving people a “just get it done” mindset, aimed at completing a checkbox rather than reaching 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 discussion, would in fact save time and money in the short term.

Fourth, we raised awareness of Group Think, and its positive and negative consequences, 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.