Encouraging Dissent

Garry Emmons writes in a recent issue of Harvard Business School's Working Knowledge, about Encouraging Dissent in Decision Making.

He argues that candor and honesty, in opposition to general consensus, add value to the conversation - help lead a group to a more thoughtful conclusion.

I suspect he's right. And he sights several examples of what happens when dissenting voices stay silent.

I was a little disappointed by his recommendation that companies find a way to compensate dissent and honesty in the expression of a contrary opinion.. A noble cause to be sure, but an impractical one. It simply goes against human nature.

If the crowd wants to drive toward a specific conclusion, there's very little personal benefit in raising one's voice in opposition. In fact, in many cases, there's only downside.

I think the discussion process needs to be fixed. If you want to enable opposing opinion, enable it. Once your group has reached consensus, split the group up into two smaller teams. Smaller team sizes allow individual voices to be heard better. Each team's goal is to list several reasons why the previous conclusion is a bad one - or is based on flawed reasoning or how it could be adversely affected by market shifts.

Make it EVERYONE's job to dissent. Build it into the process.

That way, individuals who strongly feel that the original outcome is incorrect, could argue their case with impunity - after all, this has become part of the decision making process. No one is at "fault" for participating in the critique. No one is seen as being an obstructionist.

I believe the outcome would be better decisions without the personal career risk.