Groupthink Avoidance Strategies

Great leadership isn’t about ensuring alignment all the time. Here is why: I recently worked with a leadership team in a global company that, at first glance, seemed to be thriving. Meetings were quick, decisions were made efficiently, and everyone was on the same page. They believed this harmony meant they were operating at peak performance. But beneath the surface, something critical was missing: 🚫 innovation. Their constant agreement was stifling progress. Without diverse ideas, challenges, or healthy debate, the team was simply recycling the same thinking, overlooking new opportunities and struggling with complex problems. It was a classic case of ‘groupthink’—where everyone falls into agreement to avoid conflict or discomfort.  👇 Here’s what I did with the team: - Diagnosed the agreement cycle & TPS - Introduced psychological safety practices - Encouraged intellectual humility - Secured mechanism for diverse input integration We started worked on inclusive decision-making practices by ensuring that every voice in the room was heard. We integrated mechanisms like structured brainstorming, anonymous idea submissions, and rotating roles of idea champions to reduce bias and prevent dominant voices from overtaking discussions. 📈 The result? Not only did their decision-making improve, but their solutions became more creative and forward-thinking. Leaders, here're the takeaways: 1️⃣ If your meetings are full of "Yes, I agree," ask yourself what you might be missing. 2️⃣ Diversity of thought is your competitive advantage. 3️⃣ Teams thrive when they feel safe enough to disagree and bold enough to innovate. This is psychological safety. P.S. Do you think your team challenges each other enough? I’d love to hear your thoughts 👇

👉 Are you leading a groupthink factory? 🤔 🏢 A few years ago, I walked into a high-stakes strategy meeting, confident that my team—experienced, capable, and highly skilled—would deliver a breakthrough solution. Instead, I got silence, predictable comments, and a quick consensus. We left the room thinking we had made a great meeting. We hadn’t. 🤦♂️ This forced me to confront an uncomfortable truth: a strong team is not necessarily a smart team... Executives love to say, "The team is always right." 👩💼 📚 But research from MIT’s Center for Collective Intelligence (Woolley et al., 2010) shows that teams only outperform individuals under specific conditions—which most organizations fail to create. In reality, teams often suppress critical thinking rather than enhance it. 💡 The problem isn’t incompetence. The problem is the way groups operate. The moment a group gathers in a meeting, an invisible dynamic takes over: - People seek agreement rather than truth. - Those with the most authority set the tone. - Disagreement feels risky, so many remain silent. The result? A room full of brilliant minds converging on the wrong answer—because no one dares to challenge the dominant perspective. 🔎 Harvard professor Amy Edmondson (2019) has shown that psychological safety is key, but it’s not just about making people feel comfortable—it’s about changing how teams think and operate. 💫 The solution isn’t to discard teamwork—it’s to redesign it: 1️⃣ Separate thinking from discussion Before a meeting, require every participant to work on the problem individually. Each person must develop their ideas, written out in advance, without group influence. 🧑🎓 Research from Carnegie Mellon (Aggarwal & Woolley, 2013) shows that individuals generate more original ideas alone than in group settings. Meetings should be a place to refine ideas, not create them. 2️⃣ Silence the Leader (Yes, You) The moment a senior executive speaks, the discussion is over—no one wants to contradict the boss. Instead, start meetings by having junior employees share first. Senior leaders should listen before contributing. 3️⃣ Appoint a Challenger Every decision-making meeting should include one person with a specific role: challenging the dominant perspective. If the team can’t successfully counter its arguments, the decision isn’t strong enough. 4️⃣ Reduce Team Size for Critical Decisions Research shows that smaller teams make better decisions. Decision-making teams of 4-6 people produce higher-quality outcomes than larger ones. Therefore, keep them lean and diverse in thought. 🔥 A room full of smart people doesn’t guarantee smart decisions. It’s how you structure thinking that matters. ✨ The best teams don’t just agree. They challenge. ✨ ♻️ What’s your experience with groupthink? Drop your thoughts in the comments. ⬇️ #Leadership #DecisionMaking #ExecutiveCoaching #CriticalThinking #Management #GroupThink

Yesterday marked 38 years since the Space Shuttle Challenger broke apart 73 seconds into its flight, killing all 7 crew members onboard. It was the first fatal accident involving an American spacecraft while in flight. I was in 4th grade at the time and remember it well because Christa McAuliffe, a school teacher who was part of the Teacher In Space program, was part of the crew, and the launch was broadcast live and in schools across the country. The ultimate cause was determined to be the failure of rubber O-rings that were vulnerable in the cold temperatures on launch day. But the investigation into the accident revealed that NASA made fateful errors in judgement leading up to the launch. A major factor was “groupthink” — when the desire for group consensus overrides realistic appraisal of alternatives. It turns out that Challenger’s engineers had warned that the O-rings could fail in the cold, but it was later discovered that NASA managers dismissed these concerns in a series of meetings. The managers fixated on internal goals of staying on-schedule and external pressure to launch successfully, leading them to rationalize away the risks. The Challenger disaster is one of the most famous case studies on groupthink. It teaches every leader and team willing to listen the sobering lessons on the dangerous impacts of groupthink: ⚠️ It breeds overconfidence and closed-mindedness as warnings get dismissed. ⚠️ It creates self-censorship, as team members afraid to disrupt harmony stay silent rather than raising concerns. ⚠️ It leads to inadequate vetting of problems, as the team fails to work through weaknesses in the plan. ⚠️ It causes the team to fail to consider alternative viewpoints, information sources, and possibilities. So how can teams avoid groupthink and make better decisions? Leaders should proactively: ✅ Designate team members to play "devil's advocate" questioning assumptions. ✅ SLOW DOWN. Encourage open dissent, listening carefully to skeptical viewpoints. ✅ Continually re-evaluate their position's weaknesses, NOT just its strengths. ✅ Welcome ideas and inputs from outside sources to pierce insularity. ✅ Remind the team at every stage that being completely unified is NOT the goal — understanding reality is. The Challenger disaster stands as a reminder that every team, no matter how experienced or competent, is vulnerable to the pitfalls of groupthink. But leaders who cultivate cultures of openness, diversity of thought, constructive dissent, and continual re-evaluation can better live up to their servant leadership responsibilities. #Leadership #CriticalThinking #ProblemSolving

In the lead-up to the Challenger disaster, engineers warned: the O-rings might fail in cold weather. The data was clear. But no one wanted to rock the boat. Under pressure to launch, key concerns were ignored—and the cost was devastating. This isn’t just a NASA problem. It’s a people problem. In the 1950s, Solomon Asch ran a study showing how individuals would rather doubt their own eyes than disagree with the group. Over 75% conformed at least once—even when the right answer was obvious. When psychological safety is missing, truth gets buried. That’s why we need more than open doors—we need open systems. One powerful tool? The #TargetModelofDiscretion. It helps organizations surface misaligned priorities, reduce silent compliance, and protect people who see the red flags first. 🧭 Want to start changing this tomorrow? Try these 4 creative steps: Run an anonymous RAN poll – Ask your team: “What gets the most attention?” “What’s most neglected but important?” → Categorize by Relevant, Actionable, and Necessary Assign a rotating Devil’s Advocate – One person per week challenges groupthink in meetings. Normalize constructive dissent. It means a person feels safe enough to challenge ideas. Encourage this. Do a “Target Check-In” monthly – Ask: “Are we focusing on the loudest voices, or what actually matters?” Use micro-coaching cards – Print or post prompts like: “What would you say if you weren’t afraid?” “What feels wrong but isn’t being voiced?” Conformity is easy. Courage takes systems. Use discretion wisely—and lead so others can too. #PsychologicalSafety #ServantLeadership #TargetModelOfDiscretion #ChallengerDisaster #Leadership #EthicalDecisionMaking #OrganizationalCulture #RANFramework #Groupthink

If I was an exec looking to lead my team more effectively, I’d ditch the old school advice and very intentionally go against common practices. Most leadership advice teaches you to have all the answers, maintain control, and project unwavering confidence. But here’s what I’ve learned from working with hundreds of high-performing founders & execs: 🔥The most effective leaders do the opposite. So here are 5 unorthodox leadership strategies that actually work: 1. Lead with your questions, not your answers. ↳ Instead of having all the solutions, ask better questions. “What are we missing?” “How would you approach this?” “What would happen if we tried the opposite?” 🔥Questions create psychological safety and unlock your team’s best thinking. 2. Make your decision-making process transparent. ↳ Don’t just announce decisions- show your team how you arrived at them. Share your trade-offs, uncertainties, and even your mistakes. 3. Deliberately facilitate productive tension. ↳ Don’t avoid conflict. Great leaders put opposing viewpoints in the same room and facilitate the tension. Productive conflict prevents groupthink and surfaces better solutions. 4. Share your failures before your successes. ↳ When onboarding new team members, start with stories of what didn’t work and why. This normalizes failure as part of innovation and gives people permission to take calculated risks without fear of judgment. 5. Schedule “no-agenda” time with your team. ↳ Block 30 minutes weekly with no predetermined topics. You’ll discover issues, opportunities, and insights that never surface in structured meetings. The more comfortable you get with not having all the answers, the more your team will step up with theirs. What would you add? 🔥What’s the most unconventional leadership approach that’s worked for you?

Avoiding Groupthink begins with an awareness of its possibility and explicit efforts to mitigate the risk of it affecting critical decisions. Those efforts include: fostering a culture that welcomes forthright assessments and recommendations, even when they may run counter to what is perceived the leader wants to hear; ensuring that individuals known to hold different opinions and from varied backgrounds are included at the table for key discussions; encouraging reasoned and respectful dissent; and scheduling events to enable assessments of the success of the implementation of the big ideas adopted so that those big ideas can be revisited as needed...

What happens if your team is all about YES and does not challenge your thoughts as a leader? In short - you are f....ed! As leaders, we strive to create a harmonious work environment. But sometimes, in our pursuit of consensus, we fall into a dangerous trap: surrounding ourselves with a "yes boss" who never challenges our ideas. Although this may appear to be a formula for success, it can be detrimental to our team's performance, creativity, and #MentalHealth, as well as your #Leadership effectiveness and growth. 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮 𝗬𝗘𝗦 𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗺 𝗶𝘀 𝗯𝗮𝗱. Groupthink occurs when team members prioritize consensus and conformity over critical thinking and rational decision-making. They avoid expressing or acknowledging dissenting views, doubts, or objections. They fear upsetting the leader or disrupting the harmony of the group. The negative effects are  ↳ Poor quality of decisions. ↳ Lowered trust and respect. ↳ Limit your learning and growth. ↳ Lack of creativity and innovation. ↳ Reduced engagement and motivation. ↳ Damage your reputation and credibility. 𝗘𝗺𝗯𝗿𝗮𝗰𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 "𝗠𝗮𝘆𝗯𝗲" 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 "𝗕𝘂𝘁" 𝗶𝘀 𝗮 𝗽𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗳𝘂𝗹 𝘁𝗼𝗼𝗹! It offers : ✓ Psychological safety:  Foster a culture where disagreement is valued, not feared. Encourage constructive criticism and diverse viewpoints. ✓ Active listening:  Genuinely listen to disagreement, understand the "why" behind it, and acknowledge the value it brings. ✓ Healthy debate:  Encourage respectful discussions, focusing on facts and solutions, not personal attacks. Good leaders foster a #Culture of healthy disagreement and constructive feedback. They achieve this by clearly communicating their vision, welcoming diverse opinions, actively listening and responding, facilitating constructive debate, and providing and receiving honest feedback. Have you ever been part of a YES team or a NO team? How did it affect your work and well-being? --------- I am Jayant, a big supporter of raising awareness about Mental Health. Follow #JayThoughts for more.

Every manager leading people thinks about managing conflict in their team. Conflict management is a key goal, said out loud or not. Because of it, covertly or overtly, the manager does or says things that reduce/avoid conflict. Your team, like the rest of humanity, mimics their leader. They push in the direction you push in. They too take steps to cut down disagreement. That's how you've taken the first steps toward building a team of nodding heads. But you don't want that. You only want to bring down friction in everyday team management. You don't want that to happen at the cost of perspective-sharing, which by the way will only happen when your team speaks their minds. Now you're in a pickle. You want to avoid conflict and you want to avoid groupthink. How do you do both? You encourage disagreement. Nope--encourage sounds wrong. It feels like something you do with words. No, don't bother saying anything. Do, instead. Show with actions. You incentivize people to be themselves and speak their minds by permitting a structure, an occasion, for such sharing. Alfred Sloan, who led General Motors for long, was known to ask this of his team in discussions that reached an early consensus: 'Gentlemen, I take it we are all in complete agreement on the decision here. Then, I propose we postpone further discussion of this matter until our next meeting to give ourselves time to develop disagreement and perhaps gain some understanding of what the decision is all about.' Your team's desire for harmony comes from you. Your team's desire to share their unfiltered perspective comes from the permission they think you have given them to speak up. You can be a conflict avoidant manager AND a groupthink buster manager at the same time. To do so, you need to understand that your beliefs (and actions that follow) as a leader are the most contagious for your team. That's a foundational principle of management. This is one of three principles I broke down management to in my recent masterclass on emerging leaders. Link in comments. #leadership #emergingleaders #curiosityovercertainty

You're Already Inside It Groupthink. 99% of the time, you don't even know you're trapped in it. You think you're making independent decisions. You think you're being rational. You think you're considering all options. But you're not. You're following the invisible current of the crowd. Last week's events? Perfect example. Everyone laughing. Everyone sharing. Everyone judging. The past few years? Even better. At work? We see leaders nodding along to strategies that feel "right." We watch teams agree on solutions that seem "smart." Here's what groupthink actually looks like: → Nobody questions the assumptions -  everyone accepts → Dissenting voices stay quiet to avoid conflict → Data gets filtered to support the popular narrative → "This is how we've always done it" Facilitation can make a real difference here. - I pre-assign leadership roles - and it's often NOT from the front of the room. - We use breakouts to prevent echo chambers. - We deep dive to understand context, drivers, and givens before we even touch options. - We surface assumptions instead of building on them. Most importantly? - We invite different perspectives and make it safe to disagree. - We're not chasing consensus - we're building shared understanding. - We design inclusive solutions that actually create value. Because it's not just about finding solutions. It's about understanding how those solutions connect to real value. But even with these safeguards? Groupthink still creeps in. Because the pressure to belong is stronger than the courage to dissent. So here's my question for you: What "obvious" decision are you making right now that everyone around you agrees with? That might be exactly the one to question. Because the most dangerous groupthink isn't the kind you can see. It's the kind that feels like independent thinking. What assumptions are you ready to challenge? Drop them in the comments 👇 #DecisionMaking #CriticalThinking #Facilitation #grouthink

When a team doesn't have psychological safety then it's highly likely that groupthink will prevail. Groupthink is a theory developed by Irving Janis after he conducted extensive research into how groups make decisions in stressful situations. Here's a sketchnote summary of the main behaviours Janis suggests we'll see when there's groupthink. Clues to watch out for: 1. Invulnerability - decision makers take extraordinary risks and have no real sense of threats. 2. Rationalising - explaining away any evidence or information that is contrary to their decisions or policies. 3. Morality - blind to or simply ignores the moral and ethical implications of their decisions or policies. 4. Stereotypes - anyone who challenges or threatens their decisions or policies is stereotyped as an enemy. 5. Pressure - subtle pressure is put on any group member who expresses doubts. 6. Self-censorship - group members will hold back from saying what they really think and won't share outside the group. 7. Unanimity - once a decision is made any remaining doubts are carefully screened out so all speak as one. 8. 'Mindguards' - group members act as bodyguards to decisions, stifling any dissent or challenge outside of the group. A tactic I share with clients is 'the devil's advocate' approach, which Margaret Heffernen talks about in her book 'Wilful Blindness'. Essentially, each meeting, a different person takes on the devil's advocate role and they have explicit permission to ask difficult questions about a decision. It's important the role is rotated to avoid falling into conformity or complacency. What tactics help you avoid groupthink in your team? #decisionmaking #psychology #leadership #infographic