Appreciate Differences
In group problem-solving, diversity of opinion and healthy, reasoned debate ensure that our conclusions take into account all of the difficulties we can anticipate. Lock-step thinking and limited debate expose us to the risk of unanticipated risk.
In Boston, in early February, the Lower Basin of the Charles River is frozen. I know there's life in the river, though, because some ducks and geese are wintering over here. Perhaps the ducks especially appreciate this morning's bright sun, because about 50 of them are gathered on the ice in the lee of the left bank, warming themselves. They sit contentedly, heads turned completely backward, bills tucked under wings, in contorted postures that could be comfortable only for ducks.
They close their eyes, but they aren't asleep. Every once in a while, they peek -- to check that all's well and that no threats have appeared. When they peek, each sees a different part of the world, because no two ducks face in exactly the same direction. But they do see some of the other ducks. Since each individual faces in a different direction, the flock can see the whole world. If a threat appears, some ducks see it, and they stir. The others who can see them, in turn, stir too, and within a second or two all of the ducks know about the threat.
This system works because each duck settles into a position that it finds uniquely comfortable. The ducks do not demand that everyone face in exactly the same direction, or that all bills be tucked under the same wingpit. They let it happen however it happens. The diversity of direction guarantees the security of the flock.
In group problem-solving, we sometimes forget this lesson. Diversity of opinion, and healthy, reasoned debate, ensure that our conclusions take into account all of the difficulties we can anticipate. When we impose lock-step thinking, and when we pressure each other to limit debate, we limit the exploration of sources of risk, which, ironically, exposes us to the risk of unanticipated risk.
To reach sound decisions, we need vigorous debate. Yet, in some organizations, it can feel very unsafe to question proposals that have lots of momentum, especially if powerful people propose them.
The "Curmudgeon Team" is a possible workaround. When you're considering a proposal, appoint several people to team up to oppose the idea. Make it their job to ask the difficult questions and to pose the difficult what-ifs. This approach invigorates the debate, and it's a lot of fun, especially in costume. To avoid any long-lasting effect on individuals, rotate this job on a monthly basis.
After you've run Curmudgeon Teams for several months, and you've seen how they strengthen decisions and proposals, the safety issue will lessen. You'll use this artifice less often, because people will have come to appreciate differences. And maybe they will even learn to trust each other as much as do the ducks on the ice of the Charles.
Email this article to a friend.
Comments to:
