3 Ways to Avoid Groupthink When Your Work Team Is Making Decisions

The last two decades have seen a 50 percent increase in collaborative activities in the business world—with more and more decisions being made by work teams.

And teams aren’t always made up of people we agree with (or even know very well). Mismatches in personalities and work styles, along with the unique knowledge and perspective each person brings to the team, can lead to conflict (or conflict avoidance) and complicate decision making.

Easy consensus isn’t really the goal of work teams. Instead, teams should be gathered to find the best solutions, which often requires disagreement and maybe even a skillful hand at drawing out hesitant feedback from quiet colleagues.

A recent team project for a volunteer organization I’m part of illuminated the problem with group decision making: There was pressure to quickly solve a fundraising dilemma. One member threw out an idea. No one challenged it, because we were all feeling rushed and its champion seemed so confident. Discussion was minimal and, like barnacles, we all just latched on, adding our ideas to push it past the finish line. We didn’t stop to solicit any other ideas or consider potential drawbacks. Sometime later and further down the line, our decision (and all its accompanying work) was rejected and we had nothing to fall back on … because we hadn’t considered any other options and we hadn’t really explored the possible hurdles.

Even when teams are working well, decision making isn’t necessarily going to be easy. When everyone’s interested in finding the best solution and not everyone agrees on what that “best” is, some conflict is normal and even helpful. In fact, high levels of minority dissent have been proven to lead to greater innovation in team decision making, according to a Journal of Applied Psychology article. It “stimulates creativity and divergent thought.”

Signs of decision-making trouble aren’t obvious

Decision-making problems on your team are easy to spot when there are huge blow-ups or lingering bad feelings. But easy consensus could also signal trouble—when too few alternatives are suggested and members quickly agree on the first reasonable option or when only some of the alternatives are thoroughly discussed—suggests David W. Johnson for psychologytoday.com.

The growing prevalence of work teams means more group decision making

In world where unpredictability and disruption are the norm, businesses are striving to become more agile. And breaking free of top-down formal organizational hierarchies and departmental silos is part of that. A network of collaborative, cross-functional work teams is a growing trend in today’s business world. In fact, a Deloitte study found that 38 percent of companies and 24 percent of large companies (>50,000 employees) have moved away from traditional, functional structures.

The team approach gives organizations an edge in many situations. Decentralized decision making and fluidity enables them to react quickly to industry changes, strategically use employee expertise and get products to market faster. As a side benefit, teams can empower and engage employees by encouraging more ownership at all levels.

How can you encourage participation and the critical processing of ideas so you make use of the perspectives of everyone on the team? Several unconventional teamwork approaches may help.

1. Devil’s advocacy—A team member is assigned the role of devil’s advocate. This individual should be an expert on the topic and is charged with challenging group assumptions, questioning alternatives, offering alternate viewpoints. The person in this role must have high emotional intelligence, communication and conflict resolution skills so he or she is able to offer this dissent subtly and carefully. This approach helps team members more deeply process information, encouraging members to consider other angles of a problem, think more deeply about their own views and perhaps be stimulated to explore solutions they would not have considered before. Formalizing this role helps other team members understand that disagreement is not personal. It helps keep the dissent from being viewed as a challenge.
2. Nominal group technique—This technique helps avoid domination by a single person and is useful in encouraging participation in a group where members, for whatever reason, aren’t participating well, the topic is controversial or some of the members are new. If you’re using it to brainstorm, a facilitator can begin by having each team member spend 5 to 10 minutes thinking and writing down ideas. Then, each person states one idea as you move from person to person, with no discussion or questions from others. Individuals can pass, offer suggestions they haven’t written down or supply extra ideas later if they “pass” a turn. Once you’ve finished, discuss each idea in turn, relying on its originator if suggestions are made to alter or strike the idea from the list. Finish by prioritizing ideas. The facilitator should make sure all ideas are discussed equally and that arguing is avoided.
3. Stepladder technique—This strategy begins with a two-person group, according to psychology.iresearchnet.com. This duo discusses the problem by presenting their own ideas to each other. When they understand each other, a third person is added. This member presents ideas, and they’re discussed. The process continues until each member has joined. Once everyone is present, the group works together to reach a final decision. To use this technique, all members must be given time to consider the problem before joining the group, the incoming member must speak first before hearing group solutions already discussed, adequate discussion time must be allotted and everyone must be present before the final decision is made.

Team decision making is more effective when team members don’t feel they have to conform. But you also don’t want dissent to turn into a big argument. Stir up discussion with one of these approaches and encourage well-critiqued and refined decisions that everyone on the team can be proud of.