When smart people stop questioning ideas

Many decades back, the air inside the boardroom was thick with cigar smoke and unquestioned confidence of several top executives of the shipping line. They were not merely planning a new vessel class but defining the highpoint of human engineering of the Titanic.

The group was composed of brilliant minds: Seasoned naval architects, wealthy financiers and veteran sea captains. They shared an overwhelming belief in their experience and technological superiority.

It was widely accepted among maritime experts of that era that modern bulkheads and double bottoms had rendered large ocean liners practically unsinkable. Because everyone in the room was highly knowledgeable, no one wanted to be the lone voice expressing doubt.

Oppositors who raised subtle concerns were gently nudged back into the background. Management ignored warnings until it was too late. They could not defeat the physical reality of the iceberg.

The Titanic reminds us what can happen when confidence in expertise is not balanced by systematic questioning. To my mind, that is groupthink. It occurs when the desire for consensus becomes so strong that people stop critically examining alternatives, risks and contrary evidence.

The devil’s advocate

I have seen groupthink happening in many organizations, big or small, regardless of the nature of their business. It happens when perceived expertise overrides critical thinking. At times, they don’t accept how constant questioning the status quo and experimenting with new ways could help improve a system.

That’s when the devil’s advocate should come in. Unfortunately, when someone steps into the role of the devil’s advocate pointing out potential and hidden risks, it creates conflict between those on the opposite side of the fence. Some reasons are obvious.

We are offended by people challenging our credibility. At times, we don’t understand the difference between constructive dissent and perpetual skepticism within the context of Kaizen and Lean Thinking (KLT).

When properly aligned with KLT, the devil’s advocate could help shift from being a subjective, personality-driven opposition into an objective, structured tool toward continual improvement.

It is not about slowing down progress, but creating a systematic dissent that protects objective criticism, respects the expertise of ordinary workers and ensures that solutions stand strong when the operational iceberg arrive.

This is the key message in many of my management programs.

So, how do we establish a culture of systematic dissent that eliminates groupthink among teams following a proactive, two-way communication process? Here are the rules:

One, establish psychological safety at all organizational levels. Promote the idea that objective criticism is everyone’s duty. It’s not about creating organizational friction, but to test the robust make-up of a current or proposed system.

Transforming objective feedback from a personal attack is an imperative in every dynamic organization.

Two, define the mandate and rules of engagement. Focus dissent on issues, evidence, assumptions or methodology — not personalities. Challenge the validity of data rather than individual competence.

As a face-saving device, require private meetings between the concerned individuals rather in a group session.

Three, appoint and rotate the role of a devil’s advocate. Assign two team members to act as the “devil’s squad” per project or meeting, so that no single employee is labeled as a habitual contrarian.

Choose respected, detail-oriented people who can deliver rigorous, evidence-based critique without creating hostility. Better, if they are properly trained for that role.

Four, create and standardize the review methodologies. Before a meeting, ask for volunteers to man the “devil’s squad.” If there are none, appoint them one or two days before so they could prepare.

Require them to verify core metrics and challenge unproven assumptions by the project proponents.

Five, ensure criticisms lead to actionable outcomes. Require proponents to defend their assumptions, evidence and proposed actions. Amend proposals, mitigate risk or reject them, whenever necessary.

Then, refine the decision based on validated issues before a final executive approval.

Six, celebrate the team’s accomplishment. Don’t publicly acknowledge the success of the “red team” compared to the project proponent. Recognize the whole team for improving the quality of their decision.

In conclusion, either assign someone to poke holes in your pristine plans today or start handing out life jackets every meeting. Because even your best ideas can fail when nobody is allowed to challenge them.

Rey Elbo is a quality and productivity activist. Send your comments, questions or stories to [email protected] or via Facebook, LinkedIn, X or https://reyelbo.com.