The more a team agrees, the more urgently it needs someone who disagrees.
Agreement feels good. But it can mean two things: the team has examined the question and reached the same conclusion – or it has not examined it at all, because no one wanted to disturb the unanimity. The principle is about the second case.
The team principle in detail
Four steps through the principle: understand, check, connect, apply. Open any topic to read more.
The explanationThe mechanism: a unanimous majority exerts pressure.
The mechanism: a unanimous majority exerts pressure.
- Anyone who is alone in thinking differently is more likely to doubt themselves than the group, and stays silent.
- The result is a unanimity no one has tested.
- Alternatives are no longer examined; knowledge that only individuals have is never voiced.
- Even a single dissenting voice changes that: it makes it easier for others to say what they see, too.
Read closelyWhat the principle says – and what it doesn’t
Unanimity is a warning sign. It is not proof of a mistake, but it is a reason to probe further.
- Strictly speaking
- “Dissent” means reasoned, genuine disagreement on the substance. It does not mean habitual contrarianism – nor putting on the brakes after a decision has been made.
- An appointed dissenter is not enough. Staged dissent has less effect than the genuine kind. Procedures that bring genuine dissent to the surface are more effective.
- The progression “the more a team agrees, the more urgently” is an overstatement. It has not been measured in that form.
The signs3 signs that the principle is at work · 3 that it is missing
- Before important decisions, people are explicitly asked for dissenting views.
- Those who deviate are heard and not punished.
- The leader does not state their opinion first.
- Decisions are made quickly and unanimously.
- Concerns surface only afterward, in the hallway.
- Anyone who disagrees is seen as disloyal or ridiculed.
The research6 sources: 3 primary studies, 1 theory, 1 meta-analysis, 1 critique · 1956–2006 · with research limitations
- low
- moderate
- high
Moderate – the individual findings on conformity pressure and dissent are well documented; the groupthink model and the progression in the core statement only partly.
- 1956Solomon E. Asch
One person against a unanimous majority on an unambiguous perception task: about a third of the responses follow the wrong majority. If a single person gives the correct answer, conformity collapses. At the same time, most responses remain independent.
- 1982Irving L. Janis
Case studies of foreign-policy decisions (including the Bay of Pigs; counterexample: the Cuban Missile Crisis): in closed groups under pressure, the striving for unanimity crowds out the evaluation of alternatives.
- 1998Marlene E. Turner & Anthony R. Pratkanis
Taking stock after 25 years of groupthink research: the theory is famous, the empirical support mixed.
- 2001Charlan Nemeth, Keith Brown & John Rogers
Genuine dissent stimulates more and better solutions than a staged devil’s advocate; the assigned role tends instead to bolster the initial position.
- 2006Stefan Schulz-Hardt et al.
135 three-person groups, a personnel-selection task with a hidden profile: groups whose members agree from the outset almost never find the best solution; dissent markedly increases the rate of correct decisions. Mechanism: more thorough discussion.
- The progression “the more a team agrees, the more urgently” has not been measured in that form.
- Irving L. Janis’s groupthink model is only partly supported empirically; the role of cohesion in particular is disputed, and historians have reinterpreted his case studies.
- A merely assigned dissenter has less effect than genuine dissent, and conformity varies with culture and over time.
Read more: what the research shows
Three strands of research are relevant here. The first is conformity, adjusting to a unanimous majority: in Solomon E. Asch’s experiments, about a third of the responses followed an obviously wrong majority; when a single person gave the correct answer, conformity collapsed. The second is groupthink as described by Irving L. Janis: in closed groups under pressure, the striving for unanimity crowds out the evaluation of alternatives. The third concerns dissent and decision quality: Stefan Schulz-Hardt, Felix C. Brodbeck, Andreas Mojzisch, Rudolf Kerschreiter and Dieter Frey showed that groups whose members agree from the outset almost never find the best solution, and that dissent markedly increases the rate of correct decisions. Charlan Nemeth, Keith Brown and John Rogers found that genuine dissent achieves more than a staged devil’s advocate.
The originFrom team research · not from John C. Maxwell
- 1956OriginFrom team research
Earliest source: Solomon E. Asch
- 2001For comparison
John C. Maxwell’s The 17 Indisputable Laws of Teamwork has no counterpart to it; his laws tend to emphasize unity and morale.
The related team principles13 Safety · 14 Conflict · 05 Diversity · 23 External Relationships
It draws on “Diversity” and “External Relationships” and must be distinguished from “Bad Apple”.
It stands in tension with “Identity”, “Confidence” and “Direction”: the same “we” that holds a team together makes dissent costly.
The action steps5 steps: As the leader, hold back.
- As the leader, hold back. State your opinion last, or leave the room for part of the deliberation.
- Collect people’s initial opinions before the discussion – each person on their own, ideally in writing. That way you can see whether there is genuine dissent.
- When everyone agrees: ask what speaks against the plan and which alternative you haven’t examined.
- Bring in an outside perspective, for example an expert who isn’t part of the team.
- Protect the person who disagrees. Thank them in front of the others – even if they turn out to be wrong in the end.
The questions for your team3 questions for your team conversation: Which decision did we last agree on very quickly – and did we really examine it?
- Which decision did we last agree on very quickly – and did we really examine it?
- What happens on our team to the one person who disagrees?
- Whose perspective is missing from this room, and how do we bring it in?
Take time for one question at your next team meeting. Talk about it openly and note down what you take away from it.
The picture to rememberA swarm moves as one toward an edge. One dot stops and glows gold – the others halt, and the swarm turns away.
- A swarm moves as one toward an edge.
- One dot stops and glows gold – the others halt, and the swarm turns away.
What the Team Principle of Dissent looks like in practice
Two Crises, Almost the Same Advisers
In April 1961, the landing of some 1,500 Cuban exiles at the Bay of Pigs collapses after three days; eighteen months later, John F. Kennedy, with largely the same advisers, makes prudent decisions in the Cuban Missile Crisis. The psychologist Irving L. Janis saw the difference in the process: the second time, dissent was welcome.
Seven Say the Wrong Thing – What Does the Eighth Say?
In the early 1950s, Solomon E. Asch had students compare the lengths of lines while seven confederates unanimously gave a wrong answer. About a third of the answers followed the wrong majority, and about three-quarters of the subjects gave in at least once – without group pressure, the error rate was under one percent.
An Office That Has to Say No
In 1587, Pope Sixtus V establishes the office of the Promotor Fidei: a canon lawyer is to argue against every canonization and present everything that weighs against it. Ordinary people call him the Advocatus Diaboli, the devil’s advocate; in this form the institution lasted almost 400 years.
