How to Protect Smart People From Dumb Decisions
Smart people make dumb decisions.
Chances are you think you’re above average in intelligence. Most of us do. Even though it’s impossible for MOST OF US to be above average at anything.
Two extremes:
Two extremes plague ineffective teams. Either the group nods their heads in agreement with the person at the head of the table (groupthink) or a dominant critic ends the conversation.
Both extremes result in tail-chasing, ineffective decision-making, squandered resources, and lost opportunities. But at the same time …
Ineffective teams pat themselves on the back for doing good work. Powerful people tend to be unaware of their own incompetence. After all, you make decisions because you think they’re right, not because you think they’re stupid.
Confidence:
Confidence goes up with stupidity. You can be completely confident of a stupid decision.
When Kennedy ordered a covert action to unseat Castro, he believed it would succeed. Today, when you say Bay of Pigs, you think dumb decision.
Confidence in a decision doesn’t indicate the rightness of a decision.
Kennedy was smart enough to review and adapt the White House’s decision-making process. Morten Hansen describes the results in his book, Collaboration.
4 ways to encourage constructive dissent:
- Each participant should function as a “skeptical generalist”. Look at the problem as a whole, not from their individual department’s standpoint.
- Meet in an informal setting. Avoid formal agendas and protocol.
- Divide the team into sub-groups that work on alternatives and then reconvene.
- Meet, occasionally, without the leader present.
5 tips for good team decisions:
- The person at the head of the table asks questions and talks less than the group.
- Get heads turning toward each other, not the head of the table. Create conversation.
- Generate three alternatives before making choices.
- Invite input from quiet members.
- Explore assumptions before making decisions.
What causes smart teams to make dumb decisions?
How might teams make better decisions?
The Institute of Nuclear Power used the concept of Devil’s Advocate in their group decision-making trainings, that a team should have a rotation assignment for one person to have the role of making the negative, opposite viewpoint of the group. I guess it could be a fun role if people do not put a Blame Frame or “PITA” label on it, but that negative view is often very beneficial when expressed, and a nuclear plant is a good place for a bit of added safety in the overall decision-making.
Note that some people LOVE to take that role, as a preferred style. The good news is that those are not that common, but my old grad student buddy Bob just loved to announce that he was taking the Devil’s Advocate role in so many of our classes, just to have something to argue about.
Thanks Dr. Scott. Love the idea of an assigned/rotating devils advocate. You could also as the entire time to argue against the idea on the table and then ask everyone to argue in favor.
Your experience shines through when you mention the folks who love the devil’s advocate role. There are some people who start with NO and then defend themselves.
One idea I have used with staff is talk them into an idea, then try to talk them out of it. This way I learn how vested they are in the idea or if they are just going along with me.
Thanks Duane. Sounds fun. It also sounds like you all have learned to trust each other.
Dan
Your thought to have meetings without the Boss has worked for me a lot over the years. As the head financial person on the team I would often get the other functional people together to come up with a solution to present to our President/CEO. For this to work you need a confident Leader and a trusted other team person( doesn’t have to be the CFO) to moderate the discussion. When there were issues between two separate business groups we would often get the needed people together without the egos or title of the Presidents present and have equal success.
Brad
Thanks for sharing your experience, Brad. So many leadership challenges and problems are solved with honest, open conversation.
This is such a great post, Dan!
From my experience, arrogant leaders stifle input (whether directly or indirectly). This can cause the team to become a bunch of yes-men. I thought it was so powerful that you said the one at the head of the table should ask more questions and talk less than everyone else. Boom!
Thanks JD. It takes humility to bring out the best in others. Arrogance wants to spotlight it’s own strength, even if others are pushed to the shadows. Have a great weekend.
Smart teams make dump decisions when the leader has already made his/her mind up then misguides the team with false information or does not give them adequate information.
Thanks Gerry. OUCH! Manipulation might work for a while. But then, everyone nods their head or leaves.