The Dangers of Team Consensus in Organizations

When I was in graduate school, I took a course called “Organizational Behavior,” and although it touched upon many topics there was one exercise our professor had us do that stood out to me till this day. It illustrated the dynamics of making decisions purely by group consensus. While ensuring everyone has a voice in democratic fashion is great, if you’re unaware of the disadvantages of this approach, then it will most likely result in bad decisions, a loss of productivity, lack of accountability, culture-rot, and more.

The exercise our professor had us do is the popular Desert Survival Team Building Exercise. We were divided into groups and each group was given the following scenario.

Your group was on a plane that crash-landed in the desert. You have 15 items, and only those 15 items, salvaged from the plane that you can use for survival. The group's task is to rank the 15 items in order of importance to the group’s survival.

Answers are compared against the answers given by an Expert Survivalist along with a formula that produces a score that basically shows how close your answer was to the Expert’s answer. The closer your answer is to the Expert’s then the better your judgment is for survival.

Our professor had us perform this task in two phases.

• Every individual was to rank the 15 items individually with no help from anyone else.
• After every individual was done with their own personal ranking, the groups were to discuss the problem and collaborate to collectively produce a group ranking.

Once the individual and group rankings were complete, the professor walked us through the answer and the formula that produced our scores.

We found that the group rankings mostly performed significantly better than the individuals’ average rankings, which is the point of the exercise and seems to be a victory for democracy and team consensus.

However, here’s the twist.

Every single group had one person whose individual ranking outperformed everyone else in the group including the group’s collective ranking.

And therein lies the weakness of this approach, which is, that you won’t get the best answer the group can potentially offer when the decision is driven purely by committee.

The Disadvantages of Committee Style Decision-Making

Though it is very unlikely that a group will come up with the optimal answer, it is very likely to come up with an answer that is better than the average individual alone. While it seems like this is a reasonable sacrifice to ensure the higher probability of a favorable outcome, I can tell you that it is not. Here are the reasons why.

Varied Levels of Domain Knowledge

First, the exercise purposely excludes one very important variable that is present in real-world scenarios – Competence.

In the desert survival exercise, nobody was an Expert Survivalist or even a Survival Enthusiast such that it would give that person an advantage in terms of domain knowledge. But that’s not the case in the real world.

In the real world, you will most likely be performing on teams where you and the others in the group have knowledge and experience in the domain at hand. In the case of my career, this is software engineering and architecture. The teams I worked with consisted of experienced and knowledgeable software engineers. This means that we were all able to contribute meaningfully to the decisions that were being made.

Now, if all the participants are of high caliber, then the chances of reaching the optimal decision through team consensus is much greater. Imagine a team of all Expert Survivalists collectively doing the Desert Survival exercise. You would be right to have a high degree of confidence in that team’s outcome. But a group solely made up of elites in their space is rarely the case.

Teams are usually made up of people with varying degrees of skill, experience, knowledge, discipline, and craftsmanship. Engineers who are four years into their career cannot be meaningfully compared to engineers who are 25 years into their career. These two types of engineers are not the same. Yet, in a democratic process, the younger less-experienced engineer has a vote that carries the equivalent weight of the multi-decade engineer. This factor is not considered in the Desert Survival exercise.

Imagine the group having a mix of Expert Survivalists, a couple of Intermediate Survivalists, and a few complete Novices. Would you want the chances of your survival to be potentially swayed by the Novices in the group?

Groupthink

In my group, I ended up being the only person who was not of a certain class of people. I purposely left the class out of this article because it is irrelevant. It could have been that I was the only non-Librarian in a group of Librarians, the only non-Skateboarder in a group of skateboarders, or the only non-Alien in a group of aliens. It just doesn’t matter. When a group of people who have something in common (the class) dominate, it leads to groupthink.

In my case, I was ostracized. One particularly vocal person was the ringleader that opposed almost everything I said. Some participated in the discussions and others were very quiet. The result was that they all towed the line and went with the majority who were of the dominant class. It was so bad that at one point the ringleader said, “Fine … let’s give him that one” as if to concede one of the item’s rankings I suggested out of pity.

In the end, I outperformed all the other individuals in my group, I outperformed my group’s ranking, I outperformed all other groups’ rankings, and I tied for the top score in the entire class.

The ringleader’s reaction was priceless to say the least.

But it didn’t change the fact that my ideas were shunned and rejected through the machinations of team consensus. Top performers are outlier people and tend to get overwhelmed by groups of average people seduced by the pitfall of groupthink.

Politics

It should be no surprise that a process which is democratic in nature tends to produce political dynamics. I’ve seen this happen myself. My experience in the group exercise notwithstanding, in the real world I have seen people resort to all sorts of lobbying, ally-forming, passive aggression, schmoozing, and even emotional pleas (e.g., crying for sympathy) all to garner support for their cause by building enough of a coalition to vote in their favor. This debasement of the democratic process has nothing to do with what’s right or what’s honorable and has more to do with just getting their way. Democratic team consensus be damned.

If anyone in the group has the potential to be swayed by these tactics, then you might as well have not done that Desert Survival exercise or subscribe to a team consensus model to begin with as its lessons and virtues are so easily discarded. Just because democracy works for cities, states, and nations it doesn’t mean it works for teams or groups. Democracy in a society of hundreds, thousands, or millions of people is not so easily circumvented as it is in a tiny group of say five people. One vote illegitimately swayed on a team destroys the democratic process completely.

Bold Influencers vs. The Quiet Meek

The title of this problem says it all. I grew up in the 80’s. My personal experience is that over the years I have seen that in general people are more fearful than ever. Forget about the introverts who prefer to use their superpower – listening – and tend to be more reserved for that reason. Even people who are extroverted are often afraid to speak up. This leaves a vacuum where only the truly bold speak up, speak often, and are naturally assertive. They tend to be the influencers in a group and can skew the outcomes also defeating the purpose of a democratic process.

People who are reluctant to speak up for whatever reason basically subtract from the value of the group’s collaborative effort. Their presence or absence is the same. What good is a person if they can’t help pushing toward the better outcome?

Then there are people who do speak up but hedge their position. They are afraid to take sides and sound like balanced peacemakers utilizing ambiguous language that doesn’t hurt anybody’s feelings while trying to affirm everyone’s ideas. These centrists bring the functional equivalent of the silent/absent ones to the table, which is nothing. If a person doesn’t take a clear stand for anything, then they do nothing to push for a better outcome. Again, it defeats the purpose of a democratic process.

What you get is a battle of the bold where discussions look like a tennis match with spectators observing the back and forth. If no other person is vocal enough to offer counterviews, then the bold eat the meek and you’ve lost the benefit of group collaboration for the bolder individual’s probable “lower-performing score.”

Things Slow Down Fast

When it comes to government, the fact that democracy is a slow process is a feature not a bug. In the United States, the forefathers who crafted our Constitution admitted as much when they setup the lengthy processes that require legislature, elections, impeachments, etc. to pass. But in private organizations, particularly businesses, that’s a big problem.

Once a group works together for an extended period, norms start to set in. If the norms are less-than-optimal, then it takes longer to reach goals. When conflict arises and people have to formally call out for a vote it is exhausting and pits people against each other. Due to the discomfort in calling out for people to vote, raise their hands, or what have you, some individuals tend to avoid those awkward situations and opt to relent to something they feel is not the best without ever voicing their concerns.

The result is that not enough people realize that such and such is a bad idea until it is thoroughly executed, fails, and the organization is finally forced to pivot. This is longer, more costly, and far more painful than it would have been to just make a few people uncomfortable ahead of time to avoid going down the wrong path.

A Better Way

It might seem like this article is all about bashing consensus, group collaboration, or the democratic way. You might be thinking that I’m making a case for authoritarianism in small settings if not for larger communities. Well, my response to that is a resounding heck no!

In a utopian society, a “Benevolent Dictator” is the most efficient form of leadership. If the dictator is truly righteous, always sees the best option, and has the fortitude and authority to execute on it, then you simply cannot get better than that. It is the prime combination of righteousness, speed, and accuracy. But there’s one small problem with that proposition.

It’s impossible.

In the case of the Desert Survival exercise, nobody could have predicted which person in the group was going to have the top score ahead of time. Trying to identify a benevolent leader to grant full authority to is virtually impossible and extremely dangerous to pursue. If someone, somehow earns it through a history of solid performance and then maintains such benevolence after gaining power, consider that a full-blown miracle.

So, if team consensus has its deficiencies and selecting a dictator is bad then what are we to do?

The answer is to utilize a combination of both.

Every team should be assigned a final decision-maker with accountability for the decisions of the team.

How is this not a dictator? Let me explain.

Final Decision-Maker with Accountability

The “dictator” that everyone fears placing into power is one who does not suffer any consequences and therefore has the freedom to rule by his/her dictates with impunity. That’s not the sort of leader I’m proposing here.

A “Team Lead”, for lack of a better name, must:

• Be the Steward of the group collaboration effort.
• Be given the authority to make the final decision whether it be the group’s consensus, a veto (no-go decision), or the Lead’s own decision (override)
• Share in the successes of the decisions.
• Be the only one held accountable for the failure of the decisions.

That last one is the biggest reason why I see teams, projects, and initiatives fail. It is extremely rare the organization that holds its employees accountable. The only tools of accountability that organizations use these days are layoffs and not renewing contracts. The lack of accountability that I have seen is stunning.

• Tough conversations are not had.
• Write-ups or warnings are not issued.
• Bonuses are not withheld.
• Demotions are not inflicted.
• People do not get fired.

I’ve witnessed people say racist things, raise their voices, calling people names, in one case a person cursed at their direct manager, and in another case a person got away with a loud expletive-ridden tirade against his peers, and all of them got away with it. And forget about being let go or demoted for rank incompetence. Being supremely unqualified for your position will not get you demoted much less fired.

In the white-collar corporate world, being an employee is very much a protected status except from layoffs and you’d have to wait for a recession for some people to finally be purged. Then when the purge does happen, it isn’t the ones who really need to go that get laid off. It is the ones who don’t have the right political capital.

It is of paramount importance that a leader be held accountable for the decisions of those he/she is leading. Otherwise, it doesn’t work. The sweet spot to achieve a highly functional team is to assign a final decision-maker, who is held accountable for the group’s decisions, and who exhibits the following skills and qualifications.

Competence

The Team Lead, Manager, Architect, or whatever the title of the leader may be, is ideally the most competent of the group. This person should at least be one of the most competent. Competence is not to be confused with the one who always has the answers. This person must be competent enough to have a high degree of confidence in understanding the situation at hand. If members of the group are debating an architectural decision, then the final decision-maker must be someone who fully understands the pros and cons of all the ideas brought forth by the team and the associated nuances. In the best-case scenario, the leader should be one whose input and ideas are often accepted because they are truly good, but this will not occur 100% of the time and need not even occur most of the time. The leader should qualify as a competent referee of the competing ideas at the very least.

Leadership Through Consultation

One of my mantras when leading teams is that my job is to find the best answer and it doesn’t matter where that answer comes from. This requires the decision-maker to consult with everyone to extract all the ideas from the collective talent in the group.

The decision-maker should be one who orchestrates the emergence of the optimal decision from the group.

Consulting people in group settings and through individual one-on-one’s is a soft skill that protects the group from the aforementioned ills. If the Team Lead has a one-on-one discussion with the people who tend to be quiet in group settings, then it could make those people comfortable enough to open up and express their ideas/opinions, whereas in other settings they would have not. This would allow the Team Lead to discover hidden talents, hidden thoughts, hidden perspectives, and hidden ideas that have value and that otherwise wouldn’t have seen the light of day.

A leader doesn’t say, “I have the answer” but rather asks, “where is the answer?” and seeks to find it in part through learning from the individuals under his/her charge. This is leadership through consultation.

Servant Leadership

There is a lot to be said about servant leadership that deserves its own series of articles. Here, I would concisely describe it as a leader who serves the greater good through protecting the integrity of the collective.

If a person in the group is being too aggressive, the Team Lead should act to temper the situation. If some people are being too quiet in a discussion, then the Team Lead should call on that person to share their thoughts. If a person is unhappy because the direction is going in a different way, the Team Lead should patiently listen to that person to address concerns and then forge ahead with the decision. The Team Lead should shield the group by accepting accountability for the group’s failures arising from their collective efforts and/or decisions. The Team Lead should make sure that individuals and the group are recognized for extraordinary achievements that would otherwise go unnoticed. The Team Lead should have the fortitude to stand up for the truth and be someone who isn’t afraid to be assertive when necessary.

All of that should be done with an eye toward serving others in the pursuit toward achieving the stated goals. If the Team Lead is worried about his/her own image and has an issue with owning the Team’s failures, then this person should not be a Team Lead.

Humility

When it comes to making decisions, there are two types of inputs to the decision. Objective Facts and Subjective Perceptions (opinions). There are times when the person who is leading prefers certain things be done in a certain way. This is how they’ve done it and it has served them well. But what if someone wants to do something a different way?

If the alternate method is just a different way to do the same thing, then the Team Lead should be humble enough to always yield to the person executing the task if the matter is subjective and leads to the same outcome. If the matter is objective then facts are facts, truth is truth, and the Team Lead should have the fortitude to preserve integrity. Otherwise, let people function as they’d like to.

The leader should be outcome-driven and be humble enough to yield on subjective matters.

Integrity

A leader with integrity would be resistant to political plays by their subordinates (e.g., kissing up, emotional pleas, etc.) and would prefer to stand up for what is right within their teams. A person with integrity has a harmonious relationship with truth and it is embedded in the core of their DNA. Such a person can be entrusted with protecting the advantages of group collaboration highlighted by the Desert Survival exercise while also shielding the group from its disadvantages.

If there are adequate ways to make a Team Lead accountable in the organization, then success will depend on their level of integrity. A person with decision-making authority who lacks integrity will not be able to sustain their leadership if there is true accountability. A person put in charge of others with no accountability is either laissez faire to the point of being ineffective or a dictator that is left to do as they please and be susceptible to bad decisions. Either way, the situation is not sustainable.

Environments where accountability is executed, and consequences get delivered are environments where people with integrity thrive!

People who have high integrity seek transparency and desire to shed light. People who lack integrity seek control and hide things in the shadows. Accountability is where the veil is lifted to the delight of those with integrity whose virtues are seen and celebrated and to the chagrin of those who lack integrity when their charade is exposed.

Conclusion

While this article examines the pros and cons of deriving decisions through team consensus in general, I’ve witnessed these phenomena in my experience leading and participating in software development teams where these principles should be applied. For example, in a previous article, The Major Software Engineering Mistake That No One is Talking About, we examined the role of the Software Architect as the Leader of a software development shop.

This type of leadership can apply to the leader of a group of leaders. In that article, the Software Architect is the decision-maker over a group of Lead Developers, and the Lead Developers are decision-makers over their respective software development teams. Each decision-maker must conform to the lead of the decision-maker above so that the leaders’ decisions trickle down to the lower levels.

It is generally better for an organization to be as flat as possible but whatever levels of organization units exist at the bottom, these principles apply.

To summarize, be aware of the disadvantages of a purely vote-based committee model for decision-making below.

• The value of higher caliber people is diminished through equally weighted voting.
• The emergence of groupthink.
• The fostering of unhealthy political tactics.
• Dominant personalities might be shutting other, more reserved people down.
• The organization loses speed and agility when bad decisions are made, executed, and fail.

Take advantage of the virtues of group collaboration while avoiding the disadvantages above by appointing a final decision-maker under the following circumstances.

The decision-maker (aka Leader):

• Must be the Steward of the group collaboration effort.
• Must be given authority to make the final decision whether it be the group’s consensus, a veto (no-go decision), or the Lead’s own decision (override)
• Must share in the successes of the decisions.
• Must be the only one held accountable for the failure of the decisions.
  If the Leader is not sufficiently held accountable then it simply won’t work.
  Accountability is the guard against dictatorship.

The decision-maker must also:

• Be competent in the domain (ideally the most competent).
• Exercise leadership through consultation.
• Utilize a Servant Leadership style.
• Be humble.
• Maintain a high level of integrity in word and deed.

This is a model for operational and tactical decisions so the higher the leader is the less relevant this article becomes. Strategic decisions at the C-Level are an entirely different problem. However, where the rubber meets the road in software development shops, adding a decision-maker who can consistently move the team in a favorable direction is like a cold bottle of water in the desert where otherwise good ideas go to die.