Teams that know how to disagree well are better equipped to make sound decisions, navigate complexity, and adapt to change. Photo: Yuri Arcurs.
Michelle Gibbings says the constant search for consensus in workplace decision-making results in dissent giving way to a brittle culture of conformity for fear of disrupting group cohesion.
The belief that consensus and harmony, not healthy dissent, are the hallmarks of a well-functioning workplace is a dangerous myth.
At its worst, it can create a brittle culture of conformity, where people shy away from disagreement, fearing they will disrupt group cohesion or undermine authority.
Too much consensus can be deeply unhealthy, eroding innovation, masking risk, and stifling performance.
To assess whether your team has a robust and resilient culture, look not at how often people agree, but how they respond when they don’t.
Consensus, by its very nature, feels comfortable. It signals that we are unified and on the same page.
However, as Andrew Hopkins of the Australian National University has noted in his extensive research on risk failure, consensus decision-making can be perilous.
In the context of safety, Professor Hopkins observed that groups are often more inclined to make riskier decisions than individuals; a phenomenon he attributes to de-individualisation. When everyone is responsible, no-one feels accountable.
As he puts it: “Everyone is responsible for the decision, which means, in turn, that no one person feels personally responsible. The end result is non-responsible decision-making.”
This insight has ramifications far beyond the field of risk. It applies to any team grappling with high-stakes decisions, which, in today’s business environment, is most of us.
When individuals silence their concerns in deference to group harmony, or fail to challenge ideas that deserve interrogation, the team becomes susceptible to blind spots and groupthink.
Worse still, dissent goes underground, only to re-emerge later as disengagement or passive resistance, or when the post-mortem examination is done to investigate what went wrong.
Author Malcolm Gladwell has often written about the outsized value of minority perspectives. In his book David and Goliath, he argues that what seems like dissent can be the source of innovation and breakthrough.
Indeed, research has shown that even when minority opinions don’t change the outcome, they improve decision quality by increasing the rigour with which the majority justifies its position.
Conversely, the cost of silence can be immense. In many high-profile corporate failures, from Enron to Volkswagen’s emissions scandal investigations, it was revealed that dissenting voices existed but were ignored
or silenced.
In today’s volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous business world, leaders cannot afford cultures of silence. They must nurture environments where people feel both the permission and the responsibility to speak up. Ultimately, the ability to disagree constructively is not just a cultural issue – it’s a core capability.
Disagreement is not a threat to team cohesion. It is a prerequisite for it. Teams that know how to disagree well are better equipped to make sound decisions, navigate complexity, and adapt to change.
They do not fear difference; they welcome it. They understand that spirited conversations grounded in respect, curiosity and shared purpose are the heartbeat of a resilient team and organisation.
Michelle Gibbings is a Melbourne-based workplace expert, and an award- winning author. She’s on a mission to help leaders, teams and organisations create successful workplaces – where people thrive and progress is accelerated. She can be contacted at [email protected].
