Groupthink in Design Thinking
Both Groupthink and Design Thinking are big topics. They deserve their own separate articles, and perhaps at a future date I’ll share thoughts on each, but today I’d like to explore the integration of these two – the interface between them.
I was recently in a meeting where some big decisions were made. These decisions were going to impact many individuals over many years, redirect hundreds of thousands of dollars into certain fields, and change the dynamics of organizations and processes.
We discussed the options, weighed the pros and cons, and gathered as much information as we could.
And then we voted.
The problem was that this vote resulted in unanimous support for only one option. That might sound like a good thing, but in this situation, it wasn’t…
There are a lot of reasons to seek a unanimous decision. We do it all the time to be or feel united, avoid hard feelings, increase buy-in, etc. Sure, it’s always nice when everyone can agree on the same restaurant, movie, or activity, but when the stakes are higher, and the decisions are more complicated and multi-dimensional, the last thing you want is full consensus early on in the decision-making process.
One example where unanimity failed was the Bay of Pigs invasion into Cuba. President Kennedy was surrounded by intelligent people who unfortunately agreed too quickly with the proposed action. If just one person stood up and provided counter-arguments or additional data, the disaster could have been avoided or at least reworked into a better situation. Groupthink had permeated this team so intensely that opposing viewpoints were simply not expressed and assumed to be not needed. Even though Kennedy had a winning track record in the recent past, a necessary voice or opinion of opposition would have been profitable in this instance [1]. No leader is going to be perfect in their decision making without outside advisement. Groupthink can have terrible results.
To combat this possibility, it was reported that Winston Churchill had a person on his team whose job it was to always bring up the worst news, provide the counter-argument, and present the downside of potential policies. This person’s job was literally to safeguard against Groupthink. They didn’t have to be negative or belligerent in their expressions, but in many situations, their voice was a priceless addition even if the original, and majority-supported decision, was ultimately pursued.
A former CEO of GM, Alfred Sloan, shared a similar attitude. He once said to a group of policymakers after consensus was apparently reached, “I take it we are all in complete agreement on the decision here… Then I propose we postpone further discussion of this matter until our next meeting to give ourselves time to develop disagreement and perhaps gain some understanding of what the decision is all about” [2]. Sloan had a careful eye to systematize avoiding Groupthink.
Now, what about Groupthink in Design?
Every design with substance, impact, and requiring time or financial investment I’ve ever come across was multi-dimensional, had significant complications and trade-offs, and was full of risk (Seeds of Failure). There was often no obvious winner or loser. Each design candidate had its advantages and disadvantages and it was never completely clear, even after implementation, if the chosen design really was the best.
However, the first proposed design is rarely, if ever, the best design. Likewise, the design pitched by the team leader is rarely the best design - at least without modification. The same goes for the design presented by the veteran, the novice, the emeritus executive, the intern, the note keeper, and so on. If everyone supports the design ideas of a leader too quickly out of respect for their position, experience, or age, you can bet the collective group may be missing out on the best solution.
As a side note: if you find yourself in the leader position, it’s good practice to share your ideas last. The subconscious desire to impress or support the leader prematurely may result in your team with less than optimal results, which ultimately reflects on your leadership.
Thus, good design thinking will innately avoid group thinking and set-up ways to avoid groupthink. This desire might already exist in the team dynamics and in the organizational culture, but it also might need to be institutionalized as a policy. Good design thinking will be unsatisfied if no weakness in a design can be found. (They’re always there.) Good design thinking will take time to evaluate opposing viewpoints. (They always exist.) Good design thinking will require each stakeholder to share their opinions, from the material supplier to the product manager to investor to the end-user. (They always can.) Good design thinking will figure out a way so that every team member is able to express themselves completely. (Ideate As a Team) (They always should.)
Chances are quite high that if you are reading this you are on a team in some capacity, at work, at school, or even at home. (If you’re not on a team, you’re probably not designing anything that will change the world. Another aside, get on a team!) It’s not a bad thing to reach eventual consensus on your team, but just make sure it doesn’t come out of a state of Groupthink. Make sure it’s from a state of complete understanding of all the benefits and costs and in comparison to all other alternatives.
The vote in which I participated wasn’t a design activity in the traditional sense, but I left wondering if we just experienced Groupthink. Yes, I even agreed with the outcome and I thought we did okay with collecting data. But perhaps when I’m older and wiser, and when a unanimous result comes up in my leadership positions of the future, I’ll be brave enough to say: “There’s no way that all of us can feel the exact same way about this. Let’s go back, find more data, and discuss some more.”
[1] Example found in “Mindset: The New Psychology of Success”, by Carol Dweck, 2006.
[2] Quote from “The Effective Executive,” Peter F. Drucker, 1966.
