Avoid groupthink: How disagreement can invigorate strategy development

Every ambitious organisation goes through an annual strategy development planning season. Boardrooms up and down the country will be full of discussion on what will drive growth - and there's a common belief that the best strategies emerge from consensus.  We've been conditioned to view agreement as a sign of unity and organisational health. 

But what if this pursuit of harmony is actually stifling our ability to stretch creativity and push boundaries?

> RELATED RESEARCH:  Discover how you can drive long-term growth for your business

The groupthink trap

Consensus-driven strategy often leads to groupthink, a phenomenon where the desire for synchronicity overrides critical analysis. This can result in irrational or dysfunctional decision-making. 

Take the case of Toys "R" Us, once a dominant force in toy retail, who failed to adapt to the rise of e-commerce. In 2000, they signed a 10-year contract with Amazon to be their exclusive toy vendor, effectively handing over their online presence. Despite some voices advocating for building their own robust e-commerce platform, the consensus was to focus on brick-and-mortar stores. This decision proved catastrophic as online shopping grew, ultimately contributing to the company's bankruptcy in 2017. 

The failure to seriously consider contrarian views about the future of retail cost Toys "R" Us its market leadership and eventually its existence.

Ask yourself: How often do your strategy meetings end in complete agreement, and what might this suggest about your decision-making process?

If you find that your strategic discussions routinely conclude with universal agreement, it may be time to introduce more diverse viewpoints or encourage more rigorous debate.

The power of constructive disagreement

Contrary to popular belief, disagreement in strategy development can be immensely valuable. It challenges assumptions, uncovers blind spots, and often leads to more robust strategies. When team members feel empowered to voice contrarian views, organisations benefit from a wider range of perspectives and ideas.

Ask yourself:  When was the last time a junior team member's dissenting opinion led to a significant improvement in strategy?

If you're struggling to recall such an instance, it might indicate that your organisation isn't fully leveraging its diverse talent pool for strategic insights.

Fostering productive disagreement

Encouraging constructive disagreement doesn't mean fostering a combative environment. Instead, it's about creating a culture where challenging ideas is not only accepted but expected. Here are some techniques to consider:

1. Employ the devil's advocate approach: Assign someone (or dedicate agenda time) to argue against the prevailing view in every strategic discussion.
2. Diversify your strategy team: Bring in people with different backgrounds, experiences, and thinking styles.
3. Implement structured debate sessions: Set aside time specifically for examining and critiquing strategic proposals.

Without structured processes, disagreement can devolve into unproductive conflict. Establishing clear guidelines for respectful debate is crucial.

Ask yourself:  Do you have a structured approach in place to encourage and manage constructive disagreement during strategy development?

If the answer is “no, we all seem to think the same way”, then it could be that you either need some new voices or certain team members feel discouraged from sharing their true opinions. 

Balancing act: consensus vs. disagreement

While disagreement is valuable, perpetual disagreement is counterproductive. It’s important to know when and how to build consensus, and also how to bring the discussion to a useful conclusion. 

Here are some best practices:

1. Set ground rules for respectful debate
2. Create a culture that values diverse opinions
3. Train leaders to facilitate constructive conflict
4. Establish clear decision-making processes for when debates must conclude

But most importantly: leave the disagreement “in the room”. Constructive disagreement can drive better decision-making, but once a decision has been made, everyone needs to be fully committed to implementing the chosen outcome. 

Ask yourself: How diverse is your strategy team in terms of background, experience, and thinking styles? And what is your typical response to team members who consistently challenge the prevailing strategic views. How might this impact innovation?

Your answers to these questions can reveal much about your organisation's openness to diverse thinking and its capacity for innovation.

Learning from success and failure

Let's examine two contrasting case studies:

Success: In the 2000s, as Sony’s PlayStation and Microsoft’s Xbox slugged it out for the title of world’s most powerful gaming console, past champion Nintendo found itself at a strategic crossroads. Against the consensus of chasing processing power, a minority view advocated for a completely different approach that focused on intuitive, motion-based gaming. This led to the development of the Wii, which opened up a new market of casual gamers and became one of Nintendo's most successful consoles.

Failure: In contrast, Nokia's fall from mobile phone market leader to obsolescence was partly due to a culture that discouraged dissent. Despite some employees recognising the threat posed by smartphones, the consensus to stick with their existing strategy prevailed, leading to Nokia's eventual decline. 

Plug into the energy of disagreement

In today's rapidly changing business landscape, the ability to challenge prevailing wisdom and adapt quickly is more crucial than ever. By fostering an environment where constructive disagreement is not just tolerated but encouraged, organisations can develop more innovative, resilient strategies.

Remember, the goal isn't to create conflict for its own sake, but to harness the power of diverse perspectives, and so drive innovation and competitive advantage. As a leader, your role is to create an arena where ideas can be rigorously debated, assumptions can be challenged, and the best strategies can emerge through the crucible of constructive disagreement.

So, the next time you find yourself in a strategy development meeting where everyone seems to agree, pause and ask: 

• Are we missing something? 
• Could a dose of healthy disagreement lead us to an even better strategy? 

Your willingness to seek out and then manage constructive conflict could be the key to unlocking your organisation's full innovative potential.