By Kerry O’Brien, CAE, IOM, Executive Director
In college, my business communications class was called on to assist the engineering school with crafting business pitches that would close the deal at a business expo with actual customers for products the student engineers had developed. Time was short, the expo was days away. Four of the five members of my team were thrilled that we completed the task within the class period. One of our classmates was noticeably upset. “This is terrible and wrong. In my country we MUST disagree! We must argue. That is the best way to know that we have thought this through and have decided on the best solution.” In this case, there was nothing to be done about it. But now, as an association executive, I have to ask myself, how many times do we make a quick decision, go along with the group, choose not to cause friction, in order to keep the peace, and then move ahead on the agenda? And how often has the desire for harmony been the enemy of the best outcome?
Most association executives have experienced board meetings that moved efficiently through the agenda with no questions, little discussion, and unanimous votes only to be followed by second-guessing and confusion later on. Two well-documented group dynamics help explain why this happens: groupthink and the Abilene Paradox. Knowing how to prevent these is a valuable skill in association leadership. In both similar situations, dissent and disagreement do not appear within the group.
Groupthink happens when a group’s desire for harmony overrides critical analysis. Dissent feels disloyal, so it is suppressed and alternatives go unexamined. The result is consensus for a course of action that feels strong at the time yet proves to be rather fragile when a subpar solution is put into action.
The Abilene Paradox is management theorist Jerry B. Harvey’s classic tale of a family that drives hours to Abilene for a mediocre dinner because no one was willing to say to the others that they’d rather stay home. The group agrees to a course of action that no individual member actually wants. It is a failure of communication creating a false consensus in favor of a course of action.
Watch for these familiar symptoms of groupthink and the Abilene Paradox:
- Major motions pass with little discussion and no dissent.
- Board Members say “I had concerns, but…” after the meeting, not during it.
- New board members quickly adopt the prevailing tone rather than question it.
- The same two or three voices shape every outcome.
A few practical safeguards can make a meaningful difference in the quality of decisions that a board makes. Build time and techniques to manage dissent into the process rather than relying on it to surface organically. Assign a rotating role as “devil’s advocate” whose job it is to point out when an opposing perspective has not been examined. Provide the opportunity or even require that each director provides input before the vote. Polls and surveys before the meeting could be an efficient way to include input from all board members. Separate idea generation/brainstorming from idea evaluation. After significant discussions, ask directly, “Is there anything any of us is hesitant about that hasn’t been said?” The question signals that critical analysis matters more than apparent unity. Know the difference between consensus and alignment. Consensus seeks overall agreement. Alignment acknowledges disagreement and dissent and incorporates these in a healthy decision process.
Strong boards do not avoid disagreement — they make space for it. The executive’s role is to design that space deliberately.