What you will learn from reading this article:
The team is reluctantly gathering in the conference room for the weekly management meeting. On the agenda: how many people will we have to let go? Yes, no matter how you call it, reorganization or restructuring, or whatever veiled term you want; it's still about laying off your friends in favor of digitalization. Decisions you'd rather not take, and if you really have, then you don't want to take them alone. So you're facing a double dilemma: how to make the unpopular decision, and how to involve an equally unwilling team in the decision. Gah.
If only there was a way to escape from this decision situation... This, or any other nasty strategic dilemma.
A man with first-hand experience in severely unpopular decisions was Andrei Sakharov. He was a Russian physicist involved in the development of the nuclear bomb. He became concerned about the moral and political implications of his work and took to the press to disclose his reservations on the arms race. For that, he was banned from applied research, targeted by the Russian media as a traitor, and banned to Nizhny Novgorod. It took over ten years and a new head of state before Andrei could return to Moscow, but he did win the Nobel peace prize in 1975.
He minded most the pressure exerted on his family and friends. Being a dissident is extremely hard, and survival depends on the protection of family, friends, employers and colleagues. Like us, dissidents also want to be liked and to belong. Why take unpopular decisions that cause them discomfort, pain and anxiety?
Well, because you have to keep them safe in the long-run. Which is also our job as executive decision-makers.
“We want to be liked and to belong. Why bite the hand that feeds us?”
Because we have a hard-wired need to conform to our social group for survival, we find it very difficult to make such unpopular decisions. Many scientific experiments were done to find out how difficult. Two of them made the top ten of most famous experiments in history. The first is the experiment by Solomon Asch in 1955 and the other by Philip Zimbardo in 1971. Both experiments show how much courage it takes to not conform and stand up for what you feel is right.
Groups of eight subjects were shown two cards. One with a reference line and another with three lines of various lengths. The subjects were asked which of the three lines is of the same length as the reference line. Of the eight participants, seven were actors and one was a true subject. Prior to the experiment, all actors were given specific instructions on how they should respond to each picture. They would always unanimously nominate one comparator, but on certain trials, they would give the correct response and on others, an incorrect response. The real participant was always asked last.
Guess what: Only 25% of the sample consistently defied the majority opinion and 5% was always persuaded by the group. Would you yield if you knew you were right?
Twenty-four stable and healthy college students were asked to play the role of either prisoner or guard in a two-week prison simulation. The experiment was abruptly stopped after only six days, as psychological torture occurred. Many of the prisoners passively accepted that and those who resisted were harassed by other prisoners at the request of the guards. Only two of the prisoners quit the experiment early and five of them had to be removed.
It seemed that the situation rather than personality caused the participants' behavior. The harsh conditions and the overt power difference between the two groups supposedly played a big role. But other factors could have influenced the gruesome outcome. Participants are likely to do what they believe the researchers want them to do: a willingness to conform so high, that little was needed to engage in cruel behavior.
Both studies make a very clear point about social pressure. In business contexts, we often discuss this phenomenon under the title groupthink. The term was coined by social psychologist Irving Janis (1972). It occurs when a group makes faulty decisions because group pressures lead to a deterioration of “mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment".
Too often, leaders learn about alternative options after they've taken an unpopular decision. The team may be too conformist, the leader too resolute or too fast in labelling dissent as negativity and criticism. But looking for and accepting dissent is a crucial factor that differentiates business failures from successes.
As a futurist, I am often included in strategic discussions, and it's up to me as a moderator to elicit dissent in a positive way and use it to improve the decision-making process. Here is how I work:
Ask explicitly for multiple opinions: "What are the various possibilities that you all see?" When the first opinion is given, force the contributor to decide firmly and boldly: "What would YOU do?". Avoid a decision by the group, leave the responsibility for the decision with the contributor. Ask him/her: "Why would you do that?" and "What evidence supports that approach?" Cajole and encourage to get the contributor to speak up.
Then you ask the others to elaborate on the first opinion, instead of moving on to the next opinion. This forces people to reframe their opinion into building blocks that make the initial judgments more robust. To get building blocks on the table, you can ask the team these questions:
Write along with the discussion on a blackboard or flip-over to avoid getting side-tracked or biased towards a certain option or contribution. Make it an achievement to "get your idea on the board".
Do not organize your keywords per contributor or per alternative. Instead, use themes to organize the contributions, such as: causes (context), effects on customers, effects on the company (positive/negative), effects on the competition or collaborators, and possible responses. This frames the discussion on the contribution instead of the contributor.
You now have the best overview of every aspect of the decision-making situation. You and your team have developed a detailed and structured overview that you could not have developed on your own. Now is the time to turn the overview into action.
If you want to make sure that you're taking the right decision (right means: that taking it will keep them safe in the long run), then why not give this process a shot.
Kicking off the discussion with a question about possibilities will help your team to search for positive angles. It will reduce the 'let's get it over with asap' sentiment. Diving deeper may let new solutions emerge. At best, you may find an alternative to lay-offs or any other strategic issue altogether. At wordt, you still have to let people go, but in the certainty that you've explored all options that you could possibly be aware of.
Become a better decision-maker and accelerate growth in the coming months