Guy Kawasaki has another gem on his blog. This one is about why smart companies do dumb things. First, let me just highlight the importance of the topic. We like being smart. We spend a lot of time getting smart and proving to others that we are smart. The problem with this is that it becomes a big “issue” if we end up doing something dumb. We tend to pretend that it didn’t happen, and then we pretend that we’re not pretending. It’s a vicious cycle.
So let’s be honest for a minute and admit that even though we are all very smart, we sometimes do dumb things. Guy’s post then uncovers some sneaky reasons why we do them. Here’s a good one:
Consensus. When it comes to doing dumb things, the sum of the parts is less than the whole. Throwing more minds at the problem means more data, more perspectives, more possible solutions, more critiques of these solutions, and more minds (and hands) implementing the solution, right?
Possibly, but there’s also the downside of more people: once consensus starts to build, it’s harder to alter a decision. It’s one thing to argue against a few people; it’s much more difficult to argue against the wisdom of a crowd. Individuals who hold out, question, or disagree are labeled as clueless, uncooperative, and not team players.
Consensus is a term that makes me nervous. People throw it around, and often portray it as an ideal, or even a requirement. It turns out to be a tricky concept, with plenty of downsides, like the one Guy mentions here. The problem is that we view the concept as permanent. We work hard in the meeting to build consensus, making sure we air and resolve our conflicts around a matter (this is good), and then we declare “consensus” and we’re done! This is bad. As time moves on, things change, and consensus will need to be rebuilt. But that previous commitment we had to resolving conflicts is gone, because challenging that consensus we worked so hard for is considered bad. This is what Guy is talking about. It is important we build the discipline to continually work through issues and challenge thinking, even after we have come to agreement.