NASA Issues Investigative Report About Starliner Failure

Twenty-three years ago, the Columbia Accident Investigation Board issued its comprehensive report on the 2003 Space Shuttle Accident.  My colleagues Amy Edmondson, Richard Bohmer, and I began an intensive research project about the tragedy, and we published a case study, book chapter, and Harvard Business Review article with our analysis.  We argued that the failed mission demonstrated how and why organizations and their leaders actively downplay ambiguous threats at times.  We examined how the culture and team dynamics made it difficult for technical experts to express dissenting views and share bad news.  

Sadly, it seems that many of these same challenges led to the problems on the 2024 Starliner mission which left astronauts stranded on the space station for approximately nine months.  Yesterday, NASA issued its investigative report on the Starliner failure.   Here is the excerpt from the report that caught my attention: 

A posture of risk acceptance was communicated by CCP (NASA's Commercial Crew Program) and Boeing leadership, creating division within the large working/joint team and eroded trust. During the mission, CCP and Boeing operational leadership consistently conveyed a position of risk acceptance and readiness to undock, which many perceived as premature and dismissive of unresolved technical concerns. This was particularly apparent regarding the Service Module RCS 138thruster anomalies. This posture gave the impression that completing the sortie mission was prioritized over a thorough assessment of crew safety risks.  

One interviewee noted, “People said, ‘Why bother? He’s driving in one direction and that’s what he wants.’”   

Some interviewees also mentioned the shuttle operational background of the SMMT Chair, NOM, and CCP PM, and the possible preconceived notion that accepting risk to return the vehicle and crew was the only real path forward. This mirrors decisions made for the shuttle when no safe haven in LEO or alternative return capability was available. 

This forward leaning approach led to a breakdown in open dialogue. NASA institutional stakeholders, including ISSP, FOD, and Technical Authorities, felt their input was undervalued or ignored, requiring governance intervention to ensure additional data analysis occurred before a final crew return decision. The perception that CCP leadership had formed a position before hearing all viewpoints created organizational silence, resistance to collaboration, and stagnation in decision making. 

Strong personalities within CCP and Boeing were seen as overly optimistic in presenting data, which some interviewees interpreted as lobbying rather than objective analysis. This dynamic discouraged dissenting views and contributed to a growing sense of distrust. As one interviewee described, opposing positions felt like “pushing a rock uphill.” 

The situation improved later in the mission when key personnel changes were made within the Boeing team and there was collective recognition that senior leadership should have played a more active role in facilitating respectful engagement across differing perspectives. These changes allowed for more productive conversations regarding the technical qualification campaign of the hardware and testing at the WSTF. The lack of early intervention to address team dysfunction allowed conflict to overshadow mission objectives and delayed consensus on critical decisions. 

Organizational silence, discouraging of dissenting views, dismissed technical concerns, overly optimistic analysis... the pattern is clear.  Once again, we see ample evidence that leadership did not create a culture in which open and candid dialogue could occur about ambiguous risks.  I'm glad to see a careful after-action review taking place here, with transparency about the organizational problems that have been identified (rather than only focusing on the technical problems).  Having said that, now the challenge is clear: can NASA turn these lessons into action and fundamentally change the way future programs are led?  

Leaders: Don't Say, "Tell Me Why I'm Wrong"

 

Some well-meaning leaders have tried to solicit dissenting views from their team members by saying, "Tell me why I'm wrong."  They invite team members to explain why the proposed course of action is not advisable or feasible.  However, I think leaders are asking the wrong question here.  Inviting people to openly oppose you doesn't necessarily create the type of constructive dialogue and debate you envision.  People may have questions or concerns about a proposal, but they might not be ready to stand in direct opposition to the boss.  Alternatively, they may not be sure if the recommended course of action is appropriate.  They may simply have some questions about key assumptions, beliefs, or data.   Ironically, asking people to oppose you openly may not create a safe environment for discussion at all; it may discourage team members from speaking up. 

What should leaders ask instead?  Here are a few alternatives:

• What questions do you have about this proposal?
• What assumptions do you think might need further testing and validation?
• How might this plan go off track?
• What obstacles might we face if we try to implement this plan?
• Here's how I see this scenario unfolding.  What am I missing?

Asking these types of questions can create a productive conversation, and even encourage dissent, without asking someone to stand on an island in direct contradiction to the boss.  

Speaking Up Effectively

Source: Flickr

After facilitating a conversation the other day with a group of managers, I went back to review something I wrote back in 2009 in a book titled Know What You Don't Know.   The managers asked me how one can dissent in the most persuasive and constructive fashion, particularly in situations where they feel as they the leader may not want to hear an opposing viewpoint.    

Suppose you have a dissenting view, but you aren't sure how to bring your point forward. How can you put forth a different perspective without eliciting a defensive reaction from your boss or backlash from your peers?  I have argued that, "Speaking up requires more than crafting the right series of statements... In large, complex organizations, individuals must pay close attention to social and political dynamics. They need to find a way to gain access to key decision-makers and to build support for their viewpoints."  Here are my tips for speaking up effectively, with a focus on how to manage the political and interpersonal dynamics of your organization:  

Know your audience: Learn about the person you are trying to persuade. Present your arguments in a way that fits that person’s preferred mode of processing information.

Understand the history: Determine who will feel most threatened by your attempts to shine a spotlight on a particular problem. Avoid placing blame on that person; focus on how to improve the situation.

Seek allies and build coalitions: Strength resides in numbers. Find others who will support your viewpoint. Present a united front.

Work through key confidantes and gatekeepers: Identify the individuals who have the ear of the person you ultimately must persuade. Seek them out and try to bring them onboard first.

Focus first on divergent thinking: Remember that your near-term goal should not be to persuade everyone to adopt your view immediately. Begin by simply trying to encourage people to think differently about the situation at hand.

Present alternative solutions: Do not just point out the problem; offer a series of possible solutions. Make it clear that you want to help fix the problem.

Dangers of 'Yes' People

Please consider taking a look at this new article in Financial Management magazine titled, "How Leaders Can Avoid the Dangers of 'Yes' People" - Thank you to Hannah Pitstick for interviewing me during her research for the article, along with others such as Kim Scott, author of Radical Candor.

Farming for Dissent at Netflix

Source:  Wikimedia

Yesterday, I listened to the first episode of the Recode by Vox podcast, Land of the Giants: The Netflix Effect.  The episode focuses on Netflix's vaunted corporate culture.   Many of you have probably read a great deal about the Netflix culture and the famous slide deck describing its tenets and values that circulated widely on the internet for years.   This episode takes a comprehensive, balanced look at the culture, highlighting its strengths and limitations.  I found one particular aspect quite interesting, given my work on decision making.  Here's an excerpt from a description of the episode by Recode/Vox:

Another tenet — “farming for dissent” — came out of one of the company’s biggest failures. You might remember it as a punchline: Qwikster.  The short version: In 2011, Hastings wanted to move his company from its core DVD-by-mail service to online streaming, which was growing quickly but was still a smaller part of his business. So he tried splitting Netflix into a DVD business and a streaming business named Qwikster. Which meant that if his customers wanted the same services they were already getting before, they would have to subscribe to both and end up paying 60 percent more.  Netflix veterans still wince about the experience: The company was skewered on social media and by SNL. Its stock dropped 70 percent, and more than 700,000 people canceled their subscriptions.

Eventually, Hastings admitted that Qwikster’s name, the price hikes, and the way the company talked about it all had been a huge blunder. He rolled back the changes.  But in Hastings’s narrative, the failure was useful for Netflix’s culture. He thinks that many of his top employees could have told him he was wrong but were too afraid or at least too in awe of their CEO’s former successes to say anything.

“Everyone knows the tale of the self-absorbed, arrogant CEO who doesn’t listen. And there’s an element of that, because we have been so successful at so many things before that,” Hastings told us earlier this year at Netflix’s offices in Los Angeles. “But the more subtle one is that I had been so successful before that most of the executives thought ... ‘But Reed has been right on so many things. I’ll bet he’s right on this one. And I’m just not seeing it.’”

After the debacle, Hastings instituted “farming for dissent,” a formal practice where employees are supposed to run their big ideas by colleagues and have them tell you candidly — on a Google Doc that’s open for everyone to see — what’s wrong with it. It’s considered integral to the company that your coworkers tell you what they really think of your idea, even if — perhaps especially if — you’re their boss.

Four Tips for Speaking Up Effectively

Source: Flickr

Suppose you have a dissenting opinion to share, or perhaps you are the reluctant bearer of bad news.  How can you be sure that leaders in your organization will listen attentively and genuinely consider your views?  What strategies can you employ to speak up effectively?  Here are four tips:

1.  Know your audience.   Understand the background of the person you are trying to persuade and influence.  What makes them tick?  How do they make decisions?  Are they fact-based decision-makers who want reams of data and evidence, or do they rely on their intuition at times?  What's the history of this particular person on this issue?   An effective dissent is not simply the collection of important facts and logical arguments.  Effective dissent entails TAILORING your argument to the people you are trying to persuade.  

2.   Work through the gatekeepers.   For many senior leaders, important information often flows to them through key gatekeepers.   Understand who these people are that have significant influence on the person you are trying to persuade.   Who does that leader rely on as a sounding board or confidante?   Sometimes, the most effective case of speaking up does not entail a direct conversation with a leader, but instead, works through these gatekeepers.  In other cases, the gatekeeper may not relay the message for you, but they can help you determine HOW to convey your message effectively.  

3.  Ask questions.   Don't simply state your opinions and proclaim the facts that support your argument.  Ask questions that help you understand how leaders are thinking about a particular issue.  Ask questions that encourage leaders to question assumptions and examine other alternatives.  The most effective dissenters bring people along, often encouraging leaders to come to the conclusion themselves that they may be headed in the wrong direction.   You are much more likely to succeed if they come to question their own arguments.   

4.  Tell a story.  Don't just convey facts and data through bullet points and charts.  Make sure you have crafted a compelling story - a narrative that integrates the key facts and arguments.  You are much more likely to persuade someone with a story than with a list of bullet points. 

Does Speaking Up Help or Harm Your Career?

Conventional wisdom, backed by plenty of painful examples, demonstrates that speaking up at work brings with it some serious risks. Some leaders do not appreciate dissent and they have been known to shoot the messenger who brings bad news. In contrast, a new study looks at how speaking up might have some beneficial effects for a person's career. 

Mona Weiss and Elizabeth Morrison have published a paper titled, "Speaking up and moving up: How voice can enhance employees' social status." In this article, they provide experimental evidence that voice has some positive effects for workers. They write:

Voice, by constructively challenging the status quo, is one of the primary means by which employees can help their organizations innovate and adapt. Yet it is widely viewed as a risky activity for employees. The risks cannot be denied—supervisors and peers are not always receptive to voice and may respond negatively. However, drawing from theories of status attainment and the agency‐communion framework of interpersonal judgment, we have argued and shown that when it comes to social status, voice has positive implications for employees.

In our survey study, we found that more frequent voice behavior was associated with higher status ratings from coworkers. In our two experiments, we found that employees who raised a concern or offered an opinion that challenged the views of a superior were ascribed higher social status than those who did not.

Naturally, speaking up in a constructive manner is key. Dysfunctional conflict and dissent can be harmful. Moreover, we also have to be mindful that certain leaders, and certain organizational cultures, may not be open to dissenting views. Thus, speaking up can have negative effects in those particular situations. The study does show, however, that others may appreciate someone who speaks up in a constructive and thoughtful manner, thereby actually helping an individual's career prospects.

Churchill, Brooke, and Protecting Against a Sanguine Outlook

Source: Wikipedia

As mentioned in a post two weeks ago, I've been reading Andrew Roberts' incredible biography of Winston Churchill. At one point, Roberts describes Churchill's appointment of Alan Brooke as Chief of the Imperial General Staff during World War II.   Roberts writes:

As we have seen, one of the most useful insights Churchill gained from the Great War was the phenomenon he had seen in Haig's Intelligence Department.  'The temptation to tell a chief in a great position the things he most likes to hear is one of the commonest explanations of mistake policy,' he had written.  'Thus, the outlook of the leader on whose decisions fateful events depend is usually far more sanguine than the brutal facts admit.' Churchill therefore appointed men like Brooke and Admiral Sir Andrew Cunningham, who told him exactly whaat they thought he needed to hear.  Brooke did not seek out confrontation with the Prime Minister, but neither did he shy away from it.  He tended to choose his battles carefully, not opposing him on trivial matters.  He was to tell Moran that 'every month' of working with Churchill 'is a year off my life.'   Earlier in 1941, Lord Vansittart had told the newspaper editor W.P. Crozier that 'Churchill needs people beside him who can say quite firmly "No" when he wants to do something wrong and insist that he must not do it.  Such a man was Brooke, whom Churchill respected and whom he knew would not allow him to repeat such errors as Gallipoli or Greece.  

That's a fantastic story of the rationale behind a crucial appointment.  Every leader should reflect upon this story and learn from it.  

Boards of Directors: What Happens to Female Dissenters?

Source: Blue Diamond Gallery

Juan Ma and Ithai Stern of INSEAD have published a paper titled, "Gender's Impact on Directors' Career Trajectories."  They examined the disparate impact on men and women of an expression of dissenting views during board of director meetings.  They explain their results:

We find that directors, male and female, are significantly less likely to continue serving on the focal board after issuing a dissenting opinion.  All else equal, dissenters are more than twice as likely to be dismissed from the focal board compared to those who did not dissent.  We also find that female dissenters will be more likely than male dissenters to be knocked off the board due to the in-group/out-group bias: a female dissenter was almost four times more likely to be dismissed compared to her female colleague who did not dissent, while a male dissenter was only (less than) twice as likely to leave the board following a dissenting opinion.

They also found that female dissenters are more likely to be dismissed if there are other female directors on the board.  The scholars explain that result by arguing that the boards may feel that they can "afford losing the female dissenter, as they are no longer subject to the societal pressure to have (at least) one woman on the board."  

Source: Harvard Business Review

The findings are troubling, if not surprising, to many scholars who have examined corporate governance practices.  Many boards do not have constructive debates.   Dissenters are marginalized easily, and they are viewed as disruptive or unhelpful.  Female board members often bring an important, different perspective to board meetings, but it's hard for them to contribute if they are penalized so strongly for expressing dissent.  

"I Don't Know All The Answers"

Source: Fortune.com

The Wall Street Journal's Vanessa Fuhrmans interviewed IBM senior executive Bridget van Kralingen several months ago.  Kralingen comments on the traits and habits of the most effective leaders that she studied as an industrial psychologist, and how she tries to embrace those behaviors now in her role as a senior leader at IBM.  She explains:

I saw it was the leaders who were the most curious, the most open to change and learning themselves who were the most successful in a very changing, unstable world, which is the world we’re in today in many ways. I also saw that leaders who loved their companies, their work, their teams were able to do things that other leaders couldn’t.

I’ve always asked my teams if they’d like feedback. And then I will always ask them for the same thing. I find that if you keep on asking for it and then show you act on it, you will generally get it. The other thing I do is say to people, “I don’t know all the answers. I need your help.” I make sure I’m able to show positivity but also the vulnerability to be open to getting the feedback.

To me, the most important statement to her people is:  "I don't know all the answers. I need your help."  That statement promotes psychological safety, encourages people to express dissenting views, and promotes learning and improvement.  Many leaders are afraid to express such a sentiment to their team members.  Why?  Either they don't believe that they need the help, i.e. they think that they already have all the answers, or more likely, they are afraid to be seen as indecisive or incapable.  They are afraid to admit what they do not know.  However, acknowledging that you don't have all the answers is the important first step to actually gathering the information and input that you need to make sound decisions.  

Disagreeing with the Boss

Source: maxpixel.net

Vivian Giang has written a useful article for Fast Company about how to disagree effectively with your boss or other senior leaders in your organization.  She draws on the expertise of Priscilla Claman of Career Strategies, Inc.  Giang provides several recommendations:

1.  Know Your Boss' Decision-Making Style

Are they influenced by data and formal analysis?  Do they worry about how their decisions affect interpersonal relationships?  In short, you need to know what type of argument or presentation will be most influential with your boss.  Speak and make your case in a format and style that will make the most impact with that person.  

2.  Recruit Credible Allies

Don't go it alone.  Find others who can rally behind your argument and stand with you.  Perhaps they can even join you in making the case to your boss or other senior leaders.  Or, perhaps, you can identify the leader's confidante or trusted adviser.  Make your case first to that person, as they may be your best channel for presenting a constructive dissent and persuading your boss to listen carefully.  

3.  Identify Your Baggage

Consider your past experiences and your reputation/track record.  Now put yourself in your boss' shoes.  What will they automatically assume about you and your argument?  What will they expect of you?  If you can recognize any baggage that you may bring to the conversation, you can anticipate roadblocks and objections much more effectively.  

Asking Engineers the Right Questions

In our extensive study of the Columbia space shuttle accident, Amy Edmondson, Richard Bohmer, and I examined the culture and leadership at NASA. Specifically, we analyzed the forces that made it difficult for engineers such as Rodney Rocha to speak up regarding their safety concerns, and we looked at how leaders did not ask probing questions to elicit dissenting views. 

When I teach the case to engineers and other technical experts, I often hear them say that management needs to understand how to ask engineers the right questions, and how to interpret their results. They argue that engineers were not going to scream, "There is a safety-of-flight risk!" unless they had conclusive evidence. The engineers' lack of complete certainty might lead to them to give answers that that are interpreted incorrectly by management. Organizational leaders might be looking for a definitive statement expressing alarm and grave concern, but they won't get it if there is scientific uncertainty. 

Today, I ran across a good quote (in Fast Company) from Google's long-time Chairman and CEO, Eric Schmidt, regarding this issue. Scmidt explains how you have to ask multiple questions, in different ways, to make sure you are getting the whole picture when working with technical experts: 

They are taught to think logically. If you ask engineers a precise question, they will give you a precisely truthful answer. That also tends to mean that they’ll only answer the question that you asked them. If you don’t ask them exactly the right question, sometimes they’ll evade you — not because they’re lying but because they’re being so scrupulously truthful.”

Edward Lampert & The Demise of Sears

Earlier this year, Sears acknowledged publicly for the first time that bankruptcy might be a possibility.  The two charts shown here document the financial deterioration over the past decade.  Many people have placed substantial blame at the feet of CEO Edward Lampert.  In Forbes last year, Adam Hartung wrote about the unwillingess of Lampert to welcome and listen to dissenting views.  

Source:  Company 10K Filings

Mr. Lampert had no time for staff who did not see things his way. Mr. Lampert wanted his management team to agree with him - to confirm his Beliefs, Interpretations, Assumptions and Strategies -- to believe his BIAS. By seeking managers who would confirm his views, and execute rather than disagree, Mr. Lampert had no one offering alternative data, interpretations, strategies or tactics. And, as Mr. Lampert's plans kept faltering it led to a revolving door of managers. Leaders came and went in a year or two, blamed for failures that originated at the Chairman's doorstep. By forcing agreement, rather than disagreement and dialogue, Sears lacked options or alternatives, and the company had no chance of turning around.

Source: www.bigcharts.com

Of course, others have argued that Sears' culture had become insular long before Lampert took over.   Fortune writer Geoffrey Colvin wrote about an incident in the early 1990s, when Edward Brennan served as the firm's CEO:

At this same time, shareholder activist Robert A.G. Monks launched a campaign to get elected to the Sears board and to reform its rules; he even ran a full-page ad in the Wall Street Journal headed “The Directors of Sears, Roebuck and Co.: NON-PERFORMING ASSETS.” When he was finally granted an audience with Sears CEO Ed Brennan in his 90th-floor office in the Sears Tower (now the Willis Tower), the functionary escorting Monks in the elevator reportedly said, “This is the first time bad news has made it above the 78th floor.” Star consultant Ram Charan asks CEOs if they’re hearing lots of bad news. Why? Every company has lots of bad news, he tells them, and if you’re not hearing it, something’s wrong.

The Downside of a Strong Corporate Culture

New research by two professors at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University suggests that we should reexamine the impact of organizational culture on firm performance.  They argue that strong cultures serve a useful purpose, but they become a liability when faced with the threat of disruptive innovation.  A strong organizational culture enhances efficiency, because everyone is on the same page.  They can coordinate their activities effectively.    A weaker culture means a broader diversity of viewpoints.  It diminishes efficiency, but it might enhance the organization's ability to adapt to a changing external world.  The finding should not surprise you.  We have been aware of this good news/bad news story about organizational culture for years.  Nevertheless, it bears repeating... we all need the reminder that a strong culture is not all roses and rainbows.  Here's an excerpt from Kellogg Insights that summarizes the findings of this research: 

New research by Willemien Kets, an assistant professor of managerial economics and decision sciences at the Kellogg School, suggests that a strong culture serves a utilitarian purpose: it sets expectations, increasing the likelihood that, faced with uncertainty, members of a team will all be on the same page.  Kets, along with her coauthor, Alvaro Sandroni, a professor of managerial economics and decision sciences at the Kellogg School, argues that cultural norms make interactions easier—a good thing much of the time. But in fast-changing industries, or in a tumultuous economy, the broader diversity of viewpoints that a weaker company culture engenders can lead to fewer missed opportunities.

What happens if you feel you can't express dissent?

Imagine you are in a meeting, and you sense that the group has prematurely converged on a solution.  The leader does not seem to want to hear dissenting views.  What do you do?  The easy answer is to have the courage to speak up anyway.  That's tough though, and it may embarrass the boss.  A one-on-one meeting might be more productive.  Talk to the leader privately.  Discuss how you think several people may have other ideas or alternatives that they are reticent to put forward.  Don't critique the current plan.  That may put the leader on the defensive.  Instead, simply suggest that it might be worthwhile to examine other options, if for no reason then that the discussion may help strengthen the current proposal.  Talk about others who perhaps have ideas that they have not shared.  Suggest that the leader invite a broader discussion.  This type of discussion in a one-on-one meeting with the leader often is a more effective way forward as opposed to direct confrontation in a large meeting.  

How To Disagree With Your Boss

Kathy Bloomgarden, CEO of Ruder Finn - a public relations and communications agency, has written a short column for Fortune about how to disagree with your boss.   I've written extensively about how leaders need to encourage dissenting views.   Often, I'm asked how subordinates can express dissent constructively and effectively.   I n this article, Bloomgarden offers a few tips.  First, she argues that one should stick to the facts.  Avoid making your case based on intuition or emotion.  Provide a sound analysis of the situation with data to support your argument.  Second, identify the costs and benefits of your proposal, as well as the costs and benefits of your boss' proposed course of action.  Try to look at both scenarios in an evenhanded way.  Finally, she says that you should "own what you're suggesting."   In other words, be specific about your willingness to take responsibility for the alternative solution, but be transparent and realistic about what you promise.  Set expectations clearly, but realistically. 

I would add a few other recommendations.  First, you have to know your audience.  How does your boss make decisions?  What types of arguments are most persuasive?   How does he or she like to see data presented?   Second, study the history of the issue.  Understand what has been tried in the past, and if it failed, examine why it did not work.  Third, seek allies and build coalitions. Don't go it alone.  Try to persuade others first, before you turn to your boss.  There's strength in numbers.  Fourth, identify and work through key gatekeepers.  Who has the boss' ear and trust?  How can you work through that person to persuade and influence the boss?  Finally, focus first on divergent thinking before trying to persuade people that their idea is not well-suited to address this particular problem. In other words, ask questions before proposing your solution.  Try to encourage the boss to think a bit differently about the situation.  Encourage them to explore other options.  That inquiry-based approach may be more effective than listing the deficiencies with their proposed course of action. 

What Did the Dissenter Say? Great Question!

This week, the New York Times Corner Office column (by Adam Bryant) features an interview with Bob Pittman, CEO of Clear Channel Communications.  You may also know Pittman as the person who oversaw the creation and launch of MTV back in the 1980s.  In the column, Pittman talks about the value of dissent, a topic about which I have written extensively over the years.  Here is what he says:

Often in meetings, I will ask people when we’re discussing an idea, “What did the dissenter say?” The first time you do that, somebody might say, “Well, everybody’s on board.” Then I’ll say, “Well, you guys aren’t listening very well, because there’s always another point of view somewhere and you need to go back and find out what the dissenting point of view is.” I don’t want to hear someone say after we do something, “Oh, we should have done this.”  I want us to listen to these dissenters because they may intend to tell you why we can’t do something, but if you listen hard, what they’re really telling you is what you must do to get something done. It gets you out of your framework of the conventions of what you can and can’t do. 

I love the question:  What did the dissenter say?   Often, people come to the leader with a recommendation.  They are both the advocates for a particular plan, as well as the primary information gatherers and analysts of the situation.   They clearly have strong vested interest. (bias!)   Asking about the dissenters insures that you are not simply hearing advocacy.   Moreover, it enables the leader to dig into the advocates' decision-making process a bit.  Did they reach out to hear opposing opinions at all? Did they consider alternatives?  Did they probe and test their assumptions?  If they stumble on this question, then you know that their decision-making process has key weaknesses.  At this point, as a leader, you can conclude that you are not in a good position to make a tough call.    Your team is not providing you with the right information, analysis, and advice.  

The Power of Independent Executives

Does a CEO bring in many new members on his or her top management team after taking charge at a company?  Or, does the CEO have a number of key holdovers from a previous administration?  Does this key factor in the composition of the top team make a difference?  New research by Augustin Landier, Julien Sauvagnat, David Sraer, and David Thesmar (published in the Review of Finance) suggests that having more "independent" executives on the senior team can have positive effects on decision making and financial performance.   The scholars define "independent" to mean executives not appointed by the current CEO.  

The scholars collected data on over 1,800 American companies over a 17 year period.  According to this article in Strategy and Business, here are their results: "Controlling for a variety of factors, they found that even the smallest uptick in the nonindependence of executives caused a decrease in the firm’s annual return on assets of between 0.5 and 0.8 percentage points."

What's going on here?  They argue that CEOs tend to hire people who think like they do. Moreover, executives hired by the current CEO may feel more beholden to that leader.   As a result, they may not be as willing to express dissenting opinions.   On the contrary, an executive hired by a previous CEO may be more willing to push back on high-stakes, potentially risky decisions.  The authors go on to argue that "independence" of senior executives may matter much more than the independence of board members, since the top team meets much more frequently and is much more directly responsible for strategic choices and performance at most large corporations. 

Additional research by these scholars shows that firms with fewer independent executives on the top team also are more likely to make acquisitions that destroy shareholder value.  Here is the key finding:  "Although acquisitions, on average, led to decreases in shareholder value for the companies in the study, firms with fewer independent top subordinates fared much worse, losing about 45 percent four years after they made an acquisition, almost triple the 16 percent loss posted by firms with more of those executives." 

The Asch Experiments

I discovered that YouTube features a good video on the famous Solomon Asch experiments regarding the pressures to conform in groups.  It's worth watching to remind us that the pressure to conform can cause us to make very poor decisions at times. 

Speaking Up Effectively

In my work, I have focused a great deal on how leaders often create conditions in which it becomes very difficult for individuals to express dissenting opinions.   What about the dissenter?  Can individuals become better at expressing dissent?  Can they enhance the odds that leaders will listen and consider their views?  Can they increase the odds that others in the group will not marginalize them?  I believe that dissenters can become better at speaking up.

Here are a few strategies:

1.  Know thy audience.  Who are you trying to influence or persuade?  How do they think?   Are they analytical by nature, or they do make decisions more intuitively? 

2.  Understand the history of the issue.   What events have taken place leading up to this situation?  Who has been involved?  Who might become defensive if I challenge the conventional wisdom here?

3.  Build a coalition.   Who could be my allies on this issue?  How can I cultivate their support before I express my dissenting view?

4.  Develop some options.  If I disagree with this plan of action, I should offer some alternatives.  What options might I propose?  How could I invite others to propose alternatives? 

5.  Ask questions.  Do not declare your opposition outright if that might be too threatening.  Ask questions. Seek to understand, to press for clarification, to surface and test key assumptions, to encourage people to think differently about the issue.