Going three for three we thought we would consider a different bias in this blog building on the past two and this time we are thinking about social bias. Social biases are sometimes interpreted as corporate politics but in fact are deep-rooted human tendencies. Even when nothing is at stake, we tend to conform to the dominant views of the group we belong to (and of its leader).
Many organizations compound these tendencies because of both strong corporate cultures and the pressure and often incentives to conform. An absence of dissent is a strong warning sign. Social biases are also likely to prevail in discussions where everyone in the room knows the views of the ultimate decision maker and assumes that this person, the leader, is unlikely to change his or her mind.
Countless techniques exist to stimulate debate among executive teams, and many are simple to learn and practice. But tools per se won’t create debate because that is a matter of behavior. Genuine debate requires diversity in the backgrounds and personalities of the decision makers, a climate of trust, and a culture in which discussions are depersonalized. This is a concept that many understand and yet it appears very hard to achieve for many.
Everybody brings to the table biases borne out of their values and their experiences. Those experience-based biases probably are not that different at the psychological level from the behavioral biases that economists focus on today.
Most crucially, debate calls for senior leaders who genuinely believe in the collective intelligence of a high-caliber management team. Such executives see themselves serving not only as the ultimate decision makers but also as the orchestrators of disciplined decision processes.
This means that a critical leadership skill is our ability to assemble the smartest people we can, throw a difficult issue on the table, and watch them debate it. Then at some point we need to end the debate, make a decision, and move on. It’s also similar to the judicial process, where advocates come together to present every facet of a case, and a judge makes an informed determination. The advocates’ biases actually work to the benefit of a good decision, rather than being something that needs to be mitigated.
Great leaders shape their teams with the humility to encourage dissent and the self-confidence and mutual trust to practice vigorous debate without damaging personal relationships.
Balancing out the biases around the table and coming up with really effective decisions and, more important, the groundwork for consensus—not necessarily unanimity, but consensus is key.
We do not suggest that CEOs should become humble listeners who rely solely on the consensus of their teams—that would substitute one simplistic stereotype for another. But we do believe that behavioral strategy will founder without their leadership and role modeling.