Andrei Sakharov , a Russian physicist involved in the development of the nuclear bomb, won the Nobel peace prize in 1975 because he became concerned about the moral and political implications of his work. He took to the press (the Dutch newspaper Parool was the first to publish) and disclosed his ideas on the arms race. For that, he was banned from applied research, targeted by the media as a traitor, and banned to Nizhny Novgorod. It took over ten years and a new head of state before he could return to Moscow.
"For me, the moral difficulties lie in the continual pressure brought to bear on my friends and immediate family, pressure which is not directed against me personally but which at the same time is all around me"
Being a dissident is extremely hard, for our survival depends on the group we belong to. Our parents and caregivers, our employers and colleagues, our families and friends; we rely on their actions to inform us what’s right and how to behave when we’re not sure what to do. We want to be liked and to belong. Why bite the hand that feeds us?
Many scientific experiments were done to find out why we conform and how far we’ll take conformity. 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.
Asch Conformity Experiments
click to view
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.
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?
The Psychology of Evil
click to view
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”.
Groupthink can be detrimental to the bottom line:
Strong Leaders Look for Dissenting Opinions and Difficult Questions
Too often, leaders are the last to hear bad news or unintentionally label dissent as negativity and criticism. But looking for and accepting dissent is a crucial factor that differentiates business failures and successes.
The New Coke Disaster
Consider Coca-Cola. In April 1985, Coca-Cola released New Coke, a reformulated version of cola because they had lost market share to Pepsi. Consumers became enraged. They started to hamster the old cola, flooded the customer service department with complaints, filed lawsuits. Coca-Cola was forced to reintroduce “Coca-Cola Classic” three months later. Can you imagine how this would have ended in our age of social media…
What happened?
In 1980, Robert Goizueta took over as CEO and announced that there would be no sacred cows in how the company was run and formulated its drinks. In 1983, Coca-Cola’s market share had shrunk from 60% to 24%. Pepsi, the sweeter cola, had gained considerably. Was it about taste? Market analysts believed baby boomers were more likely to purchase diet drinks as they aged. Future growth in the full-calorie segment had to come from younger drinkers, who at that time favored Pepsi.
Market analysts believed baby boomers were more likely to purchase diet drinks as they aged. Future growth in the full-calorie segment had to come from younger drinkers, who at that time favored Pepsi.
A secret task force called: “Project Kansas” went on to develop a new flavor. In their blind taste tests, New Coke beat both Coke and Pepsi. But when the tasters were asked if they would buy and drink it if it really were Coca-Cola, a small minority of 10-12% felt angry and would stop drinking Coke if that was to happen. But as a later surveys were less negative, the criticism was downplayed.
The management then considered and rejected the idea to use the flavor as a new variety. Bottlers were protesting other product differentiations already. Some were suing Coke over syrup policies. And a new variety would cannibalize the already shrinking market share.
Goizueta framed the discussion as New Coke or No Coke and said he had the blessing of his predecessor.
In the meantime, Pepsi had smuggled in a preview six-pack and considered the new flavor a serious threat. They wasted no time and counter-attacked: the CEO declared a company-wide holiday and advertised with full-page ads declaring Pepsi the winner of the cola wars.
In April, New Coke came on the market. Some Coke executives started to argue the reintroduction of the old formula in May. By June, the new formula was already leveling. End of June, southern bottlers took customer complaints to the Coke executives in a private meeting. The company then faced a boycott by customers and bottlers alike. Finally, in July, the board capitulated and brought back the original formula.
How to Seek Out Dissent?
The New Coke example tells us how disastrous groupthink can work out in business decisions. 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. Here is how I work:
Start
Ask for several opinions: “What are the various possibilities that you all see?” When the first opinion is given, force the opinion owner 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?”
Get the Group Involved
Flesh out the Arguments
Write along with the discussion on a blackboard or flip-over. Use themes to organize the debate.
Finish Strong
When you’ve explored alternatives for about an hour, recap the list of arguments. Name each alternative and summarize its pros and cons. Now ask the participants to find common denominators for two or more alternatives. If that’s too hard, synthesize reasonings into groups and give the groups a new title. Use the new groups as the basis for the decision.