Vancouver resident Debra Kalz suggests we ‘make this a happy, respectful marriage where disagreement is welcome’

Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in this letter to the editor are those of the author alone and may not reflect the editorial position of ClarkCountyToday.com

I have been reflecting on the C-TRAN Board meetings, and a question came up for me. That is . . . how is it that the board always seems unanimous on their decisions? I have seen smaller groups of people who can’t agree on everything, from where to go for lunch or what movie to see. I addressed the board at a meeting about the importance of having disagreements because it encourages a broader perspective, deeper thinking and better solutions. 

So why did they get rid of Michelle Belkot? It was because she didn’t agree with them, and therefore, they put someone else in that position who would be in agreement. Literally, a YES person.

During one of the board meetings, I mentioned that my great, great, great uncle was the Governor of Pennsylvania and was one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. There was a lot of discourse around the framing of that document and yet it is the greatest document in the creation of our country. That wouldn’t have happened without great conversations and a shared vision of the future of this country.

I’m guessing that the C-TRAN Board does not welcome anyone who disagrees with them, and I personally find it hard to believe that every single one of them is in total agreement. That doesn’t even work in marriage. So, someone on that board is a bully and, as in marriage, dominates the relationship and uses abuse and coercion to push through their demands over the well-being of the people they impact.

What is wrong when an entire board appears to agree on everything?

When an entire political board agrees on everything, it is a sign of groupthink, suppressing creativity and critical thinking and leading to flawed decisions. In a healthy political environment, disagreement and debate are essential for exploring alternative perspectives, identifying risks, and ultimately arriving at a more robust and well-vetted solution.

Dangers of unanimous agreement

• Poor decisions. Unanimous boards often fail to consider alternative options and neglect to seek out new information because members are focused on maintaining harmony rather than finding the best solution. Studies have shown that when a corporate board is politically aligned with the CEO, it leads to weaker oversight and an increased chance of corporate fraud.

• Suppressed dissent and self-censorship. In a culture of constant agreement, individuals may fear standing out or challenging the group, leading them to suppress their own opinions and critical thoughts. This creates a false consensus and prevents the board from benefiting from the full range of its members’ knowledge and perspectives.

• Overconfidence and ignoring risks. A united board may develop a distorted sense of its own power and righteousness, causing it to dismiss potential risks and ignore external warnings. The 1986 Challenger space shuttle disaster is a classic example of groupthink, where warnings about critical safety issues were ignored in favor of maintaining a consensus.

• Lack of accountability. When a decision fails, it is difficult to assign accountability on a unanimous board. The collective responsibility can diffuse individual blame, making it easier for board members to avoid consequences for poor outcomes.

• Exclusion of diverse viewpoints. A board that agrees on everything likely lacks diversity in background, experience, and ideology. Genuine diversity in political boards is essential for representing the varied interests of a population and for producing innovative, effective policy.

Healthy disagreement vs. consensus

A healthy political board, even when working toward a common goal, contains disagreements based on different strategic approaches, priorities, or interpretations of facts. This dynamic, often mistaken for infighting, is crucial for producing effective and ethical decisions.

• Constructive dissent. Rather than seeking universal agreement, a healthy board encourages constructive dissent, where members feel safe to voice concerns and challenge assumptions. This process forces the group to examine a problem from multiple angles and creates more resilient policies.

• Finding the “best” solution. While unanimous decisions are sometimes possible on simple or non-controversial matters, they are highly unlikely on complex political issues. In most cases, a majority vote, after thorough debate, is a better indicator that the board has exhaustively considered alternatives and settled on the best available option.

Groupthink can have serious effects

Groupthink can cause people to ignore important information and can ultimately lead to poor decisions. This can be damaging even in minor situations but can have much more dire consequences in certain settings.

Medical, military, or political decisions, for example, can lead to unfortunate outcomes when they are impaired by the effects of groupthink.

The phenomenon can have high costs. These include:

The suppression of individual opinions and creative thought can lead to inefficient problem-solving.

It can contribute to group members engaging in self-censorship. This tendency to seek consensus above all else also means that group members may not adequately assess the potential risks and benefits of a decision.

Groupthink also tends to lead group members to perceive the group as inherently moral or right. Stereotyped beliefs about other groups can contribute to this biased sense of rightness.

Groupthink can be a way to preserve the harmony in the group, which may be helpful in some situations that require rapid decision-making. However, it can also lead to poor problem-solving and contribute to bad decisions.

Groupthink vs. Conformity

It is important to note that while groupthink and conformity are similar and related concepts, there are important distinctions between the two. Groupthink involves the decision-making process.

On the other hand, conformity is a process in which people change their own actions so they can fit in with a specific group. Conformity can sometimes cause groupthink, but it isn’t always the motivating factor.

Potential pitfalls of Groupthink

While groupthink can generate consensus, it is by definition a negative phenomenon that results in faulty or uninformed thinking and decision-making. Some of the problems it can cause include:

• Blindness to potentially negative outcomes
• Failure to listen to people with dissenting opinions
• Lack of creativity
• Lack of preparation to deal with negative outcomes
• Ignoring important information
• Inability to see other solutions
• Not looking for things that might not yet be known to the group
• Obedience to authority without question
• Overconfidence in decisions
• Resistance to new information or ideas

Group consensus can allow groups to make decisions, complete tasks, and finish projects quickly and efficiently — but even the most harmonious groups can benefit from some challenges.8 Finding ways to reduce groupthink can improve decision-making and assure amicable relationships within the group.

What can you do to avoid Groupthink?

There are steps that groups can take to minimize this problem. First, leaders can give group members the opportunity to express their own ideas or argue against ideas that have already been proposed.

Breaking up members into smaller independent teams can also be helpful. Here are some more ideas that might help prevent groupthink.

Initially, the leader of the group should avoid stating their opinions or preferences when assigning tasks. Give people time to come up with their own ideas first.

Assign at least one individual to take the role of the “devil’s advocate.”

Consult an outsider for unbiased feedback on the group’s ideas.

Encourage group members to remain critical. Don’t discourage dissent or challenges to the prevailing opinion.

Leaders should host a “second chance” meeting before major decisions to address remaining concerns.

Reward creativity and give group members regular opportunities to share their ideas and thoughts.

Assign specific roles to certain members of the group.

Establish metrics or definitions to make sure that everyone is basing decisions or judgments on the same information.

Consider allowing people to submit anonymous comments, suggestions, or opinions.

Let’s make this a happy, respectful marriage where disagreement is welcome.

Debra Kalz
Vancouver