22 / Rotman Management Spring 20 19
shows that conformity increases as the majority size increases
from one to around three or four; thereafter, size corresponds
little to the amount of conformity.
The history of the financial industry reveals the power of the
majority to shape judgment and behaviour. From the original in-
vesting bubble, the South Sea Bubble of the early 18th century, to
the NASDAQ and housing bubbles of the last 20 years, investors
have been known to herd — to put their money where others have
already put theirs. Empirical work by economists confirms that
investors often follow the decisions of others instead of doing
their own due diligence.
The fear of being in the minority manifests itself in work-
places, as well. Researchers have found that around 70 per cent
of employees don’t speak up when they see problems, for two
reasons. First, employees think that speaking up won’t matter
and the company will ignore what they say; and second, they fear
repercussions from the majority — those who remained silent
and did not report the problem. Silence thus becomes part of the
power of the majority.
We see similar kinds of following in consumer behaviour.
Why do we go into restaurants that are full and avoid those that
are half empty? Why do we follow the star system on Ye l p or
Amazon, even if only 30 people have posted a rating? Why do
we only buy books that are on the New York Times best-seller list?
We do all of these things because we believe that the majority
of people are doing them, and we take that as a signal that a
product, experience, or idea has value. The problem is, as indi-
cated, the majority is often wrong.
Daring to Dissent
With all the power of the majority to get us to follow and agree, it
may seem that the majority has no weaknesses. But it does: con-
sensus. Unanimity is the most important variable affecting the
majority’s power, because just one person challenging the consen-
sus can break that power and increase group members’ ability to
think independently and resist making erroneous judgments.
Sadly, nearly all of us punish dissent. We don’t like disagree-
ment and we often inflict punishment on those who oppose our
views when we are in the majority. Dissenters are rarely liked,
and hence daring to dissent takes courage. But what is interest-
ing is that this courage, when summoned, is contagious: Dissent
can actually increase the likelihood that others will also show
courage when faced with consensus in another situation.
The film Twelve Angry Men without Henry Fonda would
have been ‘Eleven angry men who rushed to the judgment that
the defendant was guilty’ — and, most surely, that verdict would
have taken them minutes to reach. The film shows the power
of dissent — of that one persistent minority voice. It turns out
that dissent is useful not just in the realm of persuasion, but
in stimulating divergent thinking — the kind of thinking that
is necessary for good decision-making. Without dissent, that
jury’s discussion would most likely have reflected convergent
thinking and a rush to judgment — the kind of thinking that
leads to bad decisions.
The value of dissent for the quality of group decisions has
also been studied in naturalistic settings. For example, Linn
Van Dyne of Michigan State and Richard Saavedra of Carn-
egie Mellon conducted a field study in which groups of four or
five met over a ten-week period. Some groups included a person
who had been trained to be ‘a persistent minority voice’; while
the other groups had no such trained dissenter. Their finding:
Groups that experienced dissent reported more divergent think-
ing. They “identified a large number of alternatives” and “iden-
tified many advantages and disadvantages to each alternative.”
They also produced reports that were consistently rated as being
more original and of better quality by outside experts.
One ambitious study observed the value of dissent for
strategic decision-making in U.S. hospitals. The researchers
surveyed the entire population of hospitals in three states, and
found evidence that when members openly expressed a differ-
ence of opinion, the quality of the decision was better. Such deci-
sions were seen as more financially responsible and as contrib-
uting to the hospital’s overall effectiveness.
The results of studies of top management teams by Kath-
leen Eisenhardt and her colleagues are consistent with these
studies, concluding that it is often valuable to ‘have a good fight’If they have influenced one another, ten people
might only have the accuracy of one.