Firstly, she says that when everyone agrees with each other, they lose the ability to see other options, to think about issues in a different way and therefore the decisions they make may not be the best ones possible.

This links to a phenomenon sometimes called “group think”. This is something I have experienced only too often throughout my career.

We all seem to believe that the best way for a group to function is for everyone to get along and to agree with each other. Consensus is positioned as utterly desirable.

However, when we all agree we tend to create a situation where every argument we hear in support of our position only convinces us more and more strongly that we are right. Groups tend to focus on the information they have in common and discard information that offers a different perspective, so consensus becomes easy to achieve when all we do is seek to agree.

The thinking that led to the Bay of Pigs invasion is often cited as one of the most powerful examples of group think and we all know the consequences of that decision. One of the key things President Kennedy claimed to have learned from the Bay of Pigs situation was the importance of seeking dissent, of seeking opinions that were different than those of the majority.

In any organisation, learning to listen to dissent is utterly crucial.

Nemeth claims that “we make poorer decisions and think less creatively when we adopt the majority perspective”. It does not matter at all if the different opinions to which we ought to listen are correct or not.

Research demonstrates that when we listen to different opinions or ideas (even if those ideas are incorrect) we break the blind following of the majority and we begin to think more creatively about the issue at hand. Those exposed to dissent are more likely to consider more alternatives than they would have done previously and are more likely to seek out the pros and cons of each position before making a decision.

However, for our own thinking to benefit, we have to genuinely engage with the dissent. We cannot just listen then dismiss what is said. We have to think about it, explore what this different position might mean, work out what its advantages and disadvantages are, and then compare all of this to other possible positions we might have available to us.

Dissent works best when it is genuine, when people who really believe what they say share their ideas with us. It does not work when people only pretend to take a dissenting position (sometimes called the devil’s advocate role).

Unfortunately for those giving us the opportunity to improve our decision-making through dissent, the price is high. Humans tend not to enjoy dissent and thus those who offer it to us are often shunned, disregarded, not trusted, excluded and sometimes and in some circumstances, jailed or executed.

Dissenters are rarely liked.

Most people do not speak up when they see problems (some research suggests as many as 70 per cent of employees keep quiet in order to not be identified as potential trouble-makers and possible targets for retribution).

We tend to follow the majority position because it’s easier; we can operate on automatic pilot. Hearing what others think actually changes our reality and influences our thinking and behaviour substantially. Someone who dissents breaks the power of the majority. 

In our modern world, there is a focus on compromise as a way forward when groups experience dissent. However, Nemeth claims that when a dissenter compromises it is much less likely that their dissent will prompt others to think differently.

Compromise, it appears, seems to suggest that the dissenting position was not genuine.

Where a dissenter does not change, the position taken is much more likely to influence the thinking of others than when a compromise is made.

This means we should not worry when we disagree with others. Rather our dissent invigorates discussion and improves decision-making.