Dimensions has been involved in establishing committees at organizations for decades, such as Team Leads, Safety Committees, Wellness Committees, First Aid Teams, and Spill Response Teams. To ensure effectiveness, we always attempt to recruit a diverse group of interested members from throughout the organization. In addition, our efforts concentrate on team dynamics, team processes, and unlocking unspoken norms before providing education, information sharing, and focusing on the agenda. These are why a recent HBR article piqued our interest.
The authors surmise that it takes more than just having the “right people” at the table for valuable input and solid decision-making. Who is at the table is a critical first step but does not always result in successful decisions or outcomes. Committees may fail if team dynamics and norms are not considered. For example, have you ever led a committee meeting and when certain members attend no one shares information? The silence is deafening! The tension and lack of openness are palpable!
Both team dynamics and unspoken norms can discourage open disclosure, leaving critical information and crucial dissenting opinions hidden. Even personal characteristics such as being more introverted than others on the team can be interpreted as agreement if their opinions are not actively sought.
From self-censorship, to interpreting silence as agreement, to the suppression of dissent, groups of experts routinely struggle to surface the information needed during discussions to make the best decision.
The authors identify 3 core challenges or costs to not sharing information:
- Cognitive,
- Psychological, and
- Social
The bottom line is the perceived risk for members to voice a concern or divergent opinion, as well as any unspoken pressures that reinforce conformity, i.e., ‘group think’, or ‘the herd mentality.’ The result of not ensuring the safe sharing of information can have grave consequences. It is therefore essential to encourage divergent perspectives and ensure that all voices are heard and welcomed.
One consideration is to send out information before the meeting to allow time for members to consider the topic and make an informed decision for discussion. Doing so also provides an opportunity for employees less likely to speak up during a meeting to submit their thoughts.
Another consideration that the authors found made a difference is to remove early visibility of how other members would vote on a matter. Instead, facilitators must encourage active discussion, including first inviting different perspectives of the topic. The authors recommend that independent voting decisions be completed separately and not as part of the group sharing process.
The findings were that not being influenced by how others were voting gave members permission to vote based on their own expertise and principles. The open discussion gave permission to safely voice opinions, including divergent ones. Members were not intimidated to conform to group thinking and were able to express their opinion without cognitive, psychological, or social costs. The results were better information gathering for more informed decision making.
Want better and more effective outcomes from your committees? Focus on group dynamics, processes, and structures to encourage divergent perspectives. These are key to unlocking better, safer, more successful, and more sustainable outcomes.
Please contact for additional information on establishing or facilitating your team meetings. Read more about the findings here: Set up your committee for success.