How social cohesion among groups leads to conformity and reduced performance

The worst-performing clubs were built on affective ties and primarily social; the best-performing clubs had limited social connections and were focused on increasing returns. Dissent was far more frequent in the high-performing clubs. The low performers usually had unanimous votes, with little open debate. Harrington found that the votes in low-performing groups were “cast to build social cohesion rather than make the best financial decision.” In short, conformity resulted in significantly lower returns.

Unanimity looks terrific in minutes and suspicious in decisions. The worst investment clubs agreed more often because the meeting was protecting the club from disagreement, not the money from bad judgement.

A friendly leadership team can approve rubbish with impeccable manners. Product concerns migrate to private messages after the roadmap review. A hiring panel discovers the senior person’s enthusiasm and, by remarkable coincidence, independently reaches the same conclusion. Everyone leaves aligned. The missing information leaves separately. Trust ought to make dissent survivable; too often “strong culture” means members have learned which truths spoil lunch. Gather views before discussion. Let the powerful speak later. Ask someone to build the best case against the preferred option, then reward the group for improving the choice rather than defending its author. Record minority reasoning before consensus edits everybody’s memory. None of this requires converting every meeting into ritual combat.

Harmony has value when the task is singing. For consequential decisions, a little friction may be the sound of distinct evidence entering the room. If every important vote is unanimous, the team might be extraordinarily wise. Or everybody may have become excellent at predicting the boss. Check the private messages before ordering the commemorative mugs.