Gary Klein (2017) has some practical insights into how to run effective meetings. One of these insights is that when a group of people are asked for their perspective on a subject, each person, prior to the meeting, should firstly write down their view. Everyone should bring along their written perspective to the meeting and then take turns to read it out to other members of the group. Only when each person has read their view to other attendees can the discussion begin. This prevents “aggregation of errors”.
Aggregation of errors takes place when a group of people are asked for their perspective. One person may volunteer their view first, and what follows is an opinion on the first view expressed. This approach conceals the individual perspective on the subject beyond the first person who spoke (Klein, 2017). If the first person holds a view which is attacked for example, then the following views which people express may be the result of preference falsification (Kuran, 1995).
Preference falsification occurs when people express views in public which are contrary to the views they truly hold (Kuran, 1995). People will engage in preference falsification when, for example, they fear the consequences of expressing their true perspective or feel they will benefit from the concealment. This is how errors aggregate, the concealment of truth to take the payoff for lying. It does not require too much imagination to understand the catastrophic consequences this can have for an organization, and a society, if preference falsification becomes widespread. As Kuran (1995) observes, this would be living under tyranny, and falsifying preferences becomes an essential way of surviving.
Returning to the start, and the subject of meeting, we should consider the potential for preference falsification. It is likely we have all experienced this as Group Think (Janis, 2008), the temptation to agree with the consensus especially when things are going well or being well received. Honestly examining whether there are any unintended incentives for preference falsification is essential to ensuring that the consensus does not become dogmatic and contradiction heresy. Every human being and every organization and society would like to be in touch with reality. Klein’s argument for avoiding aggregated errors is a practical method for taking steps to avoid the potential for this serious problem.
Klein’s method should not just be limited to face-to-face meetings, it should also be applied to email. I would imagine we have all been in a situation where a group email is received asking for comments on a topic or strategy for example. If the “reply all” button is used for comments, then errors can aggregate in the same way as a physical meeting. Email offers a simple way to collect the perspective of individuals, however too often the reply all route is followed. Requesting “no reply all responses” can aid in gaining access to the insights and perspective of the individual.
Reading
Klein, G.A., 2017. Sources of power: How people make decisions. MIT press.
Janis, I.L., 2008. Groupthink. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 36(1), p.36.
Kuran, T. (1995). Private Truths, Public Lies: The Social Consequences of Preference Falsification. Harvard University Press.
