The phrase "great minds think alike" is a commonly used phrase, one of which I've seen many teams at a senior level build on that premise. However, while a shared understanding is valuable, does the concept of "great minds think alike" inadvertently pave the way for groupthink? Could a senior team, built on the perceived likeness of thought, fall into the trap of everyone thinking the same way?
The danger of uniform thinking, particularly when a team agrees with the leader's perspective, can lead organisations down poorly considered paths. This can lead to ill-thought-out programmes and expenditures that haven't been thoroughly thought out, or challenged as the best way. Early in my journey in establishing Sport Structures, my reliance on like-minded individuals sometimes resulted in mistakes due to a lack of diverse viewpoints. This was particularly evident when we aimed to introduce alternatives or disrupters into the existing network.
For example, we had a delivery model in schools for providing coaching alongside teachers. Two of us liked the plan that used grants, but it didn't work when schools had to pay. We proved that the concept with grant investment could work, but the grant was only for one area and we couldn't change our plan because we all thought it was right. We had to close the business after four years. But now, lots of private coaches go into schools - over 100,000 of them! So the basic idea was good, but the delivery model was unchallenged and inflexible. On reflection, my business partner and I don't regret trying things, but we think if we had talked to more people, had a broader group to bounce things off, checked and challenged us, and asked more questions, we may well have modified and been a vibrant deliverer of school’s additional services.
You can see this in sports groups too. Sometimes one person makes all the decisions and nobody challenges them. I've seen firsthand organisations where the CEO chooses board members who think like them and then only gives them information that supports their own ideas, so nobody questions what they're doing and no challenge is encouraged.
I once worked with sports organisations that had high-quality board members with lots of experience. But they were very busy and didn't really understand how things worked day-to-day because they only got small bits of information from the delivery model. Scrutiny was going on and they met governance code standards, so they were following the rules, but the leader was pushing their own agenda without anyone saying no. In the end, the organisation had to be totally rebuilt to deliver for its members.
Some of my favoured experiences in leading senior teams are when we have very active and, in some cases, heated debates. When I was at Basketball, Steve Nelson and I would have big debates. Sometimes it got so loud that someone would come in and check if we were ok! But it was good because we were both challenging each other's ideas. Steve would say he had won most arguments; I'd say I facilitated him to think he had won the debate. But the plans that came out of those debates made a big difference for people in the sport and those with sports memberships.
It's the same at Sport Structures now. The senior team are all very different people in their characters, delivery methods and ways of working. Some love using spreadsheets, and some hate them. When we talk things through, we find a solution and approach that most of the team likes.
So, if everyone on your team always agrees, that's not always a good sign. Check if you have groupthink or a leader that is just telling everyone what to do. It's hard to make decisions as a team, especially when the leader, like me, has a clear and compelling view of direction. Make sure you take time to consider, look at alternatives, and then agree on direction.
