On a Subroto Bagchi Column
I think Bagchi has asked the wrong question(s) by exclusively concentrating on a very specific case of thinking and action while being organized into groups - that of people in the team having doubts or knowing better but not having enough candor about it, in the face of authority or even when with peers. Wanting to be agreeable, harmonious, likeable are all part of human nature and asking which or which all is is an inconsequential question - of course most of them contribute, and depends on the context, the team, the decision etc.
The first question to be asked is what is the matter being discussed, decided, acted on and who all are in the team, as in, what is the diversity, the skill sets, the organizational relationships between them etc.
The real issue is how do we constitute teams which suffer least from this.
Take a best case scenario - a group of peers formed for a specific purpose, with a set agenda. The 'peerness' reduces but not eliminates a lot of the power complexities. But even here, what is the best group will depend on the agenda, the aim for which it is constituted. Take a 'broad' challenge like, say deciding on the go to market strategy of a new product, something not exactly done before,'Creative' if you want to stretch the meaning of the word. Here, homogeneity of backgrounds, attitudes, thinking would undoubtedly become the killer - by an unknown 'unknown' to quote Rumsfeld.
But take a specialized purpose, like say implementing SAP for Aramco or something like that which is technically very complicated but for which a to do exists, or at least its direction. Here, after one plugs in all the skill sets, homogeneity is completely fine and perhaps better as it will most probably ease the functioning of the team.
So,depends on the question and one would be better advised to push that lady with young kids who'd never have enough time for this project to projects of the former type.
In more militaryesque teams in terms of command and control with lots of leaders, juniors, seniors etc and which perhaps is more common, the power equations, the career implications etc will have a bigger role and an increased importance will also be given by people as to how they come across, how their contributions are perceived, more by their direct boss, but not just by him.
Culture definitely matters too. Also, the level of candor and questioning which I have seen in a few major American cos, esp. in their middle management and above, can give the rest of us, with our cultural leanings of being more respectful toward our elders, an ulcer. And our oriental cousins in the far east are the ones who will get the biggest ulcer. So there is definitely a cultural element here also,though saying that out may make the HR make you go for a 'cultural sensitivity' training. :-)
