Does Anyone Have The Opposite Point of View?

I got a great lesson in how to lead group discussions from Bill Barnett, a professor at Stanford’s business school. Many years ago he agreed to facilitate a strategy meeting for NetApp. There were eighty or a hundred people, and Bill was going around the room, asking people to share their thoughts on an important strategy decision. People raised their hand to talk, and hand after hand, comment after comment, everyone was in favor. It seemed that there was no dissent at all.

After quite a while of this, Bill said, “Okay, I think we’ve fleshed out the argument in favor of the proposal well enough. Does anyone have a completely different point of view?”

To my surprise, a dozen hands went up. Now it was hand after hand from people against the proposal. At least as many comments against as we had previously heard in support. What was going on here?

My first reaction was frustration. If these people disagreed, why hadn’t they said anything before? We could easily have adopted the plan thinking that we had full support from everyone in the room. To be honest, people who won’t speak up piss me off. How can we make good decisions if people won’t point out the flaws they see? Some problems may be so deadly that they kill the plan we are considering. Even small flaws may need to be addressed for the plan to succeed. Perhaps some people think that raising concerns is disloyal. They’d rather go with the flow than be seen as troublemakers. I disagree. If you spot a problem that others don’t know about, I think it’s irresponsible to keep quiet. In fact, keeping quiet is disloyal because it sets your group up for failure.

My second reaction, though, was admiration for Bill’s simple technique. Despite my frustration, I’ve come to accept that some people won’t speak up, and now I use Bill’s technique myself. It’s amazing how often his simple question—“Does anyone have the opposite point of view?”—triggers a very different discussion. I think it works because it acknowledges that other opinions may also be valid, and it gives very specific permission for people to express dissent.

This technique can also help “flush out agreement.” Have you ever been in a meeting where people keep talking and talking even though they all seem to be saying the same thing? Sometimes it’s because the dissenters are keeping quiet, but sometimes it’s because everybody really does agree. In that case, asking whether anyone has the opposite opinion can help move the meeting forward. Nobody says anything, and it becomes (hopefully) obvious that it’s time to stop talking.

I still wish that people would speak up on their own, but now I have a tool to encourage them. Plus, I have a fantasy that using this technique repeatedly over time can help change a company’s culture, to teach people that it is okay to speak up.

Does anyone have the opposite point of view?

Comments

[Anand]

I liked the view, but many a times we have seen people where they want there ideas to be implemented at any cost without taking the negative points into consideration. So it's the comfort level we keep the discussion, so that people around should feel they are part of discussion and their input does matter.
Making people comfort in the discussion is very important, then someone ruling the decisions.

[Vrijendra]

The question that Bill put was 'Does anyone have a completely different point of view?' and not 'Does Anyone Have The Opposite Point of View?'

There is a small difference, but the key, i think, is that the former asks for 'different' view and the latter for the 'opposite'. loyalists will keep mum on the former but may open up to the latter.

Great post and great blog. Thanks!

[Vrijendra]

Please re-read the last sentence in my earlier comment as: "loyalists will keep mum on the *latter* but may open up to the *former*.

[Warren Armstrong]

Dave,

Very interesting perspective - thanks, since this will work when I lead groups as well. As well, great work on being Number 1 according to Fortune - I have a subscription so read about your success.

I apologize for pinging you on this means, but could not figure out any other way.

I represent a Canadian Firm and I would like to send you a proposal to save your Employees on their Health Care costs.

Cordially,
Warren Armstrong
wdarmstrong@gmail.com
613-401-4693

[Stephen Foskett]

I would definitely modify it from "opposite" to "different", but I would go further. Rather than pointing out who disagrees, why not ask instead for someone to take a different viewpoint as an exercise? That way, those worried about being seen as disagreeable will be encouraged to participate.

[Kevin O'Hara]

Dave, I just finished your book and I would be more like Jason. I tend to say things once and stay fairly quiet. In a group meeting it would be hard for me to get a word in edgewise as the extravert's try to force their idea's good or bad out in front of everybody. I think that companies would reap greater rewards by ensuring that great idea's get a chance to live and be wary of the loudest person in the room.

[Michael Ling]

Hi Dave,

As you drew it out, everyone was in favor of your plan before Bill's question. As a facilitator, the next and obvious question before passing the motion would be asking if anyone holds a different view point. This is very common.

But what's striking is there are so many guys who held different views, and they were holding their heads all the time. What concerns me is whether this's a culture of your organization.

Another point I'd like to add is whether we should throw the 'opposite view' question to the audience when someone has shared his/her positive views. And if you keep asking the audience several times, I think people would start thinking, geez, the management really wants to hear us out. Maybe, I should speak up!

[John Mone]

Dave,

Like leadership, culture change is a top-down exercise, so your intuition is on the mark.

By incorporating "who has an opposite view" into your interactions, you will give people permission to speak up. Once they experience the enriched, open and consequences-free dialog that hopefully follows, the tool will begin to work its way into their own interactions. As this trickle-down continues, so too will the culture change.

I encourage you to also consider your own evolution and development over the past fifteen years. A few blog posts back, you cited the discomfort that surrounded Dan Warmenhoven's discussion of corporate values:

"Even those who kept quiet—I was one—were skeptical that this was the most valuable way to spend our time given the urgent issues we faced."

This is a good litmus for testing your current views. If Dan had asked for opposite viewpoints, would you have spoken up? If so, you're on the right path. If not, there may be more to consider.

John

[George Bear]

Dave, back in 2005 you said you were blogging as "A big part of my job is listening".

Yet you get b/a comments and don't provide an email contact for private contact- which is par for the course, of course.

Not many speak of us speak up in public - which is the nub of of the problem. So don't get pissed off, try learning and use the tech, that got you your break, as it should be used. And forget blogging, you are not equppped.

[Grant]

I have witnessed this many times over the years. The boss asking what everyone thought of their report/presentation, and most people providing positive feedback. Most being afraid to show dissension due to job security issues.

[birger]

If you always go with the flow, the only certain outcome is that you will go down some drain.

Voice your opinions. If you disagree with the flow, find a way to open up the discussion yourself. There is always a way to do it without being 'counter-productive' or the 'grumpy fool'.

[Sam]

Speaking up in meeting is one thing, and even worse is speaking something that would either change the course or get ignored. I honestly wish, I could speak up something in the meetings - for or against, doesn't matter. So what is holding me down - doesn't know English well?, doesn't know how to joke?, fears that my peers would make fun of it?

Don't know which one or may be all. I just need to speak up - no matter what.

[George]

Blah blah blah, people don't speak up because.... "I would definitely modify it from "opposite" to "different", but I would go further"

blah blah CRAP!
Are you people kidding me? Lets try to force 10 lbs of semantic bull shit into a 5 lb bag and then clean up that mess.
Are people so concerned with job security that it has compelled so many to keep quite and offer no objective thoughts or just praise?
So the solution is to question everything or question nothing. Equally convenient since both eliminate the need to think.
If this is your situation, then clearly your employer did not hire you to think.

How can anyone disagree while saying nothing, then go home at the end of the day and feel good about that?

And people wonder why the bullies at the top manage to stay there, or how they got there in the first place.

"There is always a way to do it without being 'counter-productive' or the 'grumpy fool'."
Clearly this is an example of someone who questions everything.

"Most being afraid to show dissension due to job security issues."
And here is someone who questions nothing.

[Jason]

Corporate cultures greatly influence group dynamics. I spent 5 years at a Fortune 5 company which had a very hierarchical culture. You learned your place if you were to succeed. That company is struggling right now. And I believe a contributor to their hard times is that ideas were valued more based upon position and seniority, rather than upon the quality of the idea. Additionally, avoiding being wrong was more important than being right.

Open cultures foster ideas from all levels and positions in order to gather the collective intelligence of the organization. Organizations who aren't afraid of ideas from the least employee will thrive. After all, customers are diverse.

I think it is a bit naive to assume that anyone who doesn't voice their opinion publicly is cowardly. If the culture does not reward open public opinion, then ignoring that dynamic as an employee would appear to be foolish, especially if he/she wants long-term employment.

[Dilbert]

No, I agree. People should speak up.

The question is.... is anyone listening?

How about giving people choice other than Cisco FCoE and enabling Infiniband?

[Tanu]

Can't agree more!!!

[David McQuade]

When you post a blog, try and have a point. It makes it so much more interesting for the reader......

[Michael Kelly]

Good point, often happens and for good reasons,like self-protection and not wanting or not feeling capable of fighting the majority. Or not sure you are right.

I wonder if NetApp applies this openness of thinking to its customers? Should they speak up? And if they do, how is it handled and who wins? Just a thought; I don't know how well NetApp does this. But employees are not the only stakeholder that this applies to. Could you comment on how you see it from the employees pov? Are you similarly PO'd if they dont speak up?
Mike Kelly Techtel

[Skeptical]

"To be honest, people who won’t speak up piss me off." Yeah, me too, but I'm not sure we're typical. For most, what pisses them off is disagreement. I wonder the degree to which Dave's values are actually reflected in the NetApp culture. I wouldn't be surprised if the real (versus the imaginary) culture was more about keeping one's head down lest one lose it...