When agreement becomes a liability

A decision can be unanimous and still be wrong.

A board may unanimously approve an investment built on unrealistic assumptions. A management team may collectively defend an inefficient practice. An entire industry may continue operating in a manner that disadvantages nearly everyone involved.

In each case, agreement creates an impression of confidence. But agreement does not necessarily establish correctness. Sometimes, it simply demonstrates that the people involved have learned to think, behave or remain silent in similar ways.

This raises an interesting question. Why do individuals and institutions sometimes resist those who behave differently, even when that difference presents no obvious threat?

The answer lies at the intersection of social psychology, behavioural economics and organisational theory. It reveals something important about how groups preserve their identities, how questionable practices become normal, and why institutions can gradually lose the capacity to correct themselves.

The psychology of belonging
Human beings are fundamentally social. Our ability to cooperate, establish common expectations and coordinate behaviour has been essential to economic and social development.

Conformity is therefore not inherently undesirable. Businesses require procedures. Societies require laws. Professional institutions require standards. Families and communities depend on shared expectations that make relationships predictable.

Problems emerge when conformity ceases to serve a legitimate purpose and becomes an expectation that must be satisfied regardless of the merits of the underlying behaviour.

Psychologist Robert Cialdini and his colleagues distinguished between two important forms of social norms: descriptive norms, which concern what people commonly do, and injunctive norms, which concern what people believe should be done.

The distinction is significant because common practice and appropriate conduct are not necessarily the same thing.

Consider an organisation where employees routinely bypass certain approval procedures. Management may formally discourage the practice, yet everyone understands that following the procedures slows operations and attracts criticism.

Over time, the organisation develops two competing standards: the official expectation and the behaviour that actually receives approval.

New employees quickly learn which one governs their prospects. Eventually, adherence to the written procedure may be interpreted not as professionalism but as an unwillingness to cooperate.

The problem is no longer simply procedural. It has become social.

Why different behaviour can feel like criticism

An especially revealing contribution to this discussion comes from psychologists Benoît Monin, Pamela Sawyer and Matthew Marquez.

In their 2008 research on the rejection of moral rebels, they examined how people respond to individuals who refuse to participate in activities they consider objectionable.

Their experiments revealed an interesting tendency: People who had gone along with a questionable request sometimes saw those who refused it less favourably, while independent observers viewed the refusal more positively.

The explanation involved perceived judgment. An individual's refusal could be interpreted as an implicit criticism of those who had complied, even without any explicit accusation.

This suggests that our reactions to other people's decisions are not always based solely on what they have done. They may also reflect what their decisions cause us to reconsider about ourselves.

Imagine two professionals confronting the same questionable instruction. One complies because of commercial pressure, institutional loyalty or fear of professional consequences. The other declines.

The second professional's decision introduces an uncomfortable possibility, where perhaps compliance was not the only available option.

This does not establish that the second individual was necessarily correct. Nor does it mean the first acted without legitimate considerations. It demonstrates how disagreement can acquire a psychological significance beyond the immediate issue.

What begins as a difference in judgment can become a perceived challenge to identity, competence or belonging. And once that happens, the discussion may shift from whether the decision was appropriate to whether the individual who questioned it is acceptable.

How questionable practices become normal

Organisational behaviour offers another explanation.

In 2003, researchers Blake Ashforth and Vikas Anand examined how bad practices become normalised within organisations. They identified three reinforcing processes: institutionalisation, rationalisation and socialisation.

Institutionalisation occurs when an initially exceptional practice becomes routine. Rationalisation supplies explanations that justify its continuation. Socialisation teaches newcomers to accept the established arrangement.

Consider a company that routinely exaggerates its revenue projections. Initially, the practice may be defended as commercial optimism. Subsequently, employees discover that ambitious forecasts attract investment and recognition. Eventually, more conservative assessments are interpreted as evidence of insufficient ambition.

At this stage, the organisation may no longer recognise how far its expectations have moved from its stated commitment to accurate reporting. The practice has become normal, and the alternative appears unusual.

Importantly, such outcomes do not require every participant to possess questionable intentions. People respond to incentives, imitate successful colleagues and adjust to the expectations of institutions upon which their livelihoods depend.

An organisation can therefore develop dysfunctional practices through the accumulated decisions of individuals who consider themselves reasonable. This is an important distinction because concentrating exclusively on individual character can obscure the institutional conditions producing the behaviour.

The danger of romanticising disagreement

However, there is an equally important limitation to this argument. Being different does not automatically make someone correct.

An employee may challenge established procedures because they identify genuine weaknesses. Another may challenge the same procedures because they misunderstand their purpose or simply dislike accountability.

Similarly, groups sometimes resist dissent because an argument is poorly supported, not because it exposes an uncomfortable truth. Neither consensus nor disagreement has intrinsic intellectual superiority.

The appropriate standard is the quality of the evidence, the coherence of the reasoning and the consequences of the proposed decision.

I have come to learn that healthy institutions must therefore distinguish between constructive dissent and obstruction, just as they must distinguish between legitimate cooperation and uncritical conformity. Without that distinction, organisations risk replacing one dysfunctional expectation with another.

The objective here is not to celebrate disagreement for disagreement’s sake. It is to preserve the ability to assess it fairly.

What this means for institutional leadership

Amy Edmondson's research on psychological safety offers a valuable perspective. Her 1999 study found an association between psychological safety and learning behaviour within work teams.

Psychological safety refers to a shared belief that individuals can take interpersonal risks, including raising concerns, acknowledging uncertainty and questioning assumptions, without automatically facing negative interpersonal consequences.

It does not eliminate hierarchy or remove accountability. Instead, it recognises that organisations learn partly by allowing information to challenge existing beliefs.

Economist Albert Hirschman's framework of exit, voice and loyalty offers a complementary insight. When individuals become dissatisfied with an organisation, they may attempt to influence change or choose to leave. Where constructive criticism consistently proves ineffective, departure can become the more attractive option.

The institution may then lose individuals who carry information, experience or perspectives that could have contributed to its improvement. This creates an important responsibility for boards and executive leadership.

Institutions must establish governance arrangements in which decisions can be questioned without undermining legitimate authority, and in which conformity is expected to serve institutional objectives rather than to protect established preferences.

Such arrangements are particularly valuable during periods of growth, when increasing organisational complexity makes leaders more dependent on information they cannot independently verify.

Beyond the comfort of agreement
Every institution needs a degree of conformity to function. Shared standards reduce uncertainty, facilitate cooperation and make collective achievement possible.

Yet the same forces that produce stability can, when left unexamined, discourage adaptation. The challenge is to distinguish between agreement grounded in sound reasoning and agreement sustained primarily by habit, incentives or social pressure.

That distinction matters in corporate boardrooms, professional institutions, public administration and everyday relationships.

Sometimes the prevailing view is correct. Sometimes the exception identifies a weakness. Neither conclusion should be determined merely by the number of people supporting it.

The long-term strength of an institution may depend less on how consistently its members agree than on how effectively it responds when someone presents a credible reason not to. Consensus can make an institution comfortable. Its capacity to examine disagreement may be what makes it sustainable.

Thank you for reading. I welcome your reflections, questions, and suggestions for future topics. Subscribe to the ‘Entrepreneur In You’ newsletter here: https://lnkd.in/d-hgCVPy, follow me on all social platforms at @thisisthemax, or get weekly updates via my official WhatsApp channel: www.bit.ly/whatsappthemax.

Wishing you a purposeful and successful week ahead!

'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'

The author, Dr. Maxwell Ampong, is an entrepreneur, investor and corporate executive, Founder & CEO of Maxwell Investments Group and its affiliates and subsidiaries. His work spans finance, technology, sustainability, trade, enterprise development and institutional partnerships. He serves in executive and advisory capacities across business, academia, culture, agriculture and social development. He is Nana Kwadwo Marfo Ampong I, Aboafuohene of Kona in Asanteman. Dr Ampong holds postgraduate qualifications in Finance & Investment Management, Law, Business Administration, Public Administration, International Relations, Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning. He writes on economics, investment, entrepreneurship, technology, social and sustainable development. Entrepreneur In You operates under the auspices of the Africa School of Entrepreneurship, an initiative of Maxwell Investments Group.

Disclaimer: The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author, Dr. Maxwell Ampong, and do not necessarily reflect the official policy, position, or beliefs of Maxwell Investments Group or any of its affiliates. Any references to policy or regulation reflect the author’s interpretation and are not intended to represent the formal stance of Maxwell Investments Group. This content is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, financial, or investment advice. Readers should seek independent advice before making any decisions based on this material. Maxwell Investments Group assumes no responsibility or liability for any errors or omissions in the content or for any actions taken based on the information provided.