Managerial Blunders - From The Economist

Interesting. In my experience, company leaders typically engineer discussions in order to validate what they already believe, and of course it can be a career-limiter to argue too forcefully with one's superior. I think it takes an executive with extraordinary vision to actually create a culture where dissension is encouraged and people with differing views truly engage and are fairly listened to.

I believe I've read somewhere that some high percentage of business leaders are classified as optimists, which probably creates a tendency to downplay the negatives of business situations. In an overall sense, this may be a good thing, as it leads people to attempt things that seem crazy to others, but it can obviously also lead to excessive risk-taking and sundry disasters.

Juror #8 couldn't be fired by the other jurors.

If that had been a business he almost certainly would have been gone.

Which is why the only way business advances is through creative destruction.

And I've always thought that creative destruction implies that most enterprises go bust.

Thus having anything too big to fail should not be allowed. Failure is essential.

Designating one or more devil's advocates is a good strategy. That way the naysayer isn't perceived as a negative person.

Of course, the company culture also goes a long way in facilitating this.