Noah Goldstein

We have found the secret of life.”

Although their claim might seem rather boastful and arrogant, it was nonetheless true. That morning, scientists James Watson and Francis Crick had indeed found the secret of life: They had discovered the double-helix structure of DNA, the biological material that carries life’s genetic information

At first, Watson listed a set of contributory factors that were largely unsurprising: It was crucial that he and Crick had identified the problem that was the most important to attack. They were both passionate about their work; they devoted themselves single-mindedly to the task at hand. They were willing to embrace and attempt approaches that were outside their area of familiarity. But then he added another reason for their success that was nothing short of stunning. He and Crick had cracked the elusive code for DNA primarily, he said, because they were not the most intelligent scientists pursuing the answer

Rosalind was so intelligent that she rarely sought advice. And if you’re the brightest person in the room, then you’re in trouble

In fact, behavioral scientist Patrick Laughlin and his colleagues have shown that the approaches and outcomes of groups who cooperate in seeking a solution are not just better than the average member working alone, but are even better than the group’s best problem solver working alone

But isn’t full collaboration risky? After all, decisions made completely by committee are notorious for suboptimal performance. Mindful of that problem, our recommendation is not to employ a vote-counting strategy in order to come to a resolution; in fact the recommendation is not for making joint decisions at all. The final choice is always for the leader to make. But it’s the process of seeking input that leaders should engage in more collectively. Those who arrange for regular team input can expect to achieve better outcomes. In addition, they can expect better relationships and rapport with their team, which enhances future collaboration and influence. But is there not a risk

bruised egos and lost motivation if a team member’s idea is ultimately rejected? As long as a leader assures the team that each view—while perhaps not the deciding factor—will be considered in the process, this shouldn’t occur. And who knows, although building a team of people who are encouraged and persuaded to offer insights, cooperate, and collaborate with each other may not enable you to declare, like Watson and Crick, that you “have found the secret to life,” it may well help you to find the secret to unlocking your and your group’s true potential

the goal should not be to persuade, but to allow ourselves to be persuaded by others if we’re leaning in the wrong direction. But how do we most effectively seek out dissenting opinions? As leaders, can we simply ask a member of our team to play devil’s advocate

Social psychologists have also known for some time that even one lone dissenter in an otherwise unanimous group may be enough to generate more creative and complex thinking within that group. But until recently, very little research had been conducted regarding the nature of the dissenter. Are devil’s advocates—that is, pseudodissenters—better or worse than authentic dissenters at enhancing the problem-solving abilities of a group of otherwise like-minded peopl

in comparison to an authentic dissenter, a person asked to play the role of devil’s advocate will be much less effective at promoting creative problem-solving among group members

Considering the findings of this research, perhaps the best policy for leaders is to create and sustain a work environment in which coworkers and subordinates not only feel welcome