Includes bibliographical references (pages 215-241) and index.

We have decided by consensus that consensus is good: in the boardroom and the halls of government, in the jury box and the corner bar, we value reaching agreement. Unfortunately, although the wisdom of crowds might be a good way to answer trivia questions, the truth is not as democratic as we might like to believe. Group decision-making often allows widely held assumptions to go unchallenged in favor of harmony and cohesiveness. Agreement can lead to disastrous consequences: flights crash because the crew is afraid to speak up, and surgical teams make lethal errors because they mistake acquiescence for accuracy. In the name of comity, we end up embracing stupidity. Even worse, we punish those who refuse to go along. In In Defense of Troublemakers, social psychologist Charlan Nemeth argues that we can make better decisions by encouraging dissent. Dissent forces us to question the status quo and rethink our preconceptions. When dissenters challenge majority opinion, they force the majority to seek information on all sides of the issue and consider new ideas. Indeed, dissent enables more creative, and better, decision-making. Perhaps most remarkably, dissent doesn't have to be correct in order to be effective. Objectors bring groups far closer to truth, regardless of whether they themselves are right or wrong. It is no easy task to be the lone voice calling in the wilderness, and it is difficult for many to accept criticism or tolerate disagreement. But when we encourage dissent, we're not just empowering others, we're empowering ourselves. In Defense of Troublemakers is essential reading for anyone who works in groups and wants them to work better. -- From dust jacket.

SACFinal081324