The emphasis in this chapter is for your credit union to not get too comfortable with its decision making process. The brothers start by stressing to avoid the confirmation bias. This is where an organization looks for information that confirms their initial assumptions. They stress the need to initiate constructive disagreement within the organization. Discussion centers around using a devil’s advocate, murder boards (something new to me) and the Gong Show (showing my age with this one). They end with the question “What would have to be true for this option to be the very best choice?”
The next section of the chapter addresses asking uncomfortable questions in order to gather more trustworthy information. They do emphasize that probing questions can sometimes backfire and give some examples. The Chip and Dan raise the issue of forcing ourselves to consider the opposite of our instincts. The assumption of positive intent is meant to consider someone’s action or words in a more positive light.
The chapter closes with testing assumptions by making a deliberate mistake (a marriage example is used). The overall theme is boiled down to the fact that we naturally seek self-confirming information and need to expand our horizons to make sure that we are collecting trustworthy information.
Does your credit union or department urge construction disagreement (and I mean in reality and not just a stated value)? If so, you feel it leads to better decisions? Does your credit union or department seek out positive intent in others of just write them off as small minded or sour grapes?