When people work in groups, our opinions are often rooted in implicit agendas, biases and blind-spots. We selectively engage with topics and opinions that we believe we can easily support or reject. We give weight to opinions from those who appear certain and discount those from who may be uncertain. We share our opinions when we feel safe to do so, withholding them when they may well have been crucial. We consequently follow a longer, winding path into the unknown based on these incomplete perspectives.
If we were to be honest with ourselves, groups rarely attain a complete, accurate and timely assessment of their challenges and opportunities. Governments, industries, organisations and teams unwittingly reach flawed conclusions based on incomplete, inaccurate or unprocessed information. Policies, regulations, investments, strategies, alliances, programs, products and processes founded on such flawed conclusions are consequently likely to achieve sub-optimal and undesirable outcomes.
Outcomes of flawed conclusions become reality not just for a subset of stakeholders but, eventually, for all of us. By triggering unintended consequences, choices based on an unstructured aggregate of individual agendas, biases and blind-spots undermine our overall productivity and morale, furthering a vicious cycle of wasteful actions and unsustainable outcomes. CircledUp applies the science of group decision-making to shape initiatives that deliver faster impact and lasting value while cutting avoidable life-cycle costs.