As a child, I often heard elders repeat a familiar saying: when ten people work together, there is no shame in either winning or losing. I have no complaint against the proverb itself. My concern is that many workplaces seem to have adopted a revised version of it: let ten people work together, let ten people make the same mistake, and then no one needs to feel ashamed. When responsibility is shared among ten people, the fault no longer appears to belong to anyone in particular. Even a serious wrongdoing begins to look smaller when it is divided among a group, just as a large piece of cake becomes easier to swallow when shared among ten people.

That may sound bitter, so let me begin with a true story. After all, bitter medicine should not be taken on an empty stomach.

That Cold Evening in Florida

It was the evening of 27th January 1986. An unusually severe cold had settled over Florida, a place better known for sunshine than freezing temperatures. People normally travelled there to escape winter, but on that particular evening, nature seemed to be playing a cruel joke.

A conference call was arranged between NASA officials and engineers from Morton Thiokol, the company responsible for manufacturing the solid rocket boosters used by the Space Shuttle. The discussion centred on one question: should the Space Shuttle Challenger be launched the following morning?

Among the engineers was Roger Boisjoly, who had become deeply concerned after reviewing the technical information. His concern focused on a rubber seal known as an O-ring. It looked insignificant, like a small rubber circle that might cost almost nothing in an ordinary shop, yet its responsibility inside the rocket booster was enormous. Where two sections of the booster joined together, even a tiny opening could allow extremely hot gas to escape. The O-ring was designed to seal that opening.

The problem was that rubber becomes hard in cold weather. When it remains soft, it can quickly change shape under pressure and close a gap. When it becomes cold and stiff, it cannot respond as quickly. Boisjoly warned that the booster had never been tested at such a low temperature and that launching the shuttle under those conditions could not be considered safe.

His argument was not complicated. He did not claim that an accident would certainly happen. He explained that no one knew how the equipment would behave in such cold conditions, and that uncertainty itself represented a serious risk. Wise people say that admitting what we do not know is the first condition of science. Management, however, often has another first condition: the schedule.

By that evening, the launch schedule had developed a life of its own. The media were ready, guests had arrived, and the launch had already been postponed several times. Another delay would lead to questions, criticism and embarrassment. The message eventually communicated to the engineers could be expressed in simple terms: stop thinking like engineers and start thinking like managers.

Admittedly, the statement sounds practical. An organisation cannot consider technical risks alone. Management must also consider costs, commitments, deadlines and reputation. However, not every risk carries the same weight. If a project is delayed by a week, the organisation may lose money. If a rocket explodes in the sky, people die. These two consequences should never be placed in the same column of the same spreadsheet.

On 28th January 1986, Challenger was launched. Seventy-three seconds later, it broke apart, killing all seven people on board. The investigation that followed found that the concern raised by the engineers the previous evening was directly connected to the cause of the disaster.

There had been no shortage of information that night. There had also been no shortage of intelligent people. Some of the finest minds in the country had been sitting on both sides of the conference call. Investigators later spent months identifying a danger that one engineer had already explained clearly before the accident.

The real problem was not a lack of knowledge. The decision had already been made. The shuttle would fly. The meeting had not been arranged to decide whether the launch should proceed. It had been arranged to collect enough arguments and approvals to support a decision that had already been taken.

In that room, one person said no. The others could not properly answer his reasoning, so instead of proving him wrong, they tried to change his role. He was told, in effect, that he should no longer think like an engineer but should think like a manager.

A serious organisational disease is hidden inside that instruction. When a room falls in love with a decision, the person speaking the truth is not reminded of their responsibility. Instead, they are encouraged to forget that responsibility for a while.

Must Everyone Fit In?

More books have probably been written about team building than there are pages in a large bank loan file. Most of those books offer familiar advice. Team members should understand one another, adjust to one another, avoid unnecessary conflict and share similar values and behaviours.

These ideas are not entirely wrong, but there is a trap hidden inside them. Team members should agree on what they want to achieve. They do not need to agree on exactly how it should be achieved. In fact, disagreement about methods can be healthy. Unity around a goal moves a team forward, while disagreement about the method can prevent the team from walking over the edge of a cliff.

The person who does not easily blend into the group may sometimes be the only person in the room who can sense danger. When everyone else is smiling, this person remains serious. When everyone else is nodding, this person turns another page of the file and asks whether the figures should be checked once more.

Such people are rarely popular. Their questions make meetings longer and interrupt the pleasure of reaching a quick decision. Just when everyone is preparing to go home feeling satisfied, they raise another risk. Yet that person may be the organisation’s only functioning alarm system.

An organisation that builds teams only with people who fit comfortably together is not really building a team. It is building a paid choir. Everyone sings in the same tune, and it sounds wonderful. There is only one problem: even when the building catches fire, the choir continues singing the same song.

The Argument from the Other Side

The opposing argument must also be considered because it is not a weak one. Most managers experience this side of the problem every day. Conflict has a cost. A team that argues constantly cannot make quick decisions, divide responsibilities properly or prevent small matters from becoming unnecessarily large.

Managers who should be focusing on customers, operations and business growth may instead spend much of their time managing internal disputes. Some employees also object simply because they enjoy objecting. They bring no new information and offer no practical alternative. Their main desire is to prove that they are indispensable.

When such people begin speaking, everyone else looks at the clock. Even after an issue has been settled, they bring it back in the next meeting. Their real objection is not to the decision itself. Their objection is that the decision was not made according to their preference.

Harvard Business School researchers Michael Housman and Dylan Minor studied the financial cost of toxic behaviour in the workplace. The central message of their work was striking: avoiding the recruitment of one toxic employee may sometimes be more valuable than recruiting one outstanding performer.

A high-performing employee does their own job exceptionally well. A toxic employee, however, can damage the work of many people around them. Skilled employees may resign because of that person. Those who remain may lose motivation. Cooperation declines, complaints increase and management time is wasted. Therefore, organisations cannot tolerate every form of rude or destructive behaviour simply because someone claims to be expressing a different opinion.

Another uncomfortable truth also works against the argument in favour of dissent. It is easy to honour a person after a disaster has proved that their warning was correct. We remember Roger Boisjoly because his concern turned out to be justified. At the same time, many other engineers must have raised concerns about different issues that never developed into disasters. History does not remember their names.

History carefully preserves the warning that turned out to be right and quietly forgets the warnings that turned out to be wrong. The question is therefore not simple. How can an organisation distinguish a toxic person from a necessary dissenter before something goes wrong?

Toxic Is Not the Same as Incompatible

We often place toxic people and incompatible people in the same category because both can make a meeting uncomfortable. However, they are not the same.

A toxic person attacks people, while a constructive dissenter challenges proposals. The toxic person says, “You are incapable of doing anything properly.” The constructive dissenter says, “The figures in the third section do not appear to match the earlier information.”

The first person humiliates a colleague. The second points out a weakness in the work. The first destroys trust within the team, while the second tests the quality of the team’s decision. One creates problems. The other sees problems before everyone else does.

There is a simple way to distinguish between them. Observe what the person does after their objection has been properly answered. A habitual complainer will not stop, regardless of how reasonable the explanation is. They will raise the same objection again in the next meeting because their purpose was never to understand the issue. Their purpose was to keep the objection alive.

A genuine dissenter behaves differently. After receiving a reasonable explanation, they accept it and return to work. They may initially appear troublesome, but once the matter becomes clear, they do not continue creating unnecessary conflict. On the first day, such a person may look difficult. By the third day, they usually do not.

Even a Wrong Objection Can Be Useful

Researcher Charlan Nemeth demonstrated something fascinating. When a team includes one genuine dissenter, the quality of the entire team’s thinking can improve, even when the dissenter’s argument is wrong.

At first, this sounds strange. How can a team benefit when someone is making an incorrect argument? The answer lies in human nature. When everyone in a room agrees, people tend to search for information that supports what they already believe. A person who wants to approve a loan notices information supporting approval. A person who wants to recruit a candidate focuses on the candidate’s strengths.

When someone disagrees, the situation changes. Everyone must then search for reasons to defend the decision. Searching for supporters and searching for reasons are not the same thing. When we search for support, we strengthen our existing beliefs. When we search for reasons, we test those beliefs.

The dissenter may not always provide the correct answer, but their presence forces everyone else to ask better questions.

There is an important warning here. In many meetings, one person is formally assigned to argue against a proposal. This role is often known as the devil’s advocate. On paper, the approach appears sensible, but staged opposition does not have the same effect as genuine disagreement.

Everyone in the room knows that the person is not speaking from personal conviction. They have simply been given a role. As a result, no one feels genuinely challenged, and no one feels the need to reconsider their own position. People can usually recognise the difference between a real argument and a performance of an argument. A fake objection is about as frightening as a theatrical villain on a village stage.

One Line and Three Lines

Solomon Asch’s famous experiment was remarkably simple. Participants were shown one line on a card and then three lines on another card. They were asked which of the three lines was the same length as the first. The answer was so obvious that it seemed almost impossible to get it wrong.

However, everyone else in the room had secretly been instructed to give the same incorrect answer. One after another, they confidently selected the wrong line. Finally, it was the real participant’s turn.

The participant could see the correct answer with their own eyes. Yet when everyone else gave a different answer, many began to doubt their own judgement and selected the wrong line as well.

We like to believe that people will speak the truth when the truth is clearly visible. In reality, people often fear isolation more than they value truth. This fear is older than civilisation itself. Thousands of years ago, being separated from the group could mean facing wild animals alone on a cold night.

There are no tigers in the modern office. There are performance appraisals. The fear, however, has not changed very much.

The second finding from Asch’s experiment was even more important. If only one other person refused to agree with the group’s wrong answer, the pressure on the real participant fell significantly. Interestingly, that second person did not even need to provide the correct answer. They simply needed to refuse to repeat the same wrong answer as everyone else.

The participant then realised that they were not completely alone. This may be the greatest value of the person who does not fit in. Their greatest contribution is not always their opinion. Sometimes, it is simply their presence. They give others the courage to speak.

The Information Only One Person Knows

Researchers Garold Stasser and William Titus identified another uncomfortable pattern. Groups usually spend most of their time discussing information that everyone already knows.

Imagine that five committee members are selecting a candidate for a position. Some information about the candidate is known to all five members, while a few important facts are known to only one member. During the meeting, the shared information is likely to be repeated again and again.

One member says that the candidate has strong experience. Another agrees. A third adds that the academic qualifications are also impressive, and everyone nods again. The meeting is no longer a discussion. It has become a group song.

However, the fifth member may know that the candidate was involved in a serious ethical issue at a previous organisation. Only that member has the information. To raise it, they would need to interrupt the agreement, explain the matter, answer questions and create discomfort. Some people might accuse them of unnecessarily complicating the process.

The member may therefore remain silent, even though the information that could change the entire decision is sitting with them.

This is the weakness of teams built mainly around similarity. Their members have similar experiences, use similar sources of information and think in similar ways. They also make similar mistakes. Working with them is comfortable, and decisions can be made over a cup of tea. But the team was created with one eye already closed.

A Word Written Under a CV

Enough foreign research. Let us return to a story closer to home.

A few years ago, interviews were being conducted for a position in the Employee Relations Department of a large private bank in Dhaka. The interview board sat on one side of the table, while a candidate sat on the other. The candidate was asked a familiar question: “In your opinion, what is the role of HR?”

The candidate could easily have delivered a pleasant, memorised answer. They could have said that HR was the organisation’s strategic partner or that employees were the organisation’s most valuable asset. The board members would have nodded, awarded marks and gone to lunch on time.

Instead, the candidate chose a different path. The candidate said, “HR is everyone’s friend, but HR must sometimes become everyone’s enemy as well.”

The room became quiet. The candidate explained that everyone wanted HR to act as a friend, but HR sometimes had to say no. HR also had a responsibility to speak uncomfortable truths. When rules were broken, HR had to act, regardless of whether those rules were broken by an employee or by management.

The argument itself was not particularly difficult. What made it uncomfortable was its directness. Such truths are normally wrapped in soft, polished corporate language. The candidate had stated the reality without decoration.

After the interview, the papers were returned. At the bottom of the candidate’s CV, the Head of HR had written a single English word by hand: “Incompatible.” In other words, the candidate did not fit in. The candidate was not selected.

But what exactly had the candidate said that was wrong?

HR must regularly perform two responsibilities that pull in opposite directions. The same department that advises an employee may later have to investigate that employee. The same department that manages employee welfare may also prepare a termination letter.

At lunchtime, an employee may visit HR with a personal problem. That same afternoon, the HR officer may have to make a difficult decision in the organisation’s interest. HR must retain the trust of employees while remaining effective in the eyes of the Board. These responsibilities do not always travel in the same direction.

An HR Head who wants to be everyone’s friend will struggle to take effective action against anyone. A department that cannot act when necessary is not a control function. It is a reception desk holding a policy manual, serving tea with a smile while no file ever moves.

The candidate had not been trying to create conflict. The candidate had simply described the job as it truly was. The problem was that the room was not prepared to hear the truth, or at least not in such direct language.

And who rejected the candidate? It was not someone from the Business Division, Finance Division or a line manager trying to protect personal interests. The candidate was rejected by the Head of the very department whose independence the candidate had defended.

This is often how institutional independence disappears. No outsider arrives and destroys it overnight. Instead, one independent-minded person is rejected during recruitment. One questioning employee is overlooked during promotion. Then, one morning, the organisation discovers that the room is full of people who fit in perfectly.

The word “incompatible” was therefore not only a description of the candidate. It was also a description of the room.

Speaking Up Is Harder in Our Workplace

A great deal of research has been conducted on employee voice. However, much of that research comes from societies where disagreeing with a superior carries a relatively low social cost. An employee may argue with the boss one day and return to normal work the next.

In our environment, the matter is not so simple. In Bangladesh’s banking sector, organisational hierarchies are often steep. Length of service also creates a separate form of authority. It may not appear on any organisational chart, but everyone can feel its influence.

Even our language reflects that power. A junior officer begins a disagreement by saying, “Sir, perhaps I have misunderstood the matter.” The argument has not yet started, but the apology has already begun. Or the officer says, “Sir, may I say something, provided you do not mind?” It is as though an unwritten application form must be submitted before anyone is permitted to speak the truth.

Imagine a credit committee meeting in a private bank in Dhaka. The air conditioner is running, cups of tea sit on the table, and a thick loan proposal moves from one hand to another. The proposal has been recommended by a senior official.

A young officer from the Risk Division has carefully reviewed the file and found conflicting information. The accounts of another company within the borrower’s group do not match. The valuation of the collateral appears questionable, and there are inconsistencies in the cash-flow information.

The officer knows that these concerns should be raised. The officer also knows that, once they are raised, the room may not focus only on the credit risk. Some may wonder whether the young officer is challenging the judgement of the senior official. The senior official who recommended the loan may later have influence over the officer’s promotion or transfer.

As a result, the meeting discusses the file, the people involved and the relationships surrounding the proposal. The only thing it does not properly discuss is the risk.

Three years later, the loan becomes classified. An investigation committee is formed, a report is written and responsibility is assigned. Nearly every fact mentioned in the investigation report had already been present in the room on the day the loan was approved. Some of it was in the documents, and some of it was in one person’s head.

The only difference was that the sentence was never spoken aloud.

A Warning on Paper Is Not Enough

Barings Bank was a two-hundred-year-old British institution. Even members of the Royal Family had maintained accounts with it. In 1995, the bank collapsed because a young trader named Nick Leeson, working in Singapore, had concealed enormous losses.

Leeson had been given the power to conduct transactions and, at the same time, the power to verify and settle those transactions. In simple terms, he did the work and also acted as the examiner of his own work. Such arrangements rarely end well. It is like allowing a student to check their own examination paper.

Interestingly, an internal audit report had identified this risk before the collapse. The danger was not unknown. The warning existed on paper. What did not exist was a clear consequence for ignoring the warning. The warning was like a letter without a recipient.

The Wells Fargo scandal revealed a similar disease. Several former employees later stated that they had called the company’s ethics hotline to report the creation of false customer accounts. Some of them lost their jobs soon afterwards.

The organisation had a channel for speaking up. It had a hotline, policies and a telephone number displayed on the wall. What it did not have was safety for the person who used the channel.

Installing a complaint box is easy. A carpenter can do it in an hour. Protecting the person who submits the complaint is difficult. Building that protection may take years.

It is not enough to keep the road open. An organisation must also examine what happens to people after they walk down that road.

What an HR Head Can Do Tomorrow Morning

We have had enough theory. Let us now discuss action. What can an HR Head do after arriving at the office tomorrow

1. Reconsider the Meaning of “Team Player” and “Culture Fit”

The expressions “team player” and “culture fit” appear almost automatically in appraisal forms and interview scorecards. They sound positive, but their meaning is often unclear.

Suppose an employee follows rules, implements decisions and treats colleagues with respect. That employee is clearly valuable to the team. But if the employee questions a flawed decision, does that mean the person is no longer a team player?

What exactly do we mean by culture fit? Does it mean that the employee follows the organisation’s values, or does it mean that the evaluator simply feels comfortable sitting with that person?

Unless the criteria are clearly defined, these expressions do not measure competence. They measure the evaluator’s personal comfort. The person with whom the evaluator enjoys chatting receives a higher score. The person who asks difficult questions receives a lower score. Personal comfort then becomes part of the organisation’s permanent record.

2. Compare the Promotion List with the Objection List

Take the names of everyone promoted during the last three years. Beside that list, place the names of employees who formally raised concerns in meetings, office notes or reports.

Now compare the two lists. Do any of the same names appear in both places?

Suppose not a single person who raised a formal concern has received a promotion. In that case, the problem may not be related to organisational values. It may be something more mechanical.

The selection system may be silently filtering out a particular type of person. Those who remain silent are moving upwards, while those who identify risks are being left behind. The machine is not malfunctioning. The machine is doing exactly what it was designed to do.

3. Allow Junior Officers to Speak First

In our meetings, senior officials normally speak first. Junior employees are invited to speak afterwards. By then, the juniors no longer have opinions. They have a test of courage.

Reverse the order. Let the most junior officer present their observations first, and then move upwards through the hierarchy. The views of junior employees should be heard before any senior opinion is placed on the table.

Once a powerful person expresses a view, the discussion often stops revolving around the information. Instead, it begins revolving around that person’s position.

4. Record Objections in the Minutes

Do not record only the final decision in the meeting minutes. Record who raised an objection and how the objection was resolved.

When a satisfactory explanation is provided, document it. When an objection is rejected, record who rejected it and on what grounds.

When a name is attached to a decision, the decision has an owner. Without a name, the decision becomes an orphan, and no one accepts responsibility for an orphaned decision.

5. Keep the Complaint Process Outside Line Management

If an employee’s complaint eventually returns to the desk of the manager against whom the complaint was made, it is not a genuine complaint channel. It is a decorative door.

Investigations should be handled by an independent unit whose findings cannot be controlled by the relevant line manager. The way complaints are reported to the Board should also change.

The number of complaints received tells us very little by itself. The Board should know what percentage of complaints were substantiated, how many resulted in corrective action and whether any complainant later faced retaliation.

An organisation where no complaint has been substantiated for years may not be a perfect organisation. It may simply have a complaint system designed to turn even truthful complaints into unproven allegations.

6. Conduct Exit Interviews After 90 Days

Employees rarely tell the whole truth on their final working day. They are thinking about clearance, final payments, experience certificates and future references. They are unlikely to create unnecessary trouble.

As a result, the traditional last-day exit interview is often little more than a polite formality. Contact the former employee again after 90 days. The interview should be conducted by someone who was not part of the employee’s former division.

Then ask one question: “What did you stop talking about, and when did you stop talking about it?”

Listen carefully to the answer. Someone may say they stopped speaking after a particular meeting. Another may say they stopped after being overlooked for promotion. Someone else may say they stopped after watching a colleague being punished for telling the truth.

These are not merely employee opinions. They are risk information, and this information should reach the Board committee responsible for reviewing audit and control reports.

Financial audits search for danger in accounting records. Exit interviews search for danger in human silence. Both belong to the same family of information. We simply treat one with greater respect because it smells like money.

7. Add One Question to the Recruitment Process

Ask the candidate, “When was the last time your recommendation was rejected, and what did you do during the following week?”

Listen carefully to the answer. A candidate may say that, after the decision was rejected, they continued secretly following their own method. That person may be dangerous because they do not understand the difference between dissent and disobedience.

Another candidate may say that they became upset and stopped contributing. That person may also be unsuitable because they emotionally withdraw from the team whenever a decision goes against them.

But pay attention to the candidate who says, “I formally recorded my objection. The final decision did not support my position. However, once the decision was made, I accepted it and worked with full commitment to implement it.”

That is a person worth considering. You are not looking for someone who opposes everything. You are looking for someone in whom dissent and loyalty can exist together.

Before the decision, they will ask questions. After the decision, they will fulfil their responsibility. When necessary, they will also carefully preserve the written record of their objection.

A person with these qualities may appear incompatible. The organisation should not merely tolerate such a person. It may need to keep that person close. During peaceful times, they may appear unnecessary. During a crisis, they may be the only person the organisation truly needs.

Final Thoughts

Before writing a comment at the bottom of a candidate’s CV, read the comment twice. The first time, read it as a description of the candidate. The second time, read it as a description of yourself and your organisation.

Sometimes, the word “incompatible” identifies a genuine problem in the candidate. At other times, it means that the room cannot tolerate the truth.

Compatibility and capability are not the same thing. Compatibility measures how comfortable team members feel with one another. Capability measures how much uncomfortable truth the team can absorb.

Sometimes, these two qualities stand against each other. We almost always choose comfort because the price of comfort does not have to be paid today.

An organisation that repeatedly chooses comfort may one day wake up on a difficult morning and realise that the person whose personality it disliked was actually its warning system. By removing that person, the organisation had cut the wire connecting it to its own alarm.

Then the fire started.

Everyone in the room agreed with one another.

The fire was the only thing that did not agree.