[eecsninja]

The problem is that large organizations like government agencies and corporations don't want alternate opinions, except in the rare cases where they specifically have a devil's advocate position to test the validity of ideas.

Better performance isn't an argument that sways these organizations that care more about preserving the status quo than about success in their stated goals.

[vharuck]

I've noticed it has less to do with an organization's size or age and more with its workload and urgency.

One program I work with has a few clearly defined tasks they've basically mastered. They're very open to my ideas and critiques. Another program was required to overhaul their planning process. It was part of the grant which provided most of their funding. It was harder to debate decisions, because everything needed to move lock-step to make the deadline. It surprised me, because they're usually more receptive to my advice.

They feared failure more than non-optimal success. This can happen in large and small organizations.

[BLKNSLVR]

Differing opinions are seen as an annoying impediment to decision making: yet another variable that needs to be weighed up eye-roll.

Management is easier when everyone just agrees and when Management is easy then Managers are happy, which generally means employees feel less "under the microscope".

Therefore alternative opinions have the appearance of working against both (lazy) Managers and (paranoid) employees. There's only a small percentage of humanity that are either willing, or unaware, enough to potentially get off-side with their boss and peers to provide dissenting opinion. Despite the great long-term value there is in attacking problems with the knowledge of the various angles of entry and exit.

It's sad, but human nature. And here we find ourselves in a world of our own making.

[chrisco255]

It's purely a cultural construct. Companies, societies, families, organizations, universities, etc. all have different internal cultures that dictate the social behavior of those in the group. When a culture of diverse opinion is encouraged and supported by official and implicit policy, it tends to thrive.

[mcv]

The point of the article is that they should want alternate opinions. An army of yes-men is not going to be good at critically evaluating the merits of a project.

To give an example from a completely different field, I think this might be a big reason behind the problems with the Star Wars prequels: when he made the original movies, George Lucas was a young, new director, and people weren't afraid to tell him no and offer suggestions to improve his ideas. By the time he made the prequels, he was a Legend and of course he was right about everything.

It's important to have people who aren't afraid to criticise your ideas. Even if it makes the people in charge uncomfortable. Or perhaps especially if it makes them uncomfortable.

[pjc50]

The chief editor of the first films was Lucas's first wife, who had a considerable contribution to their success and won a BAFTA for the editing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcia_Lucas