The Importance of Non-Consensus Ideas

Unfortunately so many potentially game-changing ideas die in conference rooms, buried under an avalanche of "yes, but..." comments? Here's a reality check about consensus: if everyone immediately agrees with your bold idea, it might not be bold enough. Think about how evolution works in nature. The most successful adaptations often start as mutations that seem strange or risky at first. The same principle applies to innovation in business. When Netflix proposed streaming instead of mailing DVDs, when Apple removed the headphone jack, when Amazon suggested selling more than just books – these weren't consensus decisions. They were bold moves that probably made a lot of people uncomfortable. Here's what's fascinating about true innovation: it often makes perfect sense only in retrospect. The most transformative ideas usually sit in that uncomfortable space between "this could change everything" and "this could fail spectacularly." When organizations insist on watering down every idea until everyone feels comfortable, they're not actually reducing risk – they're guaranteeing mediocrity. The real magic happens when companies create spaces where bold ideas can survive early skepticism. This doesn't mean ignoring valid concerns or rushing into every wild suggestion. Instead, it means developing the wisdom to distinguish between ideas that are risky because they're bad and those that are risky because they're challenging the status quo. It's about understanding that sometimes, the highest-impact ideas will make many people nervous at first. Consider this: if Galileo had needed unanimous consensus from his peers, we might still believe the sun revolves around the Earth. Innovation, by its very nature, often challenges established thinking. The key isn't to achieve universal agreement – it's to create systems where potentially transformative ideas can be tested and proven, even if they don't have widespread support initially. What's your experience? When has pursuing a controversial idea paid off? How do you balance the need for alignment with the courage to pursue bold directions? #Innovation #Leadership #DecisionMaking #BusinessStrategy #ChangeManagement

Innovation doesn’t die in brainstorming sessions. It dies in cultures that worship consensus. Most leaders say they want innovation. But few create environments where it can actually survive. 📊 84% of executives say innovation is critical to growth (McKinsey) But only 6% are satisfied with their innovation performance (McKinsey) The gap isn’t in ideas. It’s in the courage to protect the unconventional. Here’s how high-performing teams make out-of-the-box thinking standard: 1️⃣ Reframe “Different” as a Strategy → Make contrarian thinking a KPI → Use 20% of meetings to challenge assumptions → Assign “devil’s advocate” roles by default → Start big decisions with: “What if we’re wrong?” 2️⃣ Build Safety for Uncommon Thinking → Ban “that’s not how we do it” → Host monthly “edge case” reviews → Create 90-day “no-kill” zones for new ideas → Set up innovation sandboxes with protected resources 3️⃣ Engineer Productive Friction → Mix veterans with outsiders → Create cross-functional collisions → Rotate roles based on thinking styles → Reward challenge, not just compliance 4️⃣ Make Failure a Feature → Set learning goals alongside performance goals → Keep a “failure resume” on your leadership wall → Build rapid prototyping into quarterly goals → Celebrate course corrections, not just outcomes 5️⃣ Lead the Way, Publicly → Re-examine long-standing assumptions—out loud → Share when you were wrong - and what you learned → Amplify dissenting voices → Promote those who challenge the status quo Breakthroughs don’t come from playing it safe. They come from leaders bold enough to ask: “What if everyone else is wrong?” 👇 What majority thinking will you challenge this week? ♻️ Share this with a leader who needs to hear it ➕ Follow (David Parsons) for insights on leadership, innovation, and cultural transformation

Good ideas rarely start as consensus. In fact, the best ones often divide the room. Banking is no exception. Think about it: - AI-driven credit risk assessment? Divisive. - Partner banking models? Controversial. - Shifting from transactional metrics to relationship-driven outcomes? Polarizing. It can be tempting to dismiss these ideas as too risky or unproven. But here’s the thing - disagreement is a signal. When an idea sparks strong opinions, it’s really not a reason to shy away - it’s an actually a reason to dig deeper. Why? Because truly innovative ideas are typically both novel and useful. The more novel they are, the harder it is to see their usefulness at first. From my experience, this is what I've seen holding us back: - We judge unfamiliar ideas with familiar criteria. - Polarization makes us hesitant to act. There’s a key to this. You have to flip your mindset. Disagreement isn’t the actual enemy; complacency is. You have to ask yourself: Are we rejecting the idea because it’s bad - or because it’s different? Are we evaluating it through the right lens? What’s the potential if it works? The next big innovation won’t arrive wrapped in consensus. It’ll turn up wrapped in resistance.

The quality of your technology systems and products simply reflects the quality of your organization. An organization’s culture, specifically the tolerance for contrary ideas and conflicting opinions, directly impacts a system’s quality, its capacity to perform its core function with elegance and flexibility. Teams building these systems must be enabled, even encouraged, to discuss, debate, and push back. In organizations where negative information or contrary opinions are discouraged, architectures proceed often by fiat from the highest paid person’s opinion. Thus if that information flow is stunted, constrained, or otherwise dampened, the resulting system will emerge brittle and fragile in its implementation, unable to anticipate shocks that could overwhelm its capacity. The flow of communication among the teams building a system will be reflected in the end result. We know this from Conway’s Law, long regarded in the systems community, and recently popularized by our friends at Team Topologies. The form of processes and incentives also further shapes the outcomes that teams are able to achieve. How work is organized, the quality of the tooling available, the carrots and sticks leveraged by management, all these impact the end result. We want to build systems that are flexible, reliable, and adaptable—”anti-fragile” even. Since cross-functional collaboration and proper team-based incentives promote a culture of quality in the systems those teams build, teams should be evaluated and rewarded collectively to encourage collaboration and innovation. Leaders should go out of their way to create fora for dissent and debate, not shrink from difficult architecture discussions, but encourage them. Instead, many leaders drive for consensus too early, simply it because it makes them nervous, because they are not confident enough in their own leadership to welcome differences of opinion. Until leaders enable and empower teams to operate like flexible, creative, and cross-functional autonomous units, engaging with each other collaboratively to build the best and most flexible systems possible, we will continue to build and market substandard products, suffer massive outages, and generally waste time and money that could have been put to better use.

Been listening to podcasts before “Serial” blew up the category. It’s how I improved my Mandarin, trained for marathons, absorbed Brazilian and American culture when far from friends and family in Beijing. So yeah, you can call me a podcast snob. It’s rare that a new voice gets a spot on my queue but Mike Maples, Jr is becoming a fixture. He literally showers you with words of wisdom. Fresh interpretations of well-trod concepts in the startup lexicon provoke new ways to understand the art of innovation. His thoughts on Obsession, Vision, and Choice helped me reframe Kadeya’s role in the beverage industry. They also made me grateful once again for my near-decade living in China, where I awoke to the future. Let all this sink in while sipping your Monday morning coffee… ☕️“Non-consensus is independence of thought and mind. It's pursuing something at the edge for its own sake because it's interesting to you because you're obsessed by it and you're trying to open new fractals of knowledge that have never been opened before…And in so doing, you earn secrets about the future.” ☕️“[M]ost people have the wrong idea about what vision is. They think vision is having better binoculars and seeing farther, right? But it's not. It's more like I'm getting my hands dirty in what's new about the future. I'm living in the future before other people do. I see firsthand the new ways of thinking, feeling and acting … that will allow me to convert the prior pattern of doing things into a new pattern.” ☕️ “If your product can be compared to the incumbents, you lose. You want to force a choice and not a comparison... So Four Seasons is the same in Paris as in Austin, Texas, as in San Francisco. If you want to have that awesome experience to brag about for decades, great. But when you're in Paris, wouldn't you rather live in a 17th century bungalow on the left bank for the same price? …It forces a choice and not a comparison. Either live in the future we're describing or don't. That was the brilliance of Airbnb.”

Should industry "consensus" drive clinical best practice? I asked AI that question this weekend and got some very interesting insights worth perusing & mulling over in the context of how we historically approach #SterileProcessing best practice... 👇 "The concept of "consensus" can be problematic in science and best practice because it may conflict with the principles of evidence-based decision-making and the pursuit of objective truth. Here are the key reasons why consensus shouldn't dominate science and best practices: ---  1. Science Is Not a Democracy   - Scientific progress is not determined by the number of people who agree on a concept but by the validity of the evidence supporting it.   - A consensus may reflect the prevailing opinions of a group, but opinions are not a substitute for empirical data and reproducible results. ---  2. Risk of Stifling Innovation   - Consensus can create an environment resistant to new ideas, particularly those that challenge established paradigms.   - Historical examples, such as the initial rejection of germ theory or heliocentrism, highlight how consensus often delayed the acceptance of groundbreaking discoveries. ---  3. Appeal to Authority Fallacy   - Relying on consensus can lead to an "appeal to authority" fallacy, where the views of a majority or group of experts are accepted without sufficient scrutiny.   - This undermines the scientific method, which relies on constant testing, questioning, and refinement of ideas. ---  4. Science Is Provisional   - Scientific knowledge evolves as new evidence emerges. Consensus can give a false sense of certainty, making it difficult to adapt to new findings.   - Best practices must remain flexible to accommodate new research, technologies, and methodologies. ---  5. Consensus May Reflect Bias   - Consensus can be influenced by non-scientific factors such as politics, funding pressures, or cultural beliefs.   - This can lead to the promotion of ideas that are popular or convenient rather than those that are most accurate or effective. ---  6. Focus on Evidence, Not Agreement   - Best practices in healthcare, for example, should be guided by robust clinical studies, real-world outcomes, and reproducibility, not by a majority vote.   - Decision-making should prioritize data-driven insights and rigorous analysis over group alignment. ---  Conclusion: While consensus may serve as a heuristic for identifying widely supported ideas, it should not replace the critical processes of hypothesis testing, experimentation, and peer review that define science and evidence-based best practices. The goal is not agreement but the pursuit of truth, which often emerges from challenging and refining what is accepted today." Let the reader understand. What say you? #Consensus #Science #BestPractical #Clinical #Challenges #Surgery #Healthcare

Ayahuasca taught me a valuable lesson about innovation and company cultures. Last year, I had the incredible opportunity to spend a few days with Shamans of the Yawanawa tribe of Brazil. After losing five family members in one year while starting my business, I felt the need for deep self-care. Participating in their ceremonies and working with the plant medicine ayahuasca was transformative. One of the most profound lessons came as a whisper from the plant medicine itself: “You are good enough.” It hit me hard. For years, I had unknowingly filtered my thoughts, silenced my voice, and struggled with imposter syndrome. This personal journey reminded me of a similar struggle shared in the Netflix docuseries Aaron Rodgers: Enigma. Even as an MVP quarterback, Aaron wrestles with self-doubt and finding his voice. His story resonated deeply because I see the same dynamic in organizations everywhere and even inside myself. The Real Innovation Killer: In corporate cultures, the best ideas often go unspoken—not because they lack merit, but because the minds behind them fear judgment, failure, or going against the consensus. This is the hidden cost of a lack of psychological safety in our workplaces. Studies show that teams with high psychological safety are not only more innovative but also more effective. Yet, as leaders, we often unintentionally create environments where diverse thoughts are stifled. A Challenge for Leaders: Here’s what I’ve learned and what I’m working on: 1. Model Vulnerability: Share your own struggles and imperfect ideas to show your team it’s okay to take risks. 2. Listen to the Quiet Voices: Make a deliberate effort to seek input from those who don’t speak up naturally. 3. Create Rituals for Safety: Incorporate practices like structured brainstorming or anonymous idea submissions to reduce the fear of judgment. You are good enough. Your ideas matter. And as leaders, it’s our job to amplify every voice, especially the quiet ones. That’s where true innovation begins. #Leadership #Innovation #PsychologicalSafety #CompanyCulture #MindfulLeadership #PersonalGrowth #ImposterSyndrome #CorporateCulture

"When All Think Alike, Then No One Is Thinking." — Walter Lippmann Innovation doesn’t come from agreement. It comes from productive disagreement. When everyone nods in unison, the team stays comfortable, but ideas stay stagnant. Real breakthroughs happen when someone dares to ask: “Why not?” “What if we did it differently?” Susan Wojcicki thought differently and she disagreed with Google executives In 2006, Google leadership dismissed YouTube as “just cat videos.” But Wojcicki saw something bigger. She challenged the consensus, and pushed for its $1.65B acquisition. Today, YouTube generates $30B+ annually for Alphabet. Here’s why respectful dissent is essential for growth: 1️⃣ The Challenger → Sparks New Possibilities 🔴 “That’s how we’ve always done it.” 🟢 “What if we tried a different way?” 2️⃣ The Contrarian → Exposes Blind Spots 🔴 “We all agree, let’s move forward.” 🟢 “Let’s test the assumptions we’re making.” 3️⃣ The Emotional Grown-Up → Handles Conflict Rationally 🔴 “You’re challenging me, so you must be against me.” 🟢 “Let’s debate ideas, not attack people.” 4️⃣ The Questioner → Drives Deeper Thinking 🔴 “It sounds good—no need to question it.” 🟢 “Why this approach? What’s the evidence?” 5️⃣ The Diversity of Thought Champion → Prevents Groupthink 🔴 “We all think the same—it must be right.” 🟢 “Different perspectives lead to stronger solutions.” 6️⃣ The Respected Dissenter → Gains Long-Term Trust 🔴 “Just agree to keep the peace.” 🟢 “Respectfully disagree to find the truth.” Key Insight: Innovation doesn’t need echo chambers. It needs respectful rebels. So, build a team that isn’t afraid to push back. Invite tension. Welcome debate. Because the future is shaped by those who dare to disagree. 👇 Tag someone who’s never afraid to challenge the status quo. Do you agree or disagree with my post? Let me know, I want to learn from you. Drop your views in the comments! ♻️ Repost to remind all about the value of Thinking Differently. ➕Samson Akinola for more insights on leadership, customer service, and problem-solving.

IT’S ALL ABOUT OUTLIERS 🚀✨ After dozens of projects and ventures, here's what I've learned: The best ideas rarely come from consensus. Why? Seeking consensus is great for creating a new organizational structure or tweaking an existing strategy - it's all about balance and compromise. It's like finding the lowest common denominator. I’ve done it. It works. But for breakthroughs? You need to design around outliers. Let your teams experiment (and fail) more often 💡 Innovative ideas don’t come from playing it safe. You can’t slash costs by half without radically reinventing processes. New growth engines aren’t just v2 versions of existing products. You rarely can keep everyone happy... The most innovative ventures often get buried in established processes: they’re too small, too weird, too risky. Protect these ventures from the consensus-seeking culture with different mechanisms 🛡️ And it's not just about business ideas. My top performers were often outliers - those with unusual backgrounds (think fast-food restaurant owner 🍔) or minimal experience (like a sophomore doing senior consultant work 👩🎓). In THE VENTURE MINDSET, co-authored with Ilya Strebulaev, we dedicate a chapter to the dangers of seeking consensus at all costs. Looking for a breakthrough? Start paying attention to outliers 🌟 Do you have one in your mind? #Innovation #Outliers #TheVentureMindset PS: Thank you, Akniet Rysbek, for sharing the picture 📸 and thank you to Stanford University Graduate School of Business for inviting me to the executive education session!

If you want to be innovative then here's a harsh truth: if you consume the same media every other founder consumes, you are going to have the same consensus ideas as every other founder. True innovation happens by taking inspiration from various contexts and applying it across domains. This is a concept I preach that people don't always love, but to actually create innovative ideas, you need to expose yourself to as many different contexts as possible. That's why I've pushed myself to voraciously read as much content as I can (both about the tech and AI industry, but particularly beyond that) My bookshelf spans biographies, histories, fiction, and other non-fiction across a wide variety of industries and topics. By reading broadly, I can pull great ideas from surprising places to grow Exec. Think about it. Very few breakthroughs are pure strokes of genius that fall from the sky. Most combine existing ideas in novel ways—taking something from one context and applying it to another. A lot of what we're doing with Exec is like that. We saw really cool Voice AI demos in totally unrelated industries, but it inspired us to imagine what was possible in Talent Development. So if you're only reading what everyone else in your industry reads, your thinking will mirror theirs. But if you consume different types of content, your ideas, solutions, and approaches to building your company will be unique. The entrepreneur, Balaji Srinivasan sums this concept up well. He said, "If code scripts machines, media scripts human beings." This means you are what you consume. You can scroll LinkedIn and consume basic Business Insider posts, or you can point your eyeballs at stuff with value across diverse domains. (but definitely keep consuming my posts 😉) Both directly contribute to the knowledge base you're building your company off of. I personally take that pretty seriously. If I can be broad in my reading, I can put together ideas and create solutions no one would have even thought about. What industry completely outside your own do you find most valuable to learn from? I'd love to add it to my reading list. (also, new additions to the family bookshelf are largely pictorial in nature)