Every leader says they want diversity of opinion. The problem is that many unknowingly eliminate it within the first minute of a discussion. It rarely happens because someone is trying to dominate the conversation. More often, it's the result of a perfectly normal human tendency.
Someone speaks first.
Usually, it's the most senior person in the room. Sometimes it's simply the loudest voice. Often, it's just the person who is least uncomfortable with silence.
Within moments, the room begins to shift.
People nod. They soften their own views. They edit what they were about to say, not necessarily because they agree, but because disagreeing has become more uncomfortable.
Psychologists have long understood this and the fact that we are influenced by the opinions we hear first. We take cues from those around us and naturally want to avoid social friction where we can. It's why groupthink and anchoring remain such persistent challenges in decision-making, even in teams full of intelligent, experienced, well-intentioned people.
If you want to know whether it's happening in a room that you’re in, don't watch the first speaker.
Watch the second and third.
Are they introducing genuinely different perspectives, or are they expanding on the first idea?
If they're reinforcing rather than challenging what's already been said, the conversation has already narrowed. What looks like a discussion involving many voices has become a discussion centred on one.
This is why diversity of opinion is only half the story. The other half, and possibly the most important, is protecting that diversity long enough for it to influence the outcome. That doesn't require complicated facilitation techniques; it just requires better sequencing.
First, get people writing before they're talking.
Ask everyone to jot down their thoughts privately before discussion begins. A notebook, an index card or a digital note is enough.
This simple step creates independence. Once people have committed to an idea, they're less likely to unconsciously reshape it to fit the emerging consensus.
Second, notice when the room starts converging too early.
You don't need to make a speech about unconscious bias.
A simple prompt such as, "Let's hear a perspective we haven't considered yet," is often enough to widen the discussion again.
Finally, make disagreement the easy option.
Most meetings make agreement feel safe, and dissent feel risky. For organisations that want better decisions, it should be the other way round.
Different viewpoints shouldn't feel courageous. They should feel and be expected. This is where psychological safety is often misunderstood.
Psychological safety isn't about making conversations comfortable. It's about making them safe enough for people to contribute honestly, especially when their perspective differs from everyone else's. Creating that environment is one of the foundations of effective leadership, and it's something we explore in greater depth through The Institute of Leadership's MyLeadership+ learning module on psychological safety.
We all need to remember that being a strong leader isn't just about inviting different opinions; it’s more about designing conversations that protect them.
The takeaway? Once the first opinion quietly becomes everyone's opinion, diversity of thought hasn't failed – it never actually had the opportunity to do its job.