Having diversity of thought among the leadership team is usually regarded as a positive, Houston researchers found that conflict can cause more harm than good. Photo via Getty Images

For the past 40 years, management researchers have assumed that diversity of opinion about company strategy, even when it causes conflict among senior managers, leads to higher-quality strategic decisions and improved firm performance.

It turns out there isn’t evidence to support that belief.

Rice Business Professor Daan Van Knippenberg has spent his career studying topics related to team performance, decision making, diversity and conflict. When a research team led by Codou Samba, an assistant professor at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, approached him with an offer to test longstanding assumptions about conflict related to company strategy in senior management teams, he jumped at the opportunity.

In his experience, the business case for diversity is strong, but it comes with caveats. “Diversity of perspectives can lead to better solutions to complex problems, but only when team members are open-minded enough to listen carefully to each other and really integrate another point of view into their decision-making process,” he says. This does not seem to apply to differences in opinion about what company strategy should be.

When managers dig in their heels and refuse to consider and integrate other perspectives, that two-way door of communication slams shut and conflict ensues. “The popular idea that conflict is actually good for firms went against all my knowledge,” says Van Knippenberg. “It’s annoying that this idea has floated around in my field for so long when the evidence really points the other way.”

The team led by Samba, which also included C. Chet Miller, a professor at the University of Houston, conducted a quantitative summary and integration of 78 papers that provide data about strategic dissent — a term used to describe diverging opinions about strategic goals and objectives on senior management teams — and its influence on strategic decision making and firm performance.

Every paper that made a prediction about strategic dissent (only a few did not) posited that strategic dissent leads to better outcomes for firms.

In their paper, “The impact of strategic dissent on organizational outcomes: A meta-analytic integration,” the research team used a deep well of empirical data to demonstrate that the opposite is true. Turning common wisdom on its head, they found that strategic dissent among senior managers actually leads to lower-quality decisions and impaired firm performance.

The authors identify two major reasons for the negative impact of strategic dissent on firm outcomes.

First, strategic dissent causes relational breakdown among senior managers. “If managers walk away from a team meeting thinking they just had a conflict instead of a productive discussion, the outcome is rarely positive,” says Van Knippenberg. The two sides retreat into their respective corners, believing the other side to be wrong and closing their minds to further information.

Second, strategic dissent leads to less relevant information being exchanged among managers. Inevitably, this blockage impairs the decision-making process. If a marketing director and an operations director are at odds, for example, they are less likely to share the marketing- or operations-specific information that is needed to make an optimal team decision.

Teams can benefit from diversity of thought, but it is not always clear what conditions need to be in place for that to happen on senior management teams that disagree about the firm’s strategic direction. CEOs — the leaders of senior management teams — would do well to realize that it takes an effortful investment to foster open-minded discussions of diverging views on the organization’s strategy, to create an environment that encourages members to express dissenting perspectives while absorbing the perspectives of others, and to prevent vested interest and power dynamics from determining the outcomes of such discussions.

------

This article originally ran on Rice Business Wisdom and was based on research from Daan Van Knippenberg, the Houston Endowed Professor of Management at the Jones Graduate School of Business at Rice University, C. Chet Miller, the C.T. Bauer Professor of Organizational Studies at C. T. Bauer College of Business at the University of Houston, and Codou Samba, an assistant professor at Haslam College of Business at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

Houston startup taps strategic partner to produce novel 'biobased leather'

cleaner products

A Houston-based next-gen material startup has revealed a new strategic partnership.

Rheom Materials, formerly known as Bucha Bio, has announced a strategic partnership with thermoplastic extrusion and lamination company Bixby International, which is part of Rheom Material’s goal for commercial-scale production of its novel biobased material, Shorai.

Shorai is a biobased leather alternative that meets criteria for many companies wanting to incorporate sustainable materials. Shorai performs like traditional leather, but offers scalable production at a competitive price point. Extruded as a continuous sheet and having more than 92 percent biobased content, Shorai achieves an 80 percent reduction in carbon footprint compared to synthetic leather, according to Rheom.

Rheom, which is backed by Houston-based New Climate Ventures, will be allowing Bixby International to take a minority ownership stake in Rheom Materials as part of the deal.

“Partnering with Bixby International enables us to harness their extensive expertise in the extrusion industry and its entire supply chain, facilitating the successful scale-up of Shorai production,” Carolina Amin Ferril, CTO at Rheom Materials, says in a news release. “Their highly competitive and adaptable capabilities will allow us to offer more solutions and exceed our customers’ expectations.”

In late 2024, Rheom Materials started its first pilot-scale trial at the Bixby International facilities with the goal of producing Shorai for prototype samples.

"The scope of what we were doing — both on what raw materials we were using and what we were creating just kept expanding and growing," founder Zimri Hinshaw previously told InnovationMap.

Listen to Hinshaw on the Houston Innovators Podcast episode recorded in October.

Justice Department sues to block Houston-based HPE's $14B buyout of Juniper

M&A News

The Justice Department sued to block Hewlett Packard Enterprise's $14 billion acquisition of rival Juniper Networks on Thursday, the first attempt to stop a merger by a new Trump administration that is expected to take a softer approach to mergers.

The Justice complaint alleges that Hewlett Packer Enterprise, under increased competitive pressure from the fast-rising Juniper, was forced to discount products and services and invest more in its own innovation, eventually leading the company to simply buy its rival.

The lawsuit said that the combination of businesses would eliminate competition, raise prices and reduce innovation.

HPE and Juniper issued a joint statement Thursday, saying the companies strongly oppose the DOJ's decision.

“We will vigorously defend against the Department of Justice’s overreaching interpretation of antitrust laws and will demonstrate how this transaction will provide customers with greater innovation and choice, positively change the dynamics in the networking market,” the companies said.

The combined company would create more competition, not less, the companies said.

The Justice Department's intervention — the first of the new administration and just 10 days after Donald Trump's inauguration — comes as somewhat of a surprise. Most predicted a second Trump administration to ease up on antitrust enforcement and be more receptive to mergers and deal-making after years of hypervigilance under former President Joe Biden’s watch.

Hewlett Packard Enterprise announced one year ago that it was buying Juniper Networks for $40 a share in a deal expected to double HPE’s networking business.

In its complaint, the government painted a picture of Hewlett Packard Enterprise as a company desperate to keep up with a smaller rival that was taking its business.

HPE salespeople were concerned about the “Juniper threat,” the complaint said, also alleging that one former executive told his team that “there are no rules in a street fight,” encouraging them to “kill” Juniper when competing for sales opportunities.

The Justice Department said that Hewlett Packard Enterprise and Juniper are the U.S.'s second- and third-largest providers of wireless local area network (WLAN) products and services for businesses.

“The proposed transaction between HPE and Juniper, if allowed to proceed, would further consolidate an already highly concentrated market — and leave U.S. enterprises facing two companies commanding over 70% of the market,” the complaint said, adding that Cisco Systems was the industry leader.

Many businesses and investors accused Biden regulatory agencies of antitrust overreach and were looking forward to a friendlier Trump administration.

Under Biden, the Federal Trade Commission sued to block a $24.6 billion merger between Kroger and Albertsons that would have been the largest grocery store merger in U.S. history. Two judges agreed with the FTC’s case, blocking the proposed deal in December.

In 2023, the Department of Justice, through the courts, forced American and JetBlue airlines to abandon their partnership in the northeast U.S., saying it would reduce competition and eventually cost consumers hundreds of millions of dollars a year. That partnership had the blessing of the Trump administration when it took effect in early 2021.

U.S. regulators also proposed last year to break up Google for maintaining an “abusive monopoly” through its market-dominate search engine, Chrome. Court hearings on Google’s punishment are scheduled to begin in April, with the judge aiming to issue a final decision before Labor Day. It’s unclear where the Trump administration stands on the case.

One merger that both Trump and Biden agreed shouldn’t go through is Nippon Steel’s proposed acquisition of U.S. Steel. Biden blocked the nearly $15 billion acquisition just before his term ended. The companies challenged that decision in a federal lawsuit early this year.

Trump has consistently voiced opposition to the deal, questioning why U.S. Steel would sell itself to a foreign company given the regime of new tariffs he has vowed.