Why deep democracy matters in organisations

Some ideas and concepts stay with you because they change the way you look at people, collaboration and decision-making. For me, deep democracy is one of those concepts. It is about listening to what is happening within a group, creating space for different perspectives, and recognising that the voice of the minority can contain valuable information.

My first introduction in 2013

My first introduction to this way of thinking was in 2013, when I attended a training with Robert Rasmussen to become a LEGO® SERIOUS PLAY® facilitator. It was a remarkable experience, not only because of the methodology itself, but especially because of the people I had the opportunity to learn from. What has stayed with me most from that training is not only the power of working with LEGO® SERIOUS PLAY®, but also the thinking behind it: how do you make sure that the knowledge, experience and ideas of everyone in a group are actually being used?

That question has stayed with me ever since. And in the context of operational excellence, it is a question I find myself asking again and again, both to myself and to the groups I work with.

The power of the minority voice

Within organisations, we are often inclined to seek agreement as quickly as possible. We want support, buy-in, consensus or a generally accepted decision that allows us to move forward. And of course, that is important. Decision-makers in organisations ultimately have to make choices and take action. But there is always a risk in striving for agreement too quickly. What happens to the voice that does not go along with the majority? What happens to the person who has doubts, sees a risk, or simply looks at the same situation from a different perspective?

We are sometimes quick to label such a voice as 'resistance', 'too challenging', or 'not aligned with the company culture'. Over the years, I have heard countless rationalisations with very little substance behind them when decision-makers simply did not know what to do with a dissenting voice. These people are then perceived as slowing the process down or making things unnecessarily difficult. Yet those same voices may be giving us exactly the information we need to make a better decision.

That is an important insight from deep democracy for me: difference is not something we should try to resolve as quickly as possible. Difference contains information.

Not everyone has to be right

Deep democracy does not mean that everyone gets their way. Nor does it mean that decision-making has to continue endlessly until everyone completely agrees. It means taking the time to explore what lies behind different positions. When a team largely wants to move in one direction and one person has serious concerns, the interesting question is not simply: How do we get this person on board? The more interesting question is: What does this person see that we may not be seeing yet?

That requires curiosity. It requires the ability to resist the urge to convince and instead listen first. And there is a small neurological lesson here that I find useful. When we are confronted with an idea that challenges our existing way of thinking, our first reaction can be defensive. Our brain is constantly trying to make sense of new information based on existing patterns, experiences and expectations. When something does not fit, it can take a moment to process it.

So, a small tip: when you notice yourself becoming defensive, pause. You may not need to defend your position immediately. You may simply need to give your brain some time to process a perspective that does not yet fit your existing mental model. New learning can create and strengthen new neural connections. In other words, give yourself and others a little space before deciding that an idea is wrong, unrealistic or impossible.

From resistance to valuable information

In many organisations, resistance is still too easily made personal. Someone is critical, negative or 'not on board'. By labelling the behaviour, however, we may miss the message behind it. Deep democracy invites us to look at this differently. A critical employee may uncover a risk. A different opinion may reveal a blind spot. Someone who keeps asking questions may help ensure that a decision is properly thought through. That does not mean that every critical comment is automatically correct. It does mean that we take the time to explore what information it contains. Only then can we decide what to do with it.

This requires something from leadership

Deep democracy is therefore not just a way of working with teams. It is also a leadership issue. How do you respond as a leader when someone disagrees with you? Can you remain genuinely curious when someone has a different perspective? Can you listen without immediately becoming defensive, trying to convince the other person, or shutting down the conversation?

That can be challenging. It requires leaders not to be dependent on being right, but on their ability to improve the quality of decision-making. A strong leader does not necessarily have to be the person with the most answers. A strong leader is someone who creates the conditions for the right questions to be asked and for relevant perspectives to be brought to the table.

Psychological safety

This is where deep democracy directly connects with psychological safety. People will not speak up if they feel that differing opinions are not welcome. When employees believe that criticism may affect their position, reputation or relationships with colleagues, they will naturally become more cautious.

You may then have harmony around the table, but not necessarily the truth around the table.

An organisation in which people can say 'I see it differently', 'I have my doubts' or 'I think we are missing something here' has an important advantage. Not because there is less conflict, but because differences can be addressed before they start working beneath the surface.

The minority as a source of collective wisdom

For me, deep democracy is ultimately about making use of collective wisdom. Everyone looks at an organisation through the lens of their own experience, expertise and perspective. No individual has the complete picture. By bringing these different perspectives together, we create a richer understanding of reality.

That is why I find it so valuable not only to ask what the majority thinks, but also to deliberately create space for what has not yet been said. Because sometimes the most important information is not found in the consensus. Sometimes it is found in the person who says: 'I don't agree with this.'

Organisations are becoming increasingly complex. Change is happening faster, challenges are becoming less predictable, and solutions are less often obvious. In such an environment, we cannot afford to listen to only one perspective. We need different voices. Different experiences. Different ways of looking at things. And perhaps even more importantly, we need organisations in which people feel safe enough to actually express those different perspectives. That requires more than a meeting structure or a facilitation technique. It requires a culture in which difference is seen as a potential source of quality.

From 'who is right?' to 'what can we learn?'

Perhaps that is ultimately the most important shift deep democracy has taught me. Instead of constantly asking: 'Who is right?' we can ask: 'What can we learn from what is being brought into the room?'

That changes the way we look at resistance. It changes the way we look at leadership. And it changes the way we can make decisions together.

More than a decade after my first introduction to this way of thinking during my training with Robert Rasmussen in 2013, I still find it highly relevant. Although "birds of a feather, flock together", a strong organisation is not, in my view, an organisation where everyone thinks alike. It is an organisation where people with different perspectives feel able to engage in dialogue and where the voice of the minority matters too.

Because sometimes real progress begins precisely where someone has the courage to say: 'I think we need to take another look at this.'

Want to organise a LEGO® SERIOUS PLAY® workshop or teambuilding event?

I am a certified LEGO® SERIOUS PLAY® facilitator, using the methodology to help teams explore complex challenges, make ideas tangible, and create shared understanding. By giving everyone a voice and making different perspectives visible, I help organisations unlock insights and move from discussion to meaningful action.

Price for a one day workshop (max. 12 people, 8 hours + 4 hours preparation and 4 hours debrief): 5000 EUR, ex. VAT

More information about LEGO® SERIOUS PLAY®: https://www.lego.com/en-be/themes/serious-play/background

---

Footnote: Robert Rasmussen worked at the LEGO Group from 1988 to 2001, including as head of research & development for LEGO Education. He was involved in the development of LEGO MINDSTORMS. In 1999, he took responsibility for the further development of LEGO SERIOUS PLAY and led the development process that resulted in the first version of the methodology. Together with his team, he helped develop the original ideas into a robust and reproducible methodology. Rasmussen is therefore often described as one of the key architects of the LEGO SERIOUS PLAY methodology. The original ideas for using LEGO to explore strategic challenges emerged earlier, including through the work of Johan Roos, Bart Victor and Kjeld Kirk Kristiansen.