A long-time Latter-day Saint writer argues that insulated leadership and pressure to agree can make it harder to spot harmful decisions. Research on group decision-making offers useful context, while official policy documents and reporting put some of the debate into sharper focus. The central question is not whether leaders should be challenged for its own sake, but how institutions hear from people affected by their choices.

Essential Takeaways

  • Groupthink has recognisable warning signs: The American Psychological Association lists pressure on dissenters, self-censorship and an illusion of unanimity among them.
  • Power can complicate teamwork: Research by John Angus Hildreth and Cameron Anderson found that groups of powerful people performed worse on some collaborative tasks.
  • Shared information can crowd out new evidence: Cass Sunstein and Reid Hastie describe how groups may overlook information known to only some members.
  • Safeguarding needs accountability: Australia’s Royal Commission reported that limited involvement of women in leadership and governance negatively affected decision-making in some religious institutions.
  • Church policies and campaign activity are documented: An August 2024 Church document sets out guidance concerning transgender members, while Deseret News reported a $1 million Church contribution to an Idaho campaign opposing Proposition 1.

When agreement starts to look like good judgement

Groupthink is more than a room full of people nodding along. The American Psychological Association defines it as a strong tendency to seek agreement that interferes with effective decision-making. Its warning signs include self-censorship, pressure on dissenters and a belief that the group is unquestionably right.

That framework sits at the heart of a personal essay by a long-time Latter-day Saint, who argues that concentrated authority and limited challenge can narrow what leaders hear. It’s an argument about how an institution makes decisions, rather than proof that any particular policy arose from groupthink. Keeping that distinction clear matters: a recognised psychological risk is not, on its own, evidence that it explains a specific organisation.

The APA also identifies group cohesion and isolation as conditions thought to contribute to groupthink. Those are useful prompts for examining any close-knit leadership circle: who gets heard, what information reaches the table, and whether disagreement can be voiced without being treated as disloyalty.

Power doesn’t automatically make a group wiser

Research by John Angus Hildreth and Cameron Anderson offers a related caution. Across several studies, groups of people accustomed to power performed worse than comparison groups on certain tasks, with the researchers pointing to status competition, weaker focus on shared work and less effective information-sharing as possible explanations.

The studies did not examine the Latter-day Saint Church or religious leadership. They can’t tell us why a particular church policy was made, but they do challenge the comforting assumption that authority and experience automatically produce good collaboration. A table can be full of accomplished people and still fail to pool what they know.

Sunstein and Hastie’s work adds another wrinkle: discussion can push a group towards a more extreme version of its starting views, while information known by only a few people may be overlooked. In practical terms, a decision-making process needs more than an invitation to speak. It needs a way for contrary evidence and less familiar perspectives to influence the outcome.

Safeguarding depends on who gets a voice

The Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse examined how religious institutions responded to abuse allegations. Its report describes barriers survivors faced, including secrecy, shame, fear of ostracism and the authority attributed to religious leaders. It also found that insufficient involvement of women in leadership and governance negatively affected decision-making and accountability in some institutions.

That’s relevant context for the essay’s broader concern about who has power when policies affect vulnerable people. The Commission’s findings are about institutions it examined in Australia; they aren’t a finding that every religious organisation acted alike, or that groupthink caused any particular Latter-day Saint policy. They do, however, underline why oversight and meaningful participation matter when safeguarding is at stake.

The Church’s August 2024 guidance for local leaders provides a concrete example of policy that directly affects transgender members. It says those pursuing medical, surgical or social transition aren’t assigned gender-specific roles, teaching positions or work with children and youth, while other service opportunities may be available. The guidance says to use a single-occupancy toilet where one is available; otherwise, leaders are to counsel with the individual and consider options, including a toilet matching the person’s gender identity, with a trusted person ensuring privacy.

What the documented decisions do, and don’t, show

Deseret News reported that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints contributed $1 million to an organisation campaigning against Idaho Proposition 1, a measure concerning abortion rights. That verifies the reported contribution and the campaign’s position. It does not establish that the donation changed the result, explain voters’ motivations or prove that groupthink drove the Church’s decision.

This is where careful reading helps. A campaign contribution is evidence of political involvement; a policy document is evidence of stated guidance. Neither, by itself, establishes how consistently a policy is applied, how people experience it, or what effect it has. Those questions call for separate evidence, especially from the people directly affected.

For readers weighing the essay’s argument, the useful takeaway is to keep the layers distinct: psychological research describes risks in group decision-making, official documents record policy, and the essay applies those ideas to a particular institution. That application invites scrutiny and debate, but it shouldn’t be mistaken for a finding made by the researchers.

A better test is whether challenge can change the answer

So what should a reader look for when judging institutional decision-making? Start with the basics: can people raise concerns safely, does the group seek evidence beyond its own circle, and can those affected by a policy help shape it? The research and the Commission’s findings suggest that simply gathering senior people around a table isn’t enough.

There’s also a human point here. Being asked for an opinion is not the same as having influence, particularly when the people speaking have less status or are discussing decisions that affect their own lives. Institutions are more likely to understand those consequences when feedback can travel beyond the meeting room and alter what happens next.

The case for listening isn’t a case against faith, experience or leadership. It’s a reminder that agreement can feel reassuring while still leaving important questions unanswered.

A healthier decision-making culture starts by making room for people who see things differently.

Source Reference Map

Story idea inspired by: [1]

Sources by paragraph: