The Reason People Are Not Telling Biden the Truth

Credit…Damon Winter/The New York Times

By Adam Grant

They entered with courage and exited as cowards. In the past two weeks, several leaders have told me they arrived at meetings with President Biden planning to have serious discussions about whether he should withdraw from the 2024 election. They all chickened out.

I don’t know whether Mr. Biden should drop out of the race. It’s impossible to predict the outcome with certainty. My concern is about the decision process. There’s a gap between what people say behind the president’s back and what they say to his face. Instead of dissent and debate, they’re falling victim to groupthink.

According to the original theory, groupthink happens when people become so cohesive and close-knit that they put harmony above honesty. Extensive evidence has debunked that idea. The root causes of silence are not social solidarity but fear and futility. People bite their tongues when they doubt that it’s safe and worthwhile to speak up. Leaders who want to make informed decisions need to make it clear they value candid input.

Mr. Biden has done the opposite, declaring first that only the Lord almighty could change his mind and then saying that he’ll drop out only if polls say there’s no way for him to win. That sends a strong message: If you’re not an immortal being or a time traveler from the future, it’s pointless to share any concerns about the viability of his candidacy.

The president is in a tough spot. Even conceding privately that he might consider stepping aside could crush the confidence of his advisers and risk a leak to the press. But a little humility could go a long way: “I believe I’m the best qualified to govern, but I don’t know for sure. I think I can win, but I might be wrong.” Along with inviting dissent, these acts of receptiveness might make Mr. Biden more persuasive. People put more faith in a balanced argument and a leader who wants to learn.

Showing openness can raise people’s confidence, but it’s not always enough to quell their fear. In our research, Constantinos Coutifaris and I found that it helps for leaders to criticize themselves out loud. That way, instead of just claiming that they want the truth, they can show that they can handle the truth. If he hasn’t already, Mr. Biden could do that by gathering his family and advisers to watch a video of the debate with him and then kicking off a candid discussion by talking about what he thought he did wrong. Reviewing the game tape together would demonstrate that he’s willing to take an honest look in the mirror.

It’s hard enough to speak truth to power in an ordinary job. As the management expert Amy Edmondson says, “You don’t want to call the boss’s baby ugly.” Now imagine telling the most powerful person on the planet that the baby might not make it.

Some American presidents have tackled this problem by enlisting an honest broker to gather diverging views and share them without attribution. Others have put the responsibility of challenging consensus in the hands of people who aren’t afraid to disagree. After the groupthink debacle of the Bay of Pigs invasion, John Kennedy entrusted his own brother with the responsibility of arguing against majority views. That revamped process played a key role in resolving the Cuban missile crisis.

Although it can help to assign devil’s advocates, it’s more effective to unearth them. Genuine dissenters argue more convincingly and get taken more seri

It’s time for Mr. Biden’s team to run an anonymous poll of advisers, governors and lawmakers. The results of the poll could be given to an honest broker — someone with a vested interest in winning the election rather than appeasing the president. It would be up to the broker to facilitate an open discussion about the paths to victory in the seven swing states for him as well as Vice President Kamala Harris or others. To avoid pressure from the top, I might try a fishbowl format, asking Mr. Biden to listen first and speak last.

Over the past week, I’ve raised these ideas with several leaders close to the president who reached out for advice. They’ve each made it clear that they’re afraid to put their relationship on the line and they don’t think Mr. Biden will listen to them. I’ve reminded them that they’re lucky to have a president who doesn’t punish dissenters with an indefinite prison sentence or a trial for treason. That diffusion of responsibility is a recipe for groupthink — if everyone leaves it to someone else, no one will end up speaking up. Their challenge now is to figure out how to break the silence and broach the issue.

Not all dissent is created equal. Whether a minority opinion is heard depends heavily on how it’s framed. No one will get anywhere by insisting that the president is too old or demanding that he quit. A more compelling message would position the possibility of withdrawing as an opportunity, not a failure. And it would be delivered with humility. It might go like this:

“President Biden, I know you believe that politicians shouldn’t let hubris cloud their judgment. I’m worried that people are telling you what you want to hear, not what you need to hear. We know the good things that could happen if you run and win, but we also need to discuss the good things that could happen if you don’t run. You could be hailed as a hero like George Washington for choosing not to seek another term. Regardless of the result, you could make history through your selfless stewardship of the next generation. Personally, I don’t know if that’s the right decision. I just want to make sure it gets due consideration. Would you be open to hosting a meeting to hear the dissenting views?”

In dysfunctional groups, people favor loyalty over honesty. In healthy groups, honesty is an act of loyalty. There’s a reason Americans pledge allegiance not to people or power, but to principles. When we express unconditional support for a leader, we compromise our integrity.

In his farewell address, George Washington warned against the “domination of one faction over another.” The task facing our president is to make sure that the faction advocating his staying in the race doesn’t dominate the faction encouraging him to withdraw. Weak leaders stifle dissent and leave themselves weaker. Strong leaders welcome dissent and make themselves stronger.