The presentation is ready, everyone wants to move forward, and then an employee points out that the figure on the fourth slide is inaccurate. The deal is almost closed, and he asks whether the company can deliver on its promise to the client. The forecast has already been approved, and he wants to understand why the assumptions have changed.
Sometimes he is right, sometimes he is wrong, and sometimes he really does hold up the meeting. But the important question is what happens after enough eye-rolling and sarcastic remarks, when he learns that the easiest way to fit in is to stop asking questions.
(Photo: Shutterstock)
At first, the result may seem excellent: Meetings become shorter, decisions are made quickly and management appears to be working in harmony. But rapid consensus is not necessarily a sign of a healthy organization. Sometimes it means the social cost of dissent has become too high.
In the Torah portion Vayera, Abraham learns of the impending destruction of Sodom and pleads for the entire city: What if there are 50 righteous people? Forty-five? He continues lowering the number until he reaches 10. Abraham is not merely asking that the righteous themselves be spared, but that the entire city be saved on their account. Behind these numbers lies a reflection on the value of a minority in relation to society as a whole.
A similar reflection on the state of society appears in Psalm 53. The psalm, titled "A Maskil of David," is not associated with any particular event in David's life. It is a moral reflection on a society whose norms have eroded: "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, and their ways are vile; there is no one who does good." Later, it declares: "There is no one who does good, not even one."
David describes a situation in which wrongdoing is no longer confined to one individual but has become the norm. In organizations, too, danger does not always begin with a dramatic violation. Sometimes it begins when something everyone once knew was wrong becomes "the way we do things here."
Rabbi Meir Arama, son of Rabbi Isaac Arama, author of Akedat Yitzhak, explores in his commentary Meir Tehillot the significance of whether even one person who does good remains in a society. In his discussion, he also connects the idea to Sodom and the power of righteous individuals in relation to the community as a whole.
In religious terms, this concerns merit and divine providence. In management, the idea can be translated into a question: Do we know how to value someone who maintains professional or moral standards even after everyone else in the room has decided to move forward?
This is a management analogy, even though Abraham pleaded for the city on the merit of 10 righteous people rather than addressing dissent in a management meeting.
Organizations rarely begin operating improperly overnight. They promise a client a delivery date they may not be able to meet, present investors with an overly optimistic forecast or delay payment to a vulnerable supplier. The first time, they explain why there was no alternative. After several repetitions, the exception becomes standard practice.
At such moments, there is value in someone saying aloud that a choice is being made. Even if that person does not win the argument, he prevents the decision from appearing as though it happened on its own.
British philosopher and economist John Stuart Mill devoted a central part of his book On Liberty to the importance of freedom of thought and discussion. Even when we are convinced that an opposing opinion is wrong, he argued, engaging with it forces us to examine our own position. Without opposition, even a correct idea can become something people repeat out of habit.
In a management team, a dissenting voice does not have to persuade everyone. Sometimes it is enough to force the majority to explain itself, examine its assumptions and distinguish between fact and convention.
I learned this through budgeting processes as well. Early in my management career, I viewed budgeting primarily as a top-down process: Management sets targets, and teams find ways to meet them.
Over time, I came to understand the importance of the opposite direction. The people closest to customers, products and day-to-day operations must be able to say that an assumption is unrealistic, even when it comes from the CEO.
That requires managers to be willing to change their minds. A genuine bottom-up process is not about arranging the numbers to fit a predetermined target, but about examining whether management's ambitions align with reality. The larger the organization grows, and the greater the distance between decision-makers and frontline operations, the more important that examination becomes.
This week's financial news also offers an example of the tendency to follow the consensus. According to the data, approximately 150 billion shekels ($46 billion) from provident funds, professional development funds and pension savings flowed into investment tracks exposed to the S&P 500 between 2023 and 2025. Over the past year, withdrawals totaled about 33 billion shekels, while the past two months have seen net inflows resume.
That does not prove that every decision to leave the index was a mistake or that every decision to return was correct. Changes in investment allocation may be appropriate depending on age, investment horizon and risk tolerance.
Nevertheless, the movement illustrates a familiar danger: assuming that what happened recently tells us what we should do now. When the index is leading, everyone wants in. When it weakens, they want out. And when the trend reverses, they return.
An investment committee needs someone who will ask whether the strategy is changing because the underlying assumptions have changed or because everyone is reacting to returns that have already occurred. Such a voice can protect against a situation in which the majority simply follows the majority.
This idea also brings to mind the song "Esh Shel Lev Tov" ("Fire of a Good Heart") and two lines I particularly love:
"Not every fire burns the path,
Some fires light the way for others."
Someone who expresses a different opinion does not have to set the room ablaze or attack those present. Sometimes it is enough to illuminate something others have stopped seeing.
This is where a manager's responsibility comes in. You do not have to shout at an employee to silence him. It is enough to roll your eyes, repeatedly cut him off, leave him out of the next meeting or demand that anyone who raises a problem immediately present a perfect solution as well.
Employees quickly learn what they are allowed to say, and what is better left unsaid.
The question, then, is not merely whether an organization has freedom of speech, but how much it costs to exercise it. Can someone disagree with the CEO without damaging their standing? Admit a mistake without having it define them? And will someone who raised a warning that later proved mistaken feel safe enough to raise another?
The Torah portion Vayera and Psalm 53 remind us that an individual or minority may have significance beyond their personal actions. Abraham searches for righteous people whose presence could matter to all of Sodom. David examines a society whose moral standards have eroded and asks whether "there is anyone who understands."
A tool for managers: The lone voice test
Before making a significant decision, it is worth asking: Who in the room genuinely thinks differently? Which central assumption has not yet been seriously examined? What will happen to someone who raises a warning now and later turns out to be wrong? And can we separate the discomfort a person causes from the quality of their argument?
Another option is to appoint someone specifically to challenge the decision, to ensure that the consensus has survived genuine scrutiny.
Abraham did not succeed in saving Sodom, but his stand reminds us that the majority moving in a particular direction does not absolve an individual of the responsibility to question whether that direction is right, or a manager of the responsibility to listen.
Sometimes the employee who prevents everyone from moving forward is precisely the person who keeps the organization from moving too quickly in the wrong direction.