Senior professionals can combat systemic risk aversion by lending their social status to younger colleagues. When a junior person raises a valid but risky point, a senior can re-state it as their own concern, using their credibility as a shield to allow the idea to be judged on its merits, not its origin.

Formal board meetings are often performative. The true direction is set in informal discussions dominated by the largest shareholder and the board member with the most gravitas, not by the entire group.

Focusing on individual performance metrics can be counterproductive. As seen in the "super chicken" experiment, top individual performers often succeed by suppressing others. This lowers team collaboration and harms long-term group output, which can be up to 160% more productive than a group of siloed high-achievers.

In variations of Stanley Milgram's obedience experiments, the presence of nonconformists, or "principled deviants," dramatically reduced the group's willingness to inflict harm. These outsiders model ethical behavior, reining in the cruelty of others and guiding the group toward a better moral outcome.

A key, often overlooked, function of leaders in high-growth groups is to act as a shield against internal company interference. This allows their teams to focus on innovation and execution rather than navigating organizational friction, which is a primary driver of top talent attrition.

Behaviors established in the very first meeting—like where people sit, who speaks first, and how much they contribute—tend to become permanent norms. This makes the initial formation period a critical, high-leverage opportunity to intentionally shape a group's culture for success, rather than letting it form by accident.

In group settings, people subconsciously assign you a "contribution score" based on the quality and relevance of your past input. Speaking too often with low-value comments lowers your score, causing others to discount your future ideas. Speaking rarely but with high insight increases it, commanding attention.

Human intelligence evolved not just for Machiavellian competition but for collaboration. When groups compete—whether ancient tribes, sports teams, or companies—the one that fosters internal kindness, trust, and information sharing will consistently outperform groups of self-interested individuals.

The solution to massive problems isn't a lone genius but collaborative effort. Working together prevents reinventing the wheel, allocates resources effectively, and creates leverage where the outcome is greater than the sum of its parts. Unity invites disproportionate success.