In Part 1 we focused on the individual and risk taking. In Part 2, we shift focus from the individual to the team. In other words, from solo risk-taking to the dynamics of risk in teams.
High-risk decisions often happen in group contexts: a team of climbers planning an ascent, a group of paragliders gauging the day’s conditions, or a corporate project team deciding whether to green-light a risky venture. Group dynamics can profoundly shape risk perception and decision-making. Sometimes a team collectively becomes bolder than any member would be alone; other times group pressures make everyone more cautious.
One of the classic findings in social psychology is that groups can exhibit the “risky shift” phenomenon – a tendency for group discussion to lead to more extreme decisions (often riskier) than individuals would make on their own. In early studies, people were asked individually how much risk they would accept in hypothetical scenarios. They were then asked the same as a group. Groups frequently chose a riskier course of action than the average of their individual choices (Stoner, 1961). Later research clarified that groups can also become more cautious if the initial leanings were cautious. The general principle is called group polarization – the group amplifies the average initial inclination, whether towards risk or caution). Why does this happen? Several factors can play a role: informational influence (during discussion, bold risk-takers voice compelling arguments that sway others, or vice versa), and social comparison (members may adjust their stance to align with what they think the group values – e.g. appearing brave and confident).
In an extreme sports context, imagine a group of mountain bikers at the top of a steep downhill run. Each biker alone might be on the fence about attempting a particularly dangerous jump. But as they discuss (or as excitement in the group builds), they might egg each other on – “If you do it, I’ll do it!” – resulting in most of them attempting something they might have skipped solo. The shared social energy pushes the risk-taking up a notch. Analogously, in a business meeting, a project team might collectively decide to pursue an ambitious, high-risk strategy after a brainstorming session where enthusiastic voices dominated and the cautious voices kept quiet to “go with the flow.” Group polarization can thus be a double-edged sword: it can lead to breakthrough bold moves or to foolish overreach, depending on whether the initial group vibe is appropriately informed or dangerously euphoric. A closely related hazard in group risk decisions is groupthink, where the drive for consensus and harmony makes the group ignore warnings or suppress dissenting opinions. In tightly knit teams, especially under pressure, members may self-censor doubts to avoid rocking the boat
High-risk sports have seen this dynamic play out tragically. Analysts of mountaineering disasters (such as the 1996 Everest tragedy) have pointed out how team over-cohesion and summit fever (everyone wanting to achieve the goal together) led to ignoring turnaround times and weather warnings. Social cohesion is usually a good thing, but in these cases it created an echo chamber of optimism until it was too late. Research by organizational scholars has echoed this: highly cohesive teams can neglect critical evaluation of risks if they value agreement too much. One study of Himalayan climbing expeditions found that when conditions turned dangerous, teams that continued to operate in a “we must stick together at all costs” mode were less likely to survive or succeed, compared to teams where someone could break from the pack and say, “this is too risky, we need a different plan” (Walsh, 2019).
The lesson for business teams is clear: healthy debate and diversity of perspective are crucial, especially when stakes are high. If everyone in the meeting nods along and no one voices that nagging concern, you might have a groupthink scenario. On the other hand, a team where members feel free to say, “I see a serious risk we’re overlooking”, will make more balanced decisions.
Leveraging Group Strengths: It’s not all pitfalls – teams also have strengths in risk management that individuals alone lack. Pooling knowledge and skills can improve risk assessment. In outdoor adventure, a team of climbers can cross-check each other’s safety systems, notice different hazards (one spots loose rocks, another monitors the weather) and collectively make a safer decision than any one person with limited viewpoint. There's a reason why many dangerous pursuits are done in teams: two heads (or more) are better than one for problem-solving. In corporate transformations, project teams bring together diverse expertise – when well-coordinated, this diversity allows more robust planning and contingency thinking. One person might catch a financial risk, another sees a technical glitch, another anticipates a customer reaction, and together they adjust the plan. Studies in team effectiveness show that heterogeneous teams (with varied backgrounds and viewpoints) tend to consider a broader range of options and risks, reducing the chance of blind spots, provided they communicate openly. The key is open communication. Teams that can freely share information, including bad news or doubts, create an environment where risks are surfaced early and addressed. Psychologists call this psychological safety – a climate where team members feel safe to take interpersonal risks like admitting an error or disagreeing (Annal, 2022).
High psychological safety means a junior engineer can tell the senior manager, “I think this approach might fail”, without fear of ridicule. In a mountain rescue team, it means any member can yell, “Stop, I hear cracking ice!”, and the team will listen, not dismiss it. Research has linked psychological safety to better team learning and performance, precisely because it encourages speaking up about concerns before they escalate
Another group dynamic in risk-taking is the influence of peer norms and culture. In extreme sports communities, a culture of self-responsibility and shared risk awareness often prevails. For instance, among backcountry skiers, there's an increasing norm to conduct group avalanche safety checks and discuss the day’s risk factors as a team – effectively creating a safety culture where everyone is expected to voice observations (this counters the older macho culture of just charging ahead). Research on adventure sports has noted that peer recognition can motivate individuals to take risks, but usually those individuals also know they need the skill to back it up (Martinho, 2024).
In other words, within the group, being seen as competent and careful can be as much a source of status as being daring. If the group’s values reward smart risk management, then members will emulate that. In business transformation teams, setting a norm that “we value prudent risk-taking and transparency” helps guide everyone’s behavior. Team leaders can encourage a culture where raising a red flag is appreciated – “Good catch. Thanks for flagging that risk!” – and taking calculated risks in execution is celebrated even if the outcome isn’t always a win. When team members trust each other, they can coordinate risk – sometimes literally taking turns being the risk-taker vs. the checker. Think of a cycling breakaway group in a race: different riders take turns going all-out (a risk of burning out) while others rest, then rotate. In a project team, sometimes one department experiments (takes a risk) while others maintain stability, then they swap for the next initiative. Such coordination requires high trust and alignment on goals.
Balancing Collaboration and Expertise: Intriguingly, recent research using mountaineering as a model for teamwork suggests there are times when a fully democratic approach to risk decision may not be ideal. Greer and colleagues (2020) examined thousands of Himalayan expeditions and found that when the goal was to reach the summit (an objective requiring cooperation and each member doing their part), teams with a strong collective ethos succeeded more. But when survival was on the line (say, a storm hits and the goal shifts to getting everyone down alive), expeditions did better if they deferred to the most skilled or knowledgeable person to make critical calls (Walsh, 2019).
In life-and-death situations, too much group debate or egalitarianism can slow decision-making or dilute the best solution. The researchers frame it as conjunctive tasks (where group unity helps) versus disjunctive tasks (where one expert’s input can be decisive). For example, if an experienced guide says, “No-go on the summit, we must descend now,” a team will fare better following that expert judgment than taking a vote. This nuance is relevant in business too: during normal planning, inclusive decision-making yields buy-in and collective wisdom. But in a crisis – “Our product just got recalled – how do we respond?” – a swift, expert-driven decision can be critical. Effective teams know how to shift modes, from collaborative discussions to clear leadership and delegation, when needed. The presence of a leader or member with domain expertise who is trusted by the group can thus be life-saving (literally in the mountains and figuratively for a company in turmoil).
To sum up the team perspective, group dynamics can amplify or mitigate risk. A team can bravely achieve feats that no individual could (the whole > sum of parts), or a team can collectively walk into disaster due to blind spots and pressure for consensus. The best teams deliberately cultivate open communication, trust, and the wisdom to know when to go with majority vs. defer to expertise. In both extreme sports and corporate change, teamwork can be your greatest asset in managing risk – as long as you manage the team well. This leads us to the role of leadership, because every group benefits from guidance when navigating high risks.
In the third and final part of our series, we will examine risk-taking through the eyes of leaders. Whether it’s the lead guide on a climb or a CEO in a boardroom, leaders carry the responsibility of charting the course through uncertainty. They must inspire others to take risks while guarding against dangers that could spell disaster.
Dr Dominic Irvine and Professor Emeritus Simon Jobson
The sources for this series of articles on risk are appended to the end of Part 3.