The Traitor's Roundtable…Or Your Last Leadership Meeting?
I am obsessed with The Traitors!
What fascinates me about the show isn't just the gameplay, but what happens a few episodes in, once people actually start to know each other. That's when the relationships form and the tension sets in.
Players are still trying to win, but now they're voting off people they’ve come to call friends! They want to be a team, but they also want to protect themselves and be strategic.
At that point it stops being just good television and starts feeling like a masterclass in psychology. The show gets into groupthink, unconscious bias, and truly unhinged decision-making.
I watch The Traitors the same way I watch some leadership meetings: half entertained, half horrified.
The Roundtable as a Case Study in Bad Design
The roundtable gets me every time.
On the surface, it looks collaborative. Everyone has an "equal seat" and technically the same opportunity to speak. But if you've ever been in a meeting before (everyone), you know some people don't speak unless they're directly invited to do so, while others speak with complete abandon. Some people are tracking the content, some are tracking politics, and others are already in self-protection mode before the meeting even starts.
At The Traitors roundtable, much like in many meetings, no one actually owns the process. People vote, then act shocked by the outcome. In the corporate version, people leave the room wondering what just happened (or they're not-so-subtly texting under the table mid-meeting, trying to figure out how the conversation took that turn).
The roundtable looks collaborative, but it's deeply flawed.
The Problem: Human Brains + No Structure
We keep putting groups of people into high-stakes conversations without any structure to counteract human dynamics, and we get meetings that don’t work.
This won't be the first time I've talked about people leaving meetings saying, "What the f just happened in there?" We keep acting like putting smart people in a room is enough. It's not. Without structure, psychology fills the gap.
Symptom #1: Groupthink Disguised as Alignment
For many people being the outlier feels risky. So they default toward the middle and consensus because it’s safer. Silence starts masquerading as agreement, and less confident voices (the ones who might actually dissent) don’t feel comfortable speaking up or going against the grain.
Then a dominant voice emerges.
It’s often someone who was right once. Or someone who was previously rewarded for speaking up early. Or someone who simply sounds confident enough to move the room. Once that happens, the group starts echoing them.
On The Traitors, you see people voting to banish someone based on the most insane “evidence” simply because the accusation is delivered with confidence. People optimize for belonging, and in meetings, that first confident voice can end up carrying outsized influence.
The scariest thing about groupthink is that it feels like alignment. And the consequences of voting off a faithful or not standing up for what you know is right can cause deep regret.
Groupthink is what happens when:
No one is responsible for surfacing dissent.
No one is accountable for slowing momentum.
No one owns the quality of the decision.
Symptom #2: Unconscious Bias in Low-Information Rooms
This week, a director I work with said something that stuck with me:
“I don’t trust what’s happening in that room. I think so-and-so is in so-and-so’s ear, and decisions are being shaped elsewhere. So yes, I’m going into protection mode.”
This perfectly captures what happens when bias and missing information collide. When people sense uneven influence or politics happening behind the scenes, they stop optimizing for the best decision and start calculating personal risk. And that's exactly when unconscious bias takes over.
Unconscious bias loves low-information environments. When there’s limited proof, people start reaching for signals: confidence, familiarity, similarity, who seems trustworthy, and gut vibes.
In the workplace, we know exactly where this shows up: hiring decisions, performance narratives, and the premature labeling of someone as “difficult” or “not ready.” And, of course, the promotion conversations that feel objective but rarely are.
Human brains are wired to fill gaps. Bias rushes in when people aren't confident in the data, when standards aren't explicit, and when no one is responsible for separating evidence from vibes.
The Fix: Own the Process, Not the Outcome
If you’ve just recognized every meeting you’re in, here’s the most important reframe: the issue isn’t the people.
Smart, capable, well-intentioned humans will make strange decisions when the system asks them to do something their nervous systems weren’t designed for.
Focus on owning the process, not asking people to be braver or more rational.
My number one recommendation for high-stakes meetings is a neutral facilitator. When everyone has a stake in the outcome, a neutral party becomes incredibly helpful. You need someone whose job it is to manage the process and negate the politics.
A facilitator slows momentum, separates facts from interpretations, makes space for dissent, and interrupts false certainty. They actively solicit and protect minority views. They design how decisions get made, not just who wins them.
Tools You Can Use Right Now
If you don’t have a neutral facilitator, there are a few simple tools that can help introduce structure (but I AM available!).
Outside of a robust and pre-populated agenda…
Red Team Minute (2 minutes)
Why: Dissent disappears when it's socially risky. Make dissent a role, not a personality trait.
How: Assign one person to argue against the leading idea, even if they agree with it.
Ask: What's the strongest case this fails? What are we missing?
Fun Fact: This exercise was actually developed by the US Army.
One-Sentence Decision + Owner + Deadline (the anti-diffusion tool)
Why: "Toss it out and hope someone catches it" dies when you force a clean handoff.
How: End every meeting with one line in writing:
Decision: ___ | Owner: ___ | Due: ___ | First step (by EOD): ___
If you can't write it that simply, the decision probably isn't finished.
90 Second 360
Why: Surface what people aren't saying before it calcifies into resentment.
How: At the end of a high-stakes meeting, go around quickly (90 seconds per person, set a timer):
One thing I agree with
One thing I'm worried about
One thing I commit to
And for other useful ideas, check out some past newsletters:
My Bracket’s Busted, But My Team Norms Are Tight
Building a Culture of Feedback
On The Traitors, people are literally deciding who is and isn't trustworthy based on how someone passed the toast at breakfast. We have more tools at our disposal in the workplace.
We don’t have to be perfect, but we do have to be more deliberate. The bar isn’t “be unbiased”; it’s noticing when we’re telling ourselves a story and going back for the facts. Slow down, ask one better question, invite dissent, and write down the decision and who owns it.
We don't have to vote people off the island based on gut alone. We can make collective decisions grounded in data. And if that feels hard in the room you're in? It's probably not a character flaw, just a design problem.
