The Witch Hunt Leadership Lesson
The Witch Hunt Experiment:
A Surprising Lesson in Leadership
One morning, a teacher told their students that they were to play a game, as a part of the lessons of the Salem Witch Trials. “I'm going to come around and whisper to each of you whether you're a witch or a regular person,“ the teacher said out loud to the class.
The classroom was quiet. One by one, the teacher walked around the room, leaned in close, and whispered something into each student’s ear.
No one knew what the others had heard. Then came the challenge: “Form the largest group you can—but make sure there are no witches among you. If your group includes even one witch, you fail.”
The room buzzed with nervous energy. Students began scanning faces, searching for signs of deception. They started interrogating each other, judging each other. Some whispered, others pointed. A few were excluded without explanation. Tension rose. Accusations flew. Friendships strained. Groups formed – most of them very small - as they were convinced, they’d rooted out the witches.
Finally, the teacher asked: “Will the witches please stand?”
No one moved.
Confusion rippled through the room. Had someone misunderstood? Were the witches lying? Then the teacher revealed the truth: “None of you were witches. Every single one of you was told you were a regular person.”
Silence.
What had just happened wasn’t a prank—it was a powerful demonstration of how fear, ambiguity, and authority can fracture a group. With nothing more than a whispered message and a vague threat, the teacher had triggered suspicion, exclusion, and conformity. The students had created their own crisis.
This simple exercise—often used in history or psychology classes—offers a profound lesson in leadership. Whether you’re leading a startup, a school, or a global enterprise, the dynamics at play in that classroom mirror what happens in real organizations every day.
What the Witch Hunt Reveals About Leadership
1. Perception Drives Behaviour
People act based on what they believe to be true—not necessarily what is true. In the experiment, students believed witches existed, so they treated others with suspicion. In organizations, similar dynamics unfold when leaders fail to clarify roles, goals, or expectations. Ambiguity breeds fear, and fear distorts perception.
2. Ambiguity Is a Trust Killer
When people don’t know what’s expected—or how decisions are made—they fill in the blanks. Often, they assume the worst. Research in behavioural economics and organizational psychology confirms this: ambiguity reduces trust and increases defensive behaviour (van den Bos & Lind, 2002; Mayer et al., 1995).
3. Groupthink Is Real—and Risky
In the classroom, students conformed to the dominant narrative: “There are witches among us.” No one challenged the premise. This is classic groupthink—a phenomenon where loyalty to the group suppresses dissent and critical thinking (Janis, 1972). In corporate settings, groupthink leads to poor decisions, missed risks, and costly failures.
4. Authority Shapes Reality
The teacher’s whispered message carried weight. Even without evidence, students believed the setup and acted accordingly. This mirrors how leaders influence culture: their words, tone, and decisions shape how others interpret reality. Ethical leadership means using that influence responsibly—and teaching others to think critically.
Why This Matters Across Cultures and Industries
The beauty of this experiment is its universality. It doesn’t rely on language, technology, or cultural norms. It taps into basic human psychology: our need for belonging, our fear of exclusion, and our tendency to trust authority.
That’s why any leadership development system—especially one designed to be pen-and-paper, brain-based, and universally accessible—must address these dynamics head-on. Leaders everywhere face the same core challenge: how to build trust, clarity, and courage in environments that are often ambiguous and fast-moving.
From Classroom to Boardroom: A Leadership System That Works
In my leadership development program, we use simple tools to help leaders counter the very forces that the witch hunt experiment reveals. These tools are designed to be:
Evidence-based: Grounded in neuroscience, psychology, and organizational research
Universally applicable: No jargon, no tech barriers—just pen, paper, and reflection
Actionable: Clear steps that any leader can take to improve trust, clarity, and team dynamics
Let me show you two tools that directly address the core issues raised by the experiment.
Tool 1: Challenge Your Assumptions
Purpose: Helps leaders separate perception from reality, reduce bias, and make better decisions under uncertainty.
How to use it:
Write down a current decision or relationship you feel unsure about.
List 3–5 assumptions you’re making.
For each, note evidence for and against.
Brainstorm two alternative explanations.
Choose one assumption to test—write a low-cost action to gather more data.
Decide what you’ll do now, and what would make you change your mind.
Time frame: 15–20 minutes per case; use weekly on key decisions.
Why it works: This tool counters ambiguity and bias by forcing evidence-based thinking. It’s supported by research on trust under ambiguity (Baillon et al., 2021), cognitive bias (Kahneman, 2011), and organizational trust models (Mayer et al., 1995).
Connection to the experiment: In the witch hunt, students acted on untested assumptions. This tool teaches leaders to pause, reflect, and test before judging—preventing fear-driven decisions.
Tool 2: Create Space for Dissent
Purpose: Encourages respectful challenge and diverse viewpoints to improve decision quality and team safety.
How to use it:
Schedule a 10-minute “challenge round” in key meetings.
Ask: “What are the strongest reasons this could be wrong?”
Assign a rotating “devil’s advocate” to prepare counterarguments.
Post a speak-up rule: “Silence ≠ agreement.”
Close with two tests you’ll run and who owns them.
Time frame: 10–20 minutes per meeting; use on all high-stakes decisions.
Why it works: This tool combats groupthink and builds psychological safety. It’s backed by research from Amy Edmondson (1999), Irving Janis (1972), and studies on dissent and decision quality (Nemeth, 1986).
Connection to the experiment: In the classroom, no one challenged the premise. This tool institutionalizes dissent—ensuring that flawed assumptions are surfaced and tested.
Final Thought: Leadership Is a Choice
The witch hunt experiment shows how easily people fall into fear, conformity, and suspicion. But it also shows how powerful leadership can be—when it’s grounded in clarity, courage, and compassion.
With the right tools, any leader can create environments where trust thrives, ambiguity shrinks, and people feel safe to speak up. And you don’t need fancy software or expensive consultants to do it. Just pen, paper, and a commitment to lead with integrity.
This is what my leadership development system is all about. If you’re ready to build a team that thinks critically, collaborates deeply, and leads with purpose—start with these tools. And stay tuned for more leadership hacks in this series.
