That's why we have leaders. A leader evaluates arguments on all sides and picks a solution. Everyone focuses on that solution, because half-assed commitment fro

That's why we have leaders. A leader evaluates arguments on all sides and picks a solution. Everyone focuses on that solution, because half-assed commitment from any party has higher risks. If you disagree, voice it. If you don't voice it, nobody will hear it. Sometimes you were wrong or incomplete in your concern and it gets dismissed. And sometimes what you brought up just wasn't considered during the plans. For example, you're assaulting a terrorist building. The plan is to kick down the door and storm in. What if the door is booby trapped? A bad leader will ignore this and get everyone killed by the trap or claim credit when there is no trap. A bad follower will go in the window solo and get shot because of insufficient backup. A good leader will consider all options, like using a detector, another entry, or blowing the door up with explosives. Or manage risk - maybe there are no options and no time, and they have to kick the door in anyway. If the leader is truly bad, it's the group's responsibility to replace them, otherwise they too have everyone's blood on their hands.