Group Think Today
Irving Janis, in his landmark 1977 book “Decision making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment”, described the phenomenon known as Group Think.
Boiled down, Group Think works like this: When you get a lot of people together who have the same ideas, and those people are not exposed to outside ideas, the group’s chances of making bad decisions are heightened. In some cases, dramatically so.
Group Think works not only to keep competing viewpoints from gaining a hearing, however. It also works to elevate the original, closely held ideas of the group, blurring the lines between belief and ideology, dogma and obsession.
Janis discusses several symptoms of Group Think. Read these carefully:
1. Illusion of Invulnerability: Members ignore obvious danger, take extreme risk, and are overly optimistic.
2. Collective Rationalization: Members discredit and explain away warning contrary to group thinking.
3. Illusion of Morality: Members believe their decisions are morally correct, ignoring the ethical consequences of their decisions.
4. Excessive Stereotyping: The group constructs negative stereotypes of rivals outside the group.
5. Pressure for Conformity: Members pressure any in the group who express arguments against the group's stereotypes, illusions, or commitments, viewing such opposition as disloyalty.
6. Self-Censorship: Members withhold their dissenting views and counter-arguments.
7. Illusion of Unanimity: Members perceive falsely that everyone agrees with the group's decision; silence is seen as consent.
8. Mindguards: Some members appoint themselves to the role of protecting the group from adverse information that might threaten group complacency.
Good organizations always want to avoid Group Think, and most have policies in place to ensure that a proper diversity of thought is present.
What kind of organization would intentionally invite Group Think? Most organizations serve a constituency of some sort or another, which creates a Darwinian need to make good decisions; otherwise their organization will be replaced by another organization capable of making better decisions. The organization’s accountability to the constituency, and the constituency’s ability to assess whether the organization is successful hold this natural balance together.
But what happens if the constituency can no longer agree on what makes a “successful” organization? And what happens when that organization no longer feels accountable to its constituency?
Strong organizations don’t run from alternate viewpoints. They encourage them, at least to a point. Strong organizations with strong thinkers backing strong ideas need not fear alternatives. If the alternatives are given a fair hearing and are inferior, the strong organization maintains its hold. If, as often happens in good organizations, alternative views are incorporated into the overall concept, that also serves to advance the power of the organization, through better decision-making as well as a better working relationship with all interested parties.
Weak organizations with weak viewpoints, on the other hand, must suppress competing realities. The weak organization is characterized by an inability to maintain its course when weighing alternatives. If the ideas of the organization can’t be defended by the organization, it risks discredit at the hands of those offering alternative views. Thus, the alternatives must be eliminated from the discussion. The only way for a weak group with weak ideas to maintain power is to horde power. There can be no meaningful discussion of alternatives, no dissent.
Nothing is more dangerous to a weak organization than dissent.
Nothing is more prized by a weak organization than loyalty, the quality of never offering dissent.
10:25:25 PM 
|
