ABN: 33 779 265 852

Beware the Groupthink Syndrome (Part 2)

by Bruce D. Watson, Principal and Proprietor, HEADS TOGETHER © 2005

Recently we looked at the Groupthink Syndrome as described by Irving Janis (Beware the Groupthink Syndrome Part1). He explains about people often having more concern for retaining the approval of the fellow members of a group, or one board member in particular, than coming up with appropriate solutions to the issues at hand. Janis also reports on his observations of a pattern of concurrence-seeking behaviour in other face-to-face groups, particularly where a “we-feeling” of solidarity is running high.

Janis readily accepts that dealing with Groupthink is not easy .  Where Groupthink has become a problem I think it is useful to look at the approaches he has suggested because they can, at least, act as a guide or framework. "Certain of the anti-groupthink procedures might also counteract initial biases of the members, prevent pluralistic ignorance and eliminate other sources of error that can arise independently of groupthink.

I have drawn on the work of Janis together with my own thoughts based on my experiences.

1. Assigning the role of 'critical evaluator' to each member.

The main aim here is to stop spontaneous and 'mindless' consensus. Like most things, to be successful this approach needs to be fully embraced by and have the full support of the organisation senior employees. It can mean a significant shift for some managers, for example, to be prepared to even hear opposing views let alone adopt the outcomes if they differ from what they have prompted all along. I suspect that we have all experienced an all-knowing boss who uses the rhetoric of openness to all views then does what they want anyway.

I recall one occasion in a meeting where a member had asked a legitimate and timely question over an important issue and the boss of a large academic institution, who was a guest at a department meeting, locked eyes with the questioner, grimaced and said, "If that is the standard of questioning from this department it shows that we have a long way to go." On another occasion in an even larger gathering the response to a question was, "Well, I would have hoped that you had been listening to my presentation because I have already addressed that point". Not many questions, if any, followed but clearly the boss had effectively terminated any questioning or discussion on the matters of concern, a technique he continued throughout his career. Interestingly, it was only a matter of time and the organisation imploded on itself.

The responsible person needs to be able to honestly convey by their own actions that they value critical appraisal over more traditional forms of deference. If this step is not achieved the group is likely to simply resort to pleasing the boss and not 'rocking the boat' unnecessarily. More strongly put, the boss needs to be capable of showing that he or she can be appropriately influenced by those who disagree with him and not try and retain an air of infallibility at any cost.

The things to look for when adopting the 'critical evaluator' approach are:

* unnecessarily prolonged debates (see Flights of Fallacy)

* damaged feelings - feelings of rejection, depression, and anger effect morale and relationships

Therefore, in-service training is likely to be essential to avoid the pitfalls of uninhibited debate both for members and the chairperson. A lot will still depend on the personalities and backgrounds of all involved.

2. Impartiality on the part of the responsible person.

The expectation of this approach is to counteract the strong possibility of simple conformity to the boss's view. To be effective, the boss needs to limit debriefings to unbiased statements about a problem and available resources without specifically advocating for a particular outcome or proposal. Employees or advisers, then, are in an open environment to explore the alternatives widely.

One of my experiences involves a boss who had delegated responsibility for a no-holds-barred report on the financial situation of a large organisation. When he was presented with the consolidated report he advised the financial head that it was too negative and ordered that it be re-written. The financial head refused and resigned. In frustration, the boss took matters into his own hands and made the 'necessary' adjustments to the report before presentation to the board. It was only a matter of time and the organisation virtually collapsed, after the boss's retirement and payout!

The hazards to bear in mind are:

* there is a potential for a falling-out between the boss and the members, particulary if the boss sees a consensus that goes against his preferred outcome

* even if a rift does not develop, the boss may become frustrated and more directive than before

It seems that this procedure will work only when the boss can be genuinely open-minded in all stages and values the judgment of the group sufficiently to not use power when a displeasing consensus is reached.

3. Setting up several independent groups.

The idea here is to prevent insulation of an executive in-group from running rough shot over information and considered judgments from well-qualified outsiders. It involves routinely setting up independent groups to work on the same issue or problem, each group having a different leader.

 Objections raised to this approach include:

* commercial-in-confidence, or other similar security issues, might be compromised

* intra-organisation politics will take over as the number of organisation units represented increases

* when several groups are involved a 'let the others do it' attitude might be encouraged

* successive interim approval processes can be so impressive that a careful evaluation is not made at any stage

As an illustration of an executive in-group running rough shot over judgments of well-qualified outsiders I recall a boss who wanted to fully upgrade an administrative computer system so that there was standardisation across the whole organisation. During the course of the project, a panel of intra-organisation unit representatives formally reported on the flaws of what was being developed and brought it to the attention of the boss. The boss received the report and she brought it to the attention of her handpicked executive in-group. The in-group totally disregarded the advice of the panel and forged ahead. On implementation, the administrative computer system did not work, years of records were lost and millions of dollars wasted.

To be successful, the independent group approach probably requires guidelines to be formulated that define the role of participants and the appointment of participants who can be counted on to assess objectively the potential gains and losses. Of course, the alignment of the boss and the executive in-group to the cause and processes is crucial.

This article goes a little way to opening up the discussion to overcome the negative effects of groupthink. The three suggestions above provide some of the directions that may be taken but there are more that will suit the unique situation of individual organisations. "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" (George Santayana).

Reference: Groupthink, Irving L. Janis, 2nd Edition, Houghton Mifflin, 1982

Dr. Bruce D Watson,

Principal and Proprietor,

HEADS TOGETHER

April 2005

© HEADS TOGETHER,

ABN: 33 779 265 852

Reprint Permission

This content may be copied in its full and unabridged form for non-profit education use provided that all copyright, contact, and creation information is given, and the source is clearly indicated as www.headstogether.com.au
Written permission is required for any other use.

All rights reserved.

Please use the Contact Us button in the left column.