|
Groupthink is a
phenomenon that occurs when a strong leader asserts control over a group
in a way that prevents the normal checks and balances from the workplace.
Group-think occurs when members of a team have concerns, but try to avoid
conflict by remaining silent and failing to express those concerns.
Groupthink was behind the decision to
enter the war in Viet Nam even though the decision was flawed, the
decision to launch the shuttle Challenger with damaged seals, and
thalidomide that was known in advance to cause serious birth defects.
Almost all major bad decisions made by companies have included some
elements of Groupthink.
Let’s take a look at groupthink and see how destructive it can be
to an organization. Groupthink occurs when managers attempt to avoid
conflict or what is perceived as problems within the organization. This
may be as simple as discouraging employees from questioning management
decisions to attempting to handle serious problems within the
organization. Regardless of the scope of the issues in the organization,
the mere attempt to reduce or eliminate employee concerns can trigger the
process. Employees will eventually, or quickly, begin to withdraw their
opposition or questioning of things they do not understand. This is the
first step in the elimination of questions and the first step in the
elimination of good ideas or suggestions.
Reducing communications between employer and employee is just the
first step in a declining situation. The following symptoms will apply to
the members of a work team. It must be considered that any group of
employees is actually a team regardless of the size. It should also be
noted that conflict coming from customers can create similar symptom and
side-effects. Consider how many of these can occur between the owner of a
business and the customers.
Invulnerability: The first serious side effect of managing to avoid
conflict is the false sense of being invulnerable. This comes from
decisions not being challenged and is rein-forced by the artificial
politeness that often occurs when employees or customers do not feel they
are in a position to question or challenge the businessperson. The sense
of in-vulnerability can lead to poor decisions and the assumption of very
high risks.
Rationale: As we begin to think that our decisions are not
challenged by many because they are good decisions, we start to discount
the remaining challenges or questions to our judgment by developing
interesting rationalizations to discredit those who are questioning or
challenging the management of the company. Discounting the views of others
al-lows us to ignore them as not being worthy of consideration and is part
of the process of ignoring things that need to be addressed.
 |
|
Morality: With the ability to discount
dissenters, the group or leader may develop a higher sense of morality
that is attached to the group or leader. This aids in the process of
allowing the group or leader to more effectively discredit those who
question or challenge the authority of the leader or group. The pursuit of
a higher cause can be a very powerful thing when it comes to handling
subordinates.
Stereotypes: The use of stereotypes or labels makes it very easy
for the group or leader to no longer have to view people as people. It
allows the team or leader to quickly label a person as being enemy-like or
to further discredit them. This is often found when managers use
stereotyping terms like “Young Turk” or “disgruntled.” Applying stereotype
labels allows other employees or customers to quickly discount the
stereotyped person and is very dangerous.
Pressure: Pressure is placed on those who are
questioning authority to conform or face some form of punishment. These
pressures may come directly from the leader or from other people who are
part of the group, including customers. Although this is usually found
among members of a work group, I have seen acquainted customers apply
pressure on other customers to abandon their complaint or issue and adopt
their own position. This pressure can be quite effective against employees
or customers who are not confident with their own positions.
Self-censorship: With pressure being applied to dissenting
employees or customers, the people stop expressing their concerns in order
to avoid conflict in the group. Employees may have serious concerns about
the direction of management, but they keep these concerns to themselves
because expressing them results in a worse situation for them. Customers
who might have offered suggestions or constructive criticism just say
nothing and provide only positive feedback that may not be correct.
Unanimity: The absence of questions or expressed concerns by either
employees or customers allows the manager or leader to believe there are
no challenges. This creates a false sense of unanimity that reinforces the
decisions of the leader and allows the leader to rationalize that no
opposition or challenges to an idea verifies the righteous nature of the
idea or action. The leader adopts new policies, products, or decisions
believing that everyone is in agreement because there is no disagreement.
Conflicting opinions are being avoided in the daily operation of the
business, but fundamental management principles are being lost.
Mindguards: As the effects of groupthink take
effect, some people begin to appoint themselves as protectors of the
leader, or mindguards. They begin to influence other people to not express
an opinion or to challenge authority and allow people to conform without
having to experience any of the discomfort of learning for themselves that
their opinions or questions are unappreciated. This is evidenced by
expressions such as, “kept your opinion to yourself and everyone will get
along just fine.” This tends to further discourage people from helping the
leader
|
The net effect of these traits is that the
leader or business owner is prevented from receiving accurate feedback on
the management of the business. Without this important information, the
leader will make questionable decisions. Think of it as trying to drive
from one place to another by following a roadmap. The leader is holding
the map upside down and going in the wrong direction and everyone avoids
conflict by not pointing out the mistake. Regardless of the movement in
the wrong direction, the leader is not aware of the problem and continues
in the wrong direction.
It is important to note that people who have become victims of
groupthink cannot see these symptoms and it requires an outsider to
objectively analyze, diagnose, and develop a cure. A regular
organizational checkup is necessary to assure that managers or owners are
making decisions using effective and accurate information. I have found
the higher in an organization that one goes, the more difficult it is to
get accurate and reliable information from subordinates who are avoiding
conflict.
As mentioned on many occasions, the same dynamics can be found with
customers. It is important to make business decisions with good feedback
from our customers on the goods and services they need. When the customers
feel their opinions are not being heard, they will stop providing accurate
feedback to help manage the business. I have seen occasions where dismal
looking stores drew compliments from customers who were just waiting for
the new competitor to open. They had make suggestions to management, but
were told they were wrong. People don’t continue providing valuable
feedback to those who treat them as being wrong.
That means that management must recognize that differing opinions
are common, necessary, and should be regarded as a sign of a healthy
business environment where people may contribute their ideas that are
different from others. Remember that conflict is evidence of conflicting
opinions or perceptions that need to be explored carefully to deter-mine
the viability of the assumptions we make when making decisions. Always
remember that a decision based on flawed information will be less
effective than one made with good information.
Those leaders who are in a position to
have decisions influenced by groupthink will not be able to detect its
presence. It requires the observation of a skilled professional who
can observe the dynamics of the group and identify the symptoms. The
outside consultant can recommend safeguards to help avoid the problem in
the future.
|
