Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Group Think

[Joanie Connors (jvcphd]

Groupthink includes all of these examples. It is a very powerful
phenomena that causes even presidents and scholars to contribute to
their own downfall.

The classic definition of groupthink is when group members are drawn
to minimize differences (not express them) in order to avoid conflict,
so they conform to an easy, nondiscerning way of thinking.

Groups that fall into this are generally not very productive, and
their decisions are more prone to errors  (the classic example is the
Kennedy cabinet's decision to stage the Bay of Pigs invasion), because
they don't examine alternatives or consequences. The group mind also
becomes less creative, thinking less outside the box.

When groupthink has taken hold of a group, then those who express
minority opinions (dissent, offer alternatives) are pressured to
conform, scapegoated and/or ejected from the group. It is very painful
and leads to the end of many groups and communities.

When conditions of fear or threat exist or are suspected, then group
conformity pressures become multiplied and punishment for dissent
usually becomes harsher.

Janis is right that a super-nice leadership/core group will often draw
people into groupthink more quickly, but it's not always what happens.
Good leadership can be nice and still encourage people to examine
alternatives. Good leaders can respond positively to dissent, and help
other members to accept and work with those who disagree.

I think the best group leadership balances kindness and encouraging
divergent thinking, including conflict. Conflict is not the problem
and needs to be allowed as long as it's in balance with positive
forces (group spirit, support, resolution...).

Good discussion!
Joanie Connors
Silver City EcoCommunity

On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Norman Gauss <normangauss [at] charter.net> 
wrote:
>
> I have seen group think in action when I have introduced cautions on
> proposals being deliberated in community meetings. I have been branded an
> obstructionist by group leaders if my arguments seem to detract from the
> proposal.
>
>  If the group is enthusiastic, the non-committed people are likely to go
> along with them.   Then the next step is consensus by the end of the
> meeting.  If that does not happen, the proposer may experience
> disappointment, which may weigh on the feelings of the group, thus
> discouraging such an outcome.  Also, if consensus is not reached, the
> community has to re-examine the issue in another meeting, thus risking a
> decline of group interest and patience to re-examine the proposal.
> Therefore, the sooner the community accepts the proposal the better, even if
> there are serious defects that need to be corrected.
>
> Sometimes a special committee may be selected to work on a proposal.  When
> the committee finally presents its proposal, there sometimes is pressure to
> accept it because, "They have worked long and hard on it and they deserve to
> have the proposal accepted".
>
> There is usually ovation when a proposal is consensed, as if the achievement
> is passage of the proposal rather taking time to be satisfied once passage
> has occurred.  Sometimes after passage, people ask questions on what they
> have just approved.
>
> Because of group think we have sometimes consensed on proposals on which
> later improvement was needed.  Of course, rehashing an issue can be boring
> to the membership.  If the facilitator does not feel that such an item
> should be put on the agenda because of little interest from the group, the
> item has been known to be omitted.
>
> Norm Gauss
> Oak Creek Commons
> Paso Robles, CA
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robin Alexander [mailto:alexande.robi [at] uwlax.edu]
> Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2011 8:59 AM
> To: Cohousing-L
> Subject: Re: [C-L]_ Group Think
>
>
> Very interesting and counter-intuitive to me. Where I have seen group-think
> in action, the key characteristics of the group that led to it are 1) there
> is a sense of perceived danger from outside, 2) any hint of questioning the
> emerging policy is seen as disloyalty to the group itself (not just the
> policy) and is not to be tolerated. Members who even bring up points for
> consideration are so branded and their ideas are not considered and if they
> persist they may be excluded from the group. This does not sound like
> amiability and esprit de corps to me. It seems to usually require a degree
> of paranoia in the group. It would be very interesting (and disturbing) if
> group-think would tend to arise *merely* from the existence of amiability
> and esprit de corps in the group.
>
>
>
> Robin A Alexander
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sharon Villines [mailto:sharon [at] sharonvillines.com]
> Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2011 9:08 AM
> To: Cohousing-L Cohousing-L
> Subject: [C-L]_ Group Think
>
>
>
>
>
> In working on another project I came across the original source of "group
> think".
>
>
>
> "The more amiability and esprit de corps among the members of the of a
> policy-making in-group, the greater is the danger that independent critical
> thinking will be replaced by group-think, which is likely to result in
> irrational and dehumanizing actions directed against and out-group." Irving
> Janis, 1972.
>
>
>
> Sharon
>
> ----
>
> Sharon Villines
>
> Takoma Village Cohousing, Washington DC
>
> http://www.takomavillage.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
>
> Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at:
>
> http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/
> _________________________________________________________________
> Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at:
> http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at:
> http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/
>
>
>