Re: Group Think
From: Robin Alexander (
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2011 12:26:30 -0700 (PDT)
We had a situation similar to what Norman describes but found a good way
out of it. We had a pet policy brought to the group after quite a bit of
work and compromise (we have a surprising degree of polarization around
pets - surprising to me anyway). There was some pressure to accept the
proposal but those who were opposed stood fast and over the next few
months a small group consisting of the "extreme" ends of the issue as well
as some moderates met frequently and managed to hash out a policy everyone
could live with if not totally happily. Thus we avoided a vote or
"forcing" consensus on the group. Many of us never thought that we could
pull it off and we were very happy that we did. So the key was
incorporating the objectors and their willingness to be incorporated into
the working group and the willingness on all sides to make (significant to
them) compromises.

Robin A.
(no flames please)

-----Original Message-----
From: Norman Gauss [mailto:normangauss [at]]
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2011 11:09 PM
To: 'Cohousing-L'
Subject: Re: [C-L]_ Group Think

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

 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]]
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
in action, the key characteristics of the group that led to it are 1)
is a sense of perceived danger from outside, 2) any hint of questioning
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
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]]
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

"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
thinking will be replaced by group-think, which is likely to result in
irrational and dehumanizing actions directed against and out-group."
Janis, 1972.



Sharon Villines

Takoma Village Cohousing, Washington DC


Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at:
Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at:

Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at:

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.