Re: Consensus/Groupthink | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: racheli (racheli![]() |
|
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 07:55:43 -0700 (PDT) |
> If the atmosphere of trust is pervasive in the group, "groupthink" >indeed can be present, especially if the trusted one is respected, does a >convincing sales presentation, or has a powerful potentially intimidating >presence and exhibits irritation at being asked penetrating questions. I don't understand the above statement: Trust emerges, IMO, out of experiences where people feel respected/heard even when they hold dissenting views. Someone who is intimidating and short-tempered/irritated isn't going to be trusted (in the way that I understand the concept). Perhaps people would go along in order to save themselves pain, but what does that have to do with "groupthink"? > Group cohesion may make decision making more efficient, but it >certainly does not invite critical thinking. I guess that would depend on what one means by "group cohesion". If it means that people are pressured to all-think-the-same, then I agree that critical thinking/feeling is being undermined. But cohesion might mean that people have gotten to know each other so well, that they understand each other's concerns without having to talk and hash out things at great length, and that it's easier for them to get to a point where there is a clear "sense of the group"... This is good (although utterly illusive in my community), and can certainly shorten the time needed to reach consensus. If the purpose is to hurry >along the agenda, then group cohesion is desirable. However, it may >stifle imaginative thinking. I think that if a group can be invited to >think in a monolithic way, the members are more content being a part of >the group. But, wise decisions are less likely to occur with that >mindset. Indeed, harsh feelings can arise with criticism, but the group >benefits, and when the dust settles, the final result will be superior. >And for the most part, any bruised feelings will heal with time. I have a great difficulty understanding what it mean to say that "if a group can be invited to think in a monolithic way, the memebers are more content being a part of the group". I also read (and correct me if I'm wrong) a strong assumption that our mind works separately from our emotions, and that somehow hurting people on the way to achieving "superior results" is fine, because the people who got hurt will get over it... IMO It's essential to take care of how people feel while you go along, and see people's feeling as not being separate from their thinking. It is the suppression of feelings and "intuition" and over-reliance on what we are able to verbalize which is often the source of bad thinking and decision-making (for individuals, as well as for groups). R. ----------------------------------------------------------- racheli [at] sonoracohousing.com -----------------------------------------------------------
- Re: Formal Consensus, passivity & groupthink, (continued)
- Re: Formal Consensus, passivity & groupthink Ann Zabaldo, July 19 2004
- Re: Formal Consensus, passivity & groupthink - Ann Norm Gauss, July 19 2004
- Re: Formal Consensus, passivity & groupthink - Sharon Norm Gauss, July 19 2004
- Re: Consensus/Groupthink - Sandelin Norm Gauss, July 18 2004
- Re: Consensus/Groupthink racheli, July 27 2004
- Re: [C-L] cohousing book Elaine, September 15 2004
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.