new era hats

new era hats -

Human Resource Destruction (HRD)

GROUPTHINK

By

VIKRAM KARVE

Tradition has it that conflict is bad, it's something to be avoided. The culture of many organizations implies explicitly or implicitly that conflict should be suppressed and eliminated. It is common for managers to perceive intra-organizational conflict as being dysfunctional for the achievement of organizational goals. Most of us still cling to the idea that good managers resolve conflict.

Current thinking disputes this view. In the absence of conflicting opinions, harmonious tranquil work groups are prone to becoming new era hats static, apathetic and unresponsive to pressures for change and innovation. They also risk the danger of becoming so self-satisfied, that dissenting views ? which may offer important alternative information ? are shut out. In short, they fall victims to a syndrome called "GROUPTHINK"

In a study of public policy decision fiascoes, I.L new era hats Janis identified "GROUPTHINK" as a major cause of poor decision making. As he describes it, ‘groupthink' occurs when decision makers who work closely together develop a high degree of solidarity that clouds their vision, leading them to suppress conflicting views and negative feelings about proposals, consciously or unconsciously. A manifestation of the groupthink phenomenon is the staggering irrationality which can beset the thinking of the otherwise highly competent, intelligent, conscientious individuals when they begin acting as a group or team.

Effect and Symptoms of Groupthink

The net effect on the group is that it overestimates its power and morality, it creates pressures for uniformity, and its members become close-minded, living in ivory towers. Some manifestations are the illusions of invulnerability and the encouragement to take great risks and to ignore the ethical or moral aspects of their decisions and actions.

This author has witnessed close-mindedness on the part of several managers which then permeated their teams. One project manager took this to the extreme and in effect defined his environment as consisting of two kinds of people, either friends or enemies. The friends were people who completely agreed with his favoured solutions and supported his project. All others were enemies. Soon his entire project team was echoing similar sentiments having fallen victim to "GROUPTHINK", resulting in unbending positions, heated arguments and subsequent lack of respect for anyone who disagreed with them; the ultimate consequences can easily be guessed.

The symptoms of groupthink include:

(i) An illusion of invulnerability that becomes shared by most members of the group.

(ii) Collective attempts to ignore or rationalize away items of information which might otherwise lead the group to reconsider shaky but cherished assumptions.

(iii) An unquestioned belief in the group's inherent morality, thus enabling members to overlook the ethical consequences of their decisions.

(iv) Stereotyping the dissenters as either too evil for negotiation or too stupid and feeble to merit consideration.

(v) A shared illusion of new era hats unanimity in a majority viewpoint, augmented by the false assumption that silence means consent.