“That which a team does not want to discuss, it most needs to discuss.” – Paul Gibbons***
Have you ever sat in a meeting or watched major leaders and found yourself wondering if you were in the twilight zone? I’ll give you some examples.
Testing Review
I once had the opportunity to manage a group of interpreters. No I don’t speak a language other than English but because of my passion for culturally competent healthcare and knowing that that is not possible for Limited or Non-English Speaking Patients without an interpreter, I took on the management and development of that service program.
A consultant was in the midst of evaluating the strengths and opportunities for our program so we paid him to draft testing documents we could use for several languages. While he would have the documents translated into the languages needed, we would have our own staff verify the accuracy and finalize the translations prior to initial testing implementation.
We had the deadlines set. We had a strong, highly skilled, capable team of interpreters and translators (not the same thing by the way) prepped and ready. We shared the process in advance so everyone would know what was happening, what was coming and what needed to be done when documents were received. When the test documents were finally finished and received from the consultant, we shared them with the individuals who were to comb over the documents and scrutinize anything that wasn’t accurate or could pose unnecessary linguistic challenges for individuals taking the test in Spanish or Russian. We later held discussions in department meetings to obtain feedback on how things were looking and any major concerns. There was very little exchange of information. Everyone pretty much agreed that any minor corrections were made and all was well. I stressed the importance of the documents and that any suggestions or changes should be discussed. Blank stares and nods of agreement were the response. There may have been one person who had something to say but nothing huge came up. All was fine. No one dissented.
Time passed. We were ready to use the testing, and wouldn’t you know, a little birdie came to my office to tell me that there were some significant errors in the test for one of the languages. Then came another birdie about the other language. Then a hallway conversation with another employee about the many errors that she found. I cannot describe my emotions in those moments. Each of these individuals, and those referred to as having expressed concerns, were all in the meetings and had said nothing. They had reviewed the documents, and said nothing. Yet here I was hearing from individuals that which could and should have been said in the meetings. As a diversity practitioner, I was accustomed to meetings after the meetings and the importance of valuing differences in and around meetings, so I know there are ways to facilitate meetings to ensure everyone gets an opportunity to speak and be heard. I know that some people express themselves easier outside of group settings until they are comfortable. But these were vocal, highly skilled individuals who in most cases were far from shy or uncomfortable. No one wanted to say anything that someone else wasn’t saying. No one wanted to be the odd one out.
The Bombing of Pearl Harbor
Many of the senior officers at Pearl Harbor failed to take warnings of potential Japanese invasion from Washington DC seriously despite the fact that Japanese messages had been intercepted. Those who did not take action believed that the Japanese wouldn’t dare attempt an attack against the U.S. because they would recognize the ineffectiveness of war against the United States. No one dared to think or act contrary to those in charge who figured, there was no way the Japanese would come against us. As a result, 2,403 Americans were killed, and 1,143 were wounded. Eighteen ships were sunk or run aground, five of which were battleships.
Watergate
The Watergate Scandal was a political scandal in the U.S. involving President Richard Nixon and officials from his administration from 1972 to 1974 which ultimately led to Nixon’s resignation. The scandal stemmed from the Nixon administration’s subsequent attempts to cover up its involvement in the June 17, 1972 failed break-in of the Democratic National Committee headquarters in Washington, D.C. Initially many supporters and politicians within the same political party refused to believe that Nixon was guilty of any wrong doing. Multiple decisions, actions and inactions occurred in an attempt to maintain solidarity and support of the president and continued until the media continued to probe and reveal that the crimes committed were even more serious and ran much deeper than anyone initially realized. As time would tell, there were 69 people indicted and 48 people were convicted (many of whom were top Nixon administration officials).
In each of these examples, the individuals were victims of what is called “Groupthink”!
“Groupthink” is a psychological theory of functioning within a group of people who have such a strong desire for harmony or conformity in the group that it ultimately results in irrational or dysfunctional thinking and decision making. The group minimizes conflict and reaches consensus by agreeing at all costs, leaving critical thinking and the value it brings, out of the process.
“Groupthink” is an enemy to innovation and creativity. It’s also an enemy to independence and common sense.
Causes of Groupthink
How common or likely is this psychological phenomenon in the operation of the average group? It is quite likely and quite common if the right circumstances exist. Groupthink is more likely to occur in situations where:
Group members are very similar to one another thus the group lacks diversity
Groups in which an influential and charismatic leader commands the group
The group or organization in which the group exists, lacks formal policies and procedures
Situations where said group is placed under great stress, time pressures or face moral dilemmas can also increase the occurrence of groupthink.
Eight Signs of Groupthink
While every situation we are faced with in leading groups may not lead to nation-wide disaster, war or scandal, the truth is Groupthink can destroy the goal attainment and success of any well-meaning group. As leaders, not only should we self-analyze to ensure we are not causing the rise of Groupthink within our own teams but we must also ensure that we don’t have small groups that form within our organizations, churches, businesses that house the unproductive traits that Groupthink produces.
- Interpersonal Pressure to conform is frequently placed on members who ask questions, and those who question the group are often seen as disloyal or traitors.
- Illusions of Invulnerability lead members of the group to be overly optimistic and engage in risk-taking.
- Unquestioned Beliefs lead members to ignore possible moral problems and ignore the consequences of individual and group actions.
- Rationalizing prevents members from reconsidering their beliefs and causes them to ignore warning signs.
- Stereotyping leads members of the in-group to ignore or even demonize perceived members of the out-group who oppose or challenge the group’s ideas.
- Self–censorship is enforced to ensure people who might have doubts to hide their fears or uncertainties and abstain from sharing with others in the group.
- “Mindguards” are put in place by individuals who proceed to censor or hide any opposing or potentially “controversial” information from the group.
- Illusions of Unanimity guide members’ thinking to maintain the belief that everyone is in agreement and feels the same way.
Preventing Groupthink
Whether it exists in your ranks or you want to make sure it never rears its ugly head, there are ways we can prevent our teams from getting caught up in this irrational form of operation. It should always be our goal to encourage creativity and ingenuity in the work and services we provide. Others are counting on us for the best products, the best ministry, and the best service in whatever area we lead. This cannot be done effectively if we stifle or allow the stifling of others who might otherwise bring the greatest of ideas and gifts to the table. We can take a proactive approach to preventing this level of stagnation:
1. Habitually Form Diverse Groups
There are many dimensions of diversity besides racial and ethnic. Choose individuals who are diverse in multiple ways, gender, race, ethnicity and culture included. Seek out individuals with diversity of thought, communication, skill and problem solving styles.
2. Encourage Honesty
Be very vocal in letting people know that you value their opinions and that you want them to be honest in sharing ideas and suggestions. I have, however, witnessed such statements on many occasions only to watch the same individual, censor or in some other way apply interpersonal pressure and intimidation towards anyone who displays a thought or opinion that opposes the leaders. The leader in such cases seemed to view the opposing thought as a personal affront. Though it may be subtle, everyone in the room quickly comes to understand, not to challenge, oppose or even question them again. If we want to be impactful leaders, we can’t be that person. Have integrity when encouraging honesty!
3. Withhold Your Opinion
When meeting and making decisions, as a leader keep your opinion to yourself so you do not influence the others in the room. No matter how much you encourage independence, some are going to acquiesce to your opinion simply because you are the leader and they want to remain in agreement with you.
4. Have Someone Within the Group Serve as the Debater
Some would call it the Devil’s Advocate. I’m not comfortable with the term. So I’ll say “debater.” Have this person actively challenging the ideas put forth by others throughout the decision making process. You can rotate this responsibility and draw a name at the beginning of each meeting to determine who will play this roll in the meeting.
5. Give Opportunity Between Meetings
Some people may still feel intimidated or simply shy or uncomfortable sharing in front of the whole group. Make it comfortable for them to approach you after the meeting or send you other thoughts or ideas through other methods of communication, i.e. email. Encourage discussion in the meeting but let people know after the discussion that if they come up with other thoughts or concerns that you welcome it.
6. Get Outside Input
Whether you talk to an external expert, colleague or do some benchmarking with other organizations similar to your own, check to see what others are doing and how and whether your group’s idea is as good as you think it is.
Concluding Thoughts
Keeping people actively engaged and encouraged to participate and share is so vitally important to the growth and development of any team and any leader. We cannot rely solely on our own thoughts and experiences. We must rely on others in order to expand our abilities and meet our challenges. In doing this, we cannot shy away from the un-pleasantries of group behaviors but we will face them head on and plan for them. We’ll prepare for them. We’ll be ready to remove them before they get started. Great leaders don’t run from danger; we run toward it!