Groupthink

There is a person in my department, let’s call her Susan, who is very intimidating in meetings. When we have a discussion or meeting it’s her way or the highway. In meetings there is generally no one who will stand up to her. Let’s have some background for perspective. Susan has been at the company for twenty-five years and knows everything. She is the historian who remembers everyone and everything we have ever tried.
The director of our department recently left for another job. In her place we have an interim director who is not trained to be a manager. So it can be hard for the interim director to rein in the group during a meeting. In one case, we had a meeting to discuss whether we should start implementing a certain process.
In informal talks before the meeting, a few of us had thought the process would be helpful and a good move for the department.
During the meeting however, Susan was dead set against any change. As soon as we got to this agenda item, she was quite vocal about her opposition. She told us how this had been tried in the past and it just didn’t work. She told us it was going to confuse the employees. And she told us that the way we were doing it now worked and there was no reason to change. We all looked at each other surreptitiously and listened in silence. At the end of her spiel, we all just weakly agreed with her.
After the meeting a few of us got together and talked about how we really didn’t agree with her but it was no use going against her.
She was the one who was here the longest, she knew everything and none of us could stand up to her. We frustratingly discussed her as another meeting went down in flames because of Susan and our cowardice. And really, our leader’s incompetence was a factor too. In the above situation, I can see that there are a couple of different examples of Groupthink occurring. First, Self-Censorship, which is when an individual decides not to say, or do something that may offend someone else. In our case, we didn’t want to get Susan going on a rant because we dared to oppose her. We were afraid of her. Trust me, we had seen it happen when someone clashed with her and it was not pretty.
The second example of Groupthink as Irving Janus identified it is Illusions of Unanimity. In the meeting we all kept silent and in doing so gave Susan the impression that we agreed with her. This is particularly dangerous in some respects because it causes each person to suppress their feelings and to go along with the status quo. We don’t think about the cost of going along with Susan, we only worry about the here and now of arguing with her or disagreeing with her opinion. As Ben Carlson wrote “Be aware of the consequences if/when the group is wrong.” We can’t worry about the consequences if we don’t state our
thoughts.
These are both examples of Type III, or Pressures toward Uniformity Groupthink. You might think of it as herd mentality as well. In my department’s case, I think we are all afraid of confrontation. We want to be seen as politically correct and want to make sure that everyone has a voice, that we dare not dissent. In reality, our way is the opposite of giving everyone a chance to voice their opinion.
In these situations, as stated in our lectures, conclusions can be reached and decisions can be arrived at without anyone having a vote. These decisions are reached by discussion, but if the debate is one sided and anyone who is opposed says nothing or just goes along, then it’s really not a discussion. If I have made my choice about something but don’t say anything in the meeting, then my choice is taken away from me.

Reading an article recently about Groupthink by Susan Cain, she asserts “brainstorming sessions are one of the worst possible ways to stimulate creativity.” I disagree with that wholeheartedly. As asserted in our lecture, techniques such as the Six Hat Method (or Seven Hat) by Edward de Bono can aid in good discussions and open conversation. Having a plan gives support for meeting control as well. From the lecture, the Seven Hat method consists of the following: 1. Blue Hat for thinking about how we want to think about a particular topic;
2. White Hat for assembling available facts (evidence, information);
3. Black Hat for all negative arguments;
4. Yellow Hat for all positive arguments;
5. Red Hat for surfacing feelings (emotional reactions);
6. Green Hat for creative thinking.
7. Orange Hat for thinking about the impact of our decision on the legitimate interests of others (the ethics hat).
One countermeasure to our Susan problem would be to have the leader of the meeting be a Blue Hat all the time, in order to decide what is worth discussing and when to move on. And we should all keep our Orange Hats on all the time. How is our decision, or lack thereof, going to affect things? We must be mindful that even no action is a decision. Using our Red Hats is going to be important too, as we have to make sure we are voicing how we feel and not suppressing our feelings. Clear communication is the best method for a productive meeting.
Using another technique such as the ACBD method, which stands for Always Consult Before Deciding, can also help to release a group from its torpor. By using this method, someone who will be directly affected by the decision being made is consulted. Getting someone’s take on the situation, someone who will be implementing the change or will be affected by the change, is invaluable. It helps to have a reality check as to how the decision will affect employees.
A productive and equitable business meeting consists of open and forthright discussion without fear of reprisal. It also needs to be a place where someone can disagree with someone and not be afraid of a confrontation. I think we are all a little bit scared of upsetting another person and so we just don’t say anything. The Seven Hat method as well as the ACBD method have given me some helpful tools to bring to the table for my next meeting.