We’re all familiar with the term “groupthink.” How does that dynamic play at Langley? Do we let it happen too much? Is groupthink ever good? Do we strike the right balance … or not?
I ask because the President-elect decried groupthink in these comments at a December 1 press conference in Chicago, when he introduced his national security cabinet members:
“I assembled this team because I’m a strong believer in strong personalities and strong opinions. I think that’s how the best decisions are made. One of the dangers in a White House, based on my reading of history, is that you get wrapped up in groupthink and everybody agrees with everything and there’s no discussion and there are no dissenting views. So I am going to be welcoming a vigorous debate inside the White House.”
Bloggers and other commentators have said much on those remarks. “If someone in the Cabinet or on his staff tries to undercut him in a meaningful way, he always can show him or her the door,” Ohio’s Lancaster Eagle Gazette newspaper editorialized. “The president would not be well-served, though, if his people never challenged his way of thinking. No manager is successful when surrounded by yes-men and women.”
From American Executive magazine:
“It only takes a few minutes of talking with Patrick Lencioni to realize that just about all the teams you’ve worked with in your career were dysfunctional. Lencioni talks about teams where the members trust each other enough to engage in healthy conflict, hold each other accountable, and are willing to subjugate their individual needs (or those of their department) for the good of the company.”
I don’t know about you, but that doesn’t sound like most of the teams I’ve been part of. Lencioni agrees. ‘Everyone talks about the importance of teamwork, but most teams are not prepared to do what’s necessary to be successful.’”
More about groupthink from Wikipedia:
“Groupthink is a type of thought exhibited by group members who try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas. Individual creativity, uniqueness, and independent thinking are lost in the pursuit of group cohesiveness, as are the advantages of reasonable balance in choice and thought that might normally be obtained by making decisions as a group.
During groupthink, members of the group avoid promoting viewpoints outside the comfort zone of consensus thinking. A variety of motives for this may exist such as a desire to avoid being seen as foolish, or a desire to avoid embarrassing or angering other members of the group. Groupthink may cause groups to make hasty, irrational decisions, where individual doubts are set aside, for fear of upsetting the group’s balance.”
So … we agree, right?
Yes? We’re All Individuals?
Certainly, it is risky having strong opinions and voicing them, but if it is the difference between letting something un-good go by unchallenged I’d rather have it than not. “Troublemakers” probably save more lives and resources, often at the expense of their careers, than is pleasant to contemplate.
I have heard a fair number of just this kind of story and I really hope that Shoot the Diagnostician mindset will fade out or be nuked from orbit.
John D. Rockefeller used the same method of selecting his board of directors of Standard Oil. Some were his former competitors, enemies etc. It is detailed in his biography that he would rest on a couch while the members of his board hashed out issues. After hearing the various point of view, he would then make his decision, which was final but not often based on his original assumptions. Most people also don’t know that the Charter for Standard Oil was written on one page of paper. Gee, what novel concepts…..Group think has evolved into an ego stroking feel good activity rather than a productive method of selecting the best course of action. So say I!