Tackling groupthink
Groupthink can be a killer to innovation, causing a consensus to form, with any contrary evidence rapidly rejected out of hand. This then feedsback so that dissenters then feel wary of raising alternative viewpoints and so the diagnosis deepens. Groupthink pioneer Irving Janis suggests that fighting it is all about vigilante decision making.
What this means in practice is trying to make the group aware of problems with the consensus and offer alternatives. To do this someone in the group has to be critical. To do this someone in the group has to be critical. Encouraging critical thinking is not easy, but it is possible. Try some of these on for size:
- Devil's advocate - Someone in the group has the role of playing devil's advocate, poking holes in the decision making process.
- The power of authentic dissent - Sometimes the devil's advocate isn't believed because they don't really believe the points they make. An authentic dissenter doesn't have these problems.
- Nurturing authentic dissent - Leaders play a key role here in encouraging dissent.
How have you avoided groupthink in your workplace?
Facebook
LinkedIn
Twitter
YouTube
Comments
Some good advice here, I would also suggest the rigour of De Bono's 'six thinking hats' approach to decision-making, encouraging the group to consider a problem, idea and decision from all angles.
I tried out the Six Thinking Hats thing once and it was interesting. My manager at the time didn't decide to keep it going though. Is it something you use often Margaret?
We use it in our management meetings as well as in training sessions as appropriate. It can also be used very effectively on your own to be sure you are considering all aspects.
In our management team of 6 we find that we automatically have all the hats covered as we have very different (but complmentary) working styles. It is important to respect the different ways of thinking to get that rounded view - I wonder why your manager stoppoed using it?
Interesting. How do you measure whether it's working better than other styles of meeting? I wouldn't worry about my old boss, he was a bit of an old stick in the mud really :)
Interesting question - we don't measure it as such - perhaps by the level of heated discussion and healthy conflict!
We recently had to have a follow up meeting as we all felt that we hadn't fully explored a couple of issues in our usual way and that some thoughts had been left unsaid! This left us with a nagging doubt as to the 'quality' of a decision we had made and luckily a couple of people reflected on it and suggested we meet again to discuss the issues fully. We did and got a much better outcome that everyone was happy with.
We tend to use smaller focus groups and "manage" the participants to ensure there's a good mix and representation from all relevant areas of the business.
This might also help avoid groupthink.
The Focus Groups ensure everyone has the opportunity to get involved in some aspect of the business but not necessarily all together and all at the same time.
We've also, in the past, encouraged people to go against their natural grain - where we've had creative thinkers, we ask them to be more analytical and the analytical members to be creative so they get a different perspective, very similar to De Bono's "hats" but on a more individual level to develop one person.
Again, by taking people away from their default position, it avoids them sounding like the authority in a particular area and influencing the rest of the group.
I like thinkign hats in a situation where there are significant strategic decisions to be made where you need to release your thinking from what you know to encourage more 'possibility' thinking.
In reference to the article, I think it is great to have a critic but it is just as important to be aware of everyone's preferred style. If you have a critic with an ideas person then it can feel a little like raining on someone's parade and after a time the 'group' find a way to short circuit the critic out of the process. So supporting the critic to fight the right battles and do it in a way that builds rather than breaks down is just as important, I think.
Whilst groupthink can be an issue it doesn't mean that this will be a problem in all situations. Consideration should therefore be given as to when to use thinking hats or other methods to avoid group think.
I'm reminded of a great quote from Sir John Harvey-Jones where he said "The reality of life is that it is the bad news man who should be the most prized. It is all too easy to get people who will tell you the nice things, and after all there is not a lot you can do about that, but those who will stand up without fear of favour and tell you, hopefully tactfully, that things are not really the way that everyone else thinks they are, are pearls beyond price".
I guess a major problem now as well is that people are so scared of losing their job that they'll be much more complicit with what the 'group' are thinking, under the belief that as long as they blend in then they'll be safe from the chop. Something for managers to be very aware of I think to ensure that everyone has the freedom to speak up.
As one of the people valued by my manager for being willing to ask the awkward questions I can tell you that it doesn't always curry favour with your peers.
As a result we spent a bit of time doing team dynamics to help everyone understand what roles they played in the group - sometimes more than one - and this certainly made a big difference to the team dynamic and performance.
I think one of the reasons why managers can be unpopular is because indeed groups of collegues go into group think - and it takes the bold manager to actually stop them in their tracks and tell them why they could be wrong.
Toyota use a good strategy for this as well called 'The 5 Whys'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_Whys
"The 5 Whys is a question-asking method used to explore the cause/effect relationships underlying a particular problem. Ultimately, the goal of applying the 5 Whys method is to determine a root cause of a defect or problem."
I think this helps with groupthink because it forces you to use facts to get to the bottom of the problem rather than allowing popular perception to cloud issues.