The Enemy Is Groupthink

The unfolding of the recent financial crisis brought to the surface, yet again, the question of failed leadership. This time, it is not just the “usual suspects”, such as politicians who can be blamed; it is financial wizards, experts on risk and markets, people who are supposed to have vast IQs and great skills. Admired leaders in their fields. How did this happen?

Writing on the lack of leadership shown by Wall Street leaders during the current financial crisis, Steven Pearlstein (Washington Post, 12 December 2008) suggested that in any given situation, there needs to be someone who is able to follow the famous example of the child who made everyone see the emperor had no clothes. He accused business executives and financial market mavens for indulging in self-delusion, and, in some cases, averting their gaze, playing along a dangerous game without using their inside knowledge and their judgment to provide timeous warning of the meltdown which engulfed American and world markets.

No wonder, then, that the investors and customers who lost their money and employees who lost their jobs want the same bad outcomes – or punishment - to happen to those leaders who seem to avoid taking full responsibility for the debacle. After all, childish well-used excuses such as “he started first” and “everyone does it” can hardly hold. In this very serious matter, where executives were entrusted with the hugely responsible task of looking after people’s livelihood and companies existence, both very serious adult responsibilities, kindergarten behaviour is barely acceptable.

But being the non-conforming leader, the one who is first to call attention to the fact that everything is not hanky-dory or to point out to a giant system, particularly one which seems to produce gargantuan profits, that it must radically change – is not an easy challenge. It is, arguably, one of the trickiest challenges facing leaders. It means, simply, effective avoidance of groupthink. It requires a stance of always questioning, and of being bold enough to be prepared to be the odd one out, withstand pressures and accept unpopularity, and lead executives throughout your organisation to do the very same.

It may be useful to unpack the concept of groupthink. The concept, clearly drawing on Orwell’s famous “doublethink”, was coined by William H. Whyte Jr. in an eponymous in Fortune magazine back in March 1952. He wrote that, ‘‘Groupthink is becoming a national philosophy... We are not talking about mere instinctive conformity -- it is, after all, a perennial failing of mankind. What we are talking about is a rationalised conformity -- an open, articulate philosophy which holds that group values are not only expedient but right and good as well.” Whyte accused the trained elite of Washington's ''social engineers'' for holding this very notion.

In the 1970s, psychologist Irving Janis developed his Groupthink model, followed by others, such as Robert S. Baron of the University of Iowa, who explored the model and conducted extensive research on it. More than 30 years of such research has shown groupthink to be a very common and widespread phenomenon. So much so, that Baron suggested naming it the “Ubiquity model of groupthink”, claiming its causal factors are highly prevalent: consensus seeking, group polarization, out-group stereotyping and the suppression of dissent. One of today’s accepted definitions of Groupthink is “A deterioration of mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment in a group that results from an excessive desire to reach consensus.” *

The concept was used in the American media around the Pig Bay crisis of the 1960s, making a comeback in 2004 over the controversial Iraq War. For example, Senator Pat Roberts, chair of Senate Intelligence, told the Washington press corps, ''that the intelligence community was suffering from what we call a collective groupthink . . . [which] also extended to our allies and to the United Nations.''

If we are to learn from past mistakes, then surely, the knowledge of the danger of groupthink should always spur leaders to continuously seek to elicit the opposing view from their organisations. They should know how suffocating groupthink is to proper decision-making, not to mention creativity, the engine of competent competition. It certainly should be practiced by politicians. Yet, this is clearly not the case.

Aspiring leaders in any field, business, politics or civil society, should pay close attention to this aspect of their adult responsibility as leaders. It is their role to take the lead by promoting and encouraging, continually, and without fail, an organisation that rewards out-of-the-box thinking, counters groupthink approaches and courageous “Nahshonism”. Nahshon, a biblical figure from the Book of Exodus, was the first bold person who led the Israelites when they hesitated at the shores of the Red Sea, while fleeing bondage in Egypt. The fear of their fierce enslavers was great, but, at least, it was familiar. The sea was a fear of the unknown. Nahshon did not hesitate, and as he jumped in, the water parted. He became a symbol of daring to lead. In many institutions, the Nahshons get punished. They get nicknamed “troublemakers” or even “Whistleblowers”. Listening to those people, always assuming they may be that child that sees the naked emperor is often the key to better decision-making.

Many very charismatic and forceful leaders have no idea that they are intimidating others from airing views that differ from the perceived consensus, or the leader’s perceived view. Powerful leaders must make it their business to counter their tendency to lead from the front, and always shine. For some leaders the idea of adopting a statesperson or conductor approach instead of a partisan virtuoso one, is difficult.

A useful comparative definition of leadership and management is provided by Stephen Covey in his best-seller Seven Habits of Highly Successful People. Trying to explain how “Management is doing things right, leadership is doing the right things, he describes the managers as the guys with the machetes working their way through the growth in the jungle. The leader’s job is to climb on the tallest tree, take in the whole scene and shout:”Hey, guys, wrong jungle!” No one shouted that the jungle was the wrong one, and the ultimate groupthink was taking place, therefore, unhinged.

*(Glossary of the Social Psychology Department at Richmond University).

Note - I also published this piece in Huddlemind.net

The image is Penelope Aitken's oil on canvas, Group Think, 2004.