How a Bad Leader Can Ruin Your Cause with Groupthink
If you want to watch a group destroy itself, here's one way to do it.
We've talked about a lot of stuff over the last few weeks, much of which is uncomfortable and flies in the face of “how we've always done it” when it comes to activism.
Group dynamics is a whole arena unto itself, and one that we can't do justice to in a single article or even a series. What we can do, however, is delve into one very specific facet and explain why it's so dangerous.
As I mentioned the other day, groupthink is the tendency of a group to consider actions--and engage in them--”in a way that discourages creativity or individual responsibility.” That's the bland dictionary definition, but what does that even mean and why is it bad? More importantly, how can you know if this is occurring in your group?
Breaking It Down
People prefer to associate and work with others who think like them. This is a logical concept at its base but it's almost so obvious as to be redundant. After all, that's how political activism groups get created; people find others who agree that X is a problem and want to do something to change it.
Each group, however, may have a wide range of beliefs about how X should be fixed, and that's where the conflicts may arise.
Let's say that you're in a group of ten people who believe that a certain law is morally wrong or unconstitutional. Some of the people in your group want to use more traditional means to change the law; they're all for writing letters to elected officials, visiting their offices, and raising awareness.
A few in your group want to organize some protests or even engage in civil disobedience, believing an “in your face" approach to be more effective.
Maybe a few want to engage in more behind the scenes work, finding information to leverage against influential people, distributing propaganda or leaking info, and working on more guerrilla methods to accomplish the goal. These people often prefer that no one knows they're even involved.
You might even have one or two for whom the phrase “fight for the cause” is a literal concept. They want confrontational action. They may be looking to push, troll, or even trick the opposing side into making the first move, or they may actively support offensive violence (although they'll call it defensive and frame it as a response to the current situation).
When the group gets together to plan actions and direction, who wins? And why?
How does groupthink work?
In a healthy group, each person has something to bring to the table. A potential action is discussed and even debated, with all potential outcomes (and their 2nd or 3rd order effects) gamed out.
Bringing up issues or concerns is encouraged; finding the holes in an idea is a good thing. In fact, in a healthy group, looking for reasons NOT to take an action is a highly valued process--not because the group wants to be talked out of something, but because if you're willing to name the issues, you can possibly find ways to prepare for or mitigate their damage.
In a group where groupthink is occurring, however, this process doesn't happen. Instead, a leader, strong personality within the group, or simply the majority viewpoint will seek consensus through compliance. In other words, they look to secure support for their plan through peer pressure.
GROUPTHINK IN PRACTICE
One rather famous example of groupthink and the potentially catastrophic effect it can have is the Challenger disaster. Some engineers on the program knew, long before the ill-fated launch, that certain parts were defective. Some tried to raise concerns but were dismissed by management. On launch day, the outside temperature was far outside the limits that the already problematic parts could operate in, and officials knew that too.
Why did the shuttle still launch if people KNEW there were problems? Managers ignored concerns about the O-ring problems, officials chased publicity over safety, and no one stood up and said WAIT A MINUTE. On launch day, those engineers and officials allowed seven people to board an inherently doomed spacecraft and then watched them die. All because no one had the balls to buck the groupthink.
SYMPTOMS OF GROUPTHINK
As I mentioned in the last issue, groupthink was first 'discovered,' so to speak, by a social psychologist named Irving Janis, who had spent many years studying decision making processes in stressful situations.
He found that groups are more susceptible to groupthink if they have the following characteristics:
Strong, persuasive group leader
High level of cohesion
Intense outside pressure
That about describes a lot of political activism groups. Perhaps even the one you're in.
Janis' work also uncovered eight symptoms of groupthink that are consistently seen. Let's take a closer look.
Illusion of Invincibility
This symptom focuses on the belief that group members may ignore warnings or advice because they will succeed where others have failed. No need to tell this group they're in danger; they'll just tell you they aren't doing anything wrong. If you have a Messenger type in your group, you'll definitely see this.
Collective Rationalization
When someone does try to voice concerns, the group will rationalize pressing ahead with the Bad Idea by attributing a motive or reason for the concern, instead of dealing with the problem itself. (E.g., "well, he's just saying those things because he isn't as committed as we are.") This symptom is often used by Martyrs.
Belief in Inherent Morality
This symptom is when group members are so convinced of the moral rightness of their cause that they ignore, minimize, or even hide from fellow members the potential consequences of their actions. In other words, the end justifies the means.
Out-Group Stereotypes
In a group that's given into groupthink, 'anyone not for us is against us." Anyone speaking out against a bad decision, standing up to the leadership, or wanting to discuss concerns is not "part of us," and is instead ostracized. In extreme cases they're even seen as a threat to the group themselves.
Self-Censorship
In a groupthink situation, people who disagree will simply say nothing, or even openly support the Bad Idea though they have severe misgivings about it. Reasons for this include not wanting to deal with drama, being afraid that they're the only one, or even being so emotionally invested in the group that they equate the group with the cause itself. If they speak up or leave, they may feel as though they are abandoning the cause.
Illusion of unanimity
Because no one speaks up, silence is perceived as consent. Leadership may even gaslight a member later, with things like, "well, if you had a problem with it why didn't you say something?"
Direct Pressure on Dissenters
This pressure can come from leadership or peers within the group. Dissenters are characterized as disloyal, uncommitted or simply "less." They may even be directly challenged in front of other members, leaving them with the Sophie's Choice of either coming back to the fold of compliance or leaving the group entirely. Most people aren't strong enough to simply walk away.
Self-Appointed Mindguards
A mind guard, also known as a sycophant, is someone who protects leadership or the group itself from the truth of something. If a leader puts out a horrible idea, for instance, the Mindguards will refuse to tell him how stupid it is, and will ensure that nothing upsets the apple cart of group complacency. They'll even attack Dissenters on behalf of leadership whether asked to or not.
Putting it Together
Let's go back and look at that 10-person group from earlier. Here's how the process of groupthink looks there.
Leader says, "hey I want to take X action."
Several members of the group instantly know this is a bad and dangerous idea. They say nothing, waiting to see how others weigh in.
The mindguards/sycophants start saying what a great idea it is, ignoring the obvious issues and bringing up none of their own concerns.
The Dissenter speaks up and lays out the problems with the idea.
The mindguards and the leader dismiss anything negative.
If the dissenter pushes the issue, attacks on his commitment level, bravery, or even integrity are next.
The rest of the group sees this and shuts up. No one wants to be in the dissenter's position.
The leader hears no other objections, so he assumes everyone else is on board. The bad idea goes through.
Later, when the idea doesn't work or the bad consequences come to pass, the leader and mindguards chalk it up to some external force or even blame the "uncommitted" folks who had the stones to stand up and say something. Maybe if they weren't so cowardly, so the belief goes, they would've tried harder and the idea would have worked. This cause isn't for wusses with no balls.
Sound familiar? That’s groupthink. Eventually, smart and strong members will realize they're in a toxic situation and walk. Others who don't recognize it soon enough, however, might find themselves in a position where they are directly responsible for some pretty bad stuff happening--or for allowing it to happen.
Multiply that 10 member group into 20 or even 100 members and suddenly you start understanding just one of the many reasons why small groups are better.
Now let's take a look at how a healthy group operates with the same idea.
Leader says, "I want to do X."
Several members speak up with concerns. Maybe it's too much. Not enough. Can be done but needs specific tweaking. It all gets talked about.
The leader listens, and encourages input from everyone, especially those who disagree with the idea. He asks questions like "what damage can ensue? Can it be prevented? Can it be mitigated? Are the returns worth the risk? What are the ripple effects?"
People each contribute their view to the discussion and feel free to do so, even if that means pointing out a blind spot.
The group makes an informed decision that includes risk mitigation or prevention plans, and with eyes wide open about what exactly they're getting into--and each member is either invested or at least has enough information to choose their own path.
Respect is fostered within the group, leading to more cohesion and effectiveness.
Which scenario best describes your group? With everything going on around us, you're running out of time to get your group up to speed. Time to start taking hard looks at where you are, who you're following, and what you're getting pushed to do. You may find there is a better way to go about it.
Next week we will start looking at the infiltration process and how to avoid it. Subscribe so you can stay informed!